By Tim Holt
The ACLU released a report in March called Drones For Them But Not For Us? Most people will probably see that title and move on. Unless you own a drone, why would you care? You should, because this is becoming about much more than drones.
Something is happening in the American marketplace that most of us, including most people in El Paso, probably haven’t paid much attention to. One by one, the federal government is making it harder for Americans to buy certain foreign-made products. The reason is almost always the same: national security. Maybe there are good reasons for some of these restrictions, but when you stop looking at them one at a time, a troubling pattern starts to show.
For many of us, it started with consumer drones. In December 2025, the FCC placed new foreign-made drones and important drone parts on its Covered List. That doesn’t make the drone you already own illegal, and previously approved drones won’t suddenly fall out of the sky. But it makes it much harder for new foreign-made drones and parts to get the approval needed to be sold here. That list affects more people than you might think. Drones are used by photographers, farmers, roof inspectors, construction crews, journalists, police departments, firefighters, and search-and-rescue teams. DJI, the Chinese company that leads much of the consumer and commercial drone market, makes many of the drones these people use.
Drones should be regulated. They are aircraft, and they share the sky with airplanes and helicopters. We need rules about where they can fly and where they shouldn’t. But there is a big difference between telling me where I can safely fly my drone and telling me which drone I am allowed to buy. Here in El Paso, this isn’t just an argument among people who like flying drones on Saturday morning. The city has invested in DJI drones for first responders. Those drones will eventually get old, break, or need to be replaced. If future restrictions force local agencies to buy drones that cost much more or don’t work as well, this stops being about Chinese gadgets. It becomes a question of public safety and taxpayer money.
We already have an example of what that could mean. The Palm Springs Police Department told the FCC that moving to approved alternatives could cost more than ten times what its current drone program costs. The department warned that the added cost could mean losing what it considers a life-saving tool. Police and fire departments aren’t buying drones because they want expensive toys. They use them to find missing people, help firefighters, inspect dangerous places, and sometimes save lives.
And it isn’t just drones. DJI makes small handheld cameras used by photographers, parents, journalists, and video creators. Those cameras don’t fly and aren’t going to wander into the airspace over Fort Bliss. Yet future versions can still get caught in the same wide regulatory net.
The list keeps growing. Foreign-made Wi-Fi equipment has been targeted. Chinese-made robots and solar equipment have faced federal security concerns. Even robot vacuum cleaners have been pulled into the discussion. Chinese electric vehicles are effectively kept out of the American market through huge tariffs and other restrictions.
We aren’t talking about one Chinese drone company anymore. We are talking about cameras, routers, robots, solar equipment, cars, and who knows what comes next. Much of this stuff can still be bought in Canada, Europe, and right across the bridge in Juárez. Apparently, some technology becomes a security problem when it crosses the Rio Grande going north, but not south.
There are real security risks with modern technology, and we shouldn’t ignore them. Drones have cameras and GPS. Routers handle our internet traffic. Robot vacuums can map our homes. Cars are now computers on wheels. If one of these products is secretly sending information to a foreign government, show us. If dangerous software has been found, identify it. If a drone creates a real threat around Fort Bliss, keep it away from Fort Bliss.
Simply being made in China, however, should not be enough to make something dangerous. If the government wants to stop Americans from buying a product, it should show us what is wrong with that product and why a ban is needed.
Now the FCC is considering another step. It is looking at foreign-produced “military-grade” drones and important drone parts. That sounds reasonable until you start asking what “military-grade” means. Thermal cameras sound like military equipment, but firefighters use them to find hot spots and search for people. LiDAR is used for mapping, construction, and inspections. Agricultural drones spray crops. Drone docking stations are used by businesses and public agencies. Calling that equipment “military-grade” doesn’t magically turn a farm drone in Dell City into a Chinese air force unit.
The latest proposal also goes beyond what happened in December. The earlier action was mainly about new products coming into the country. People who already owned approved drones were told they could keep using them. Now the FCC is considering rules that could affect the import and sale of some products that have already been approved. That could make parts, replacements, and support harder to get for businesses and government agencies that have already spent thousands of dollars on their drone programs.
First it was new products. Now we are talking about products already approved. This is where the ACLU’s warning starts making a lot more sense. There is an old habit in this country of giving government more power when we are scared. Sometimes there is a good reason for it. The problem is that government is much better at getting new powers than it is at giving them back.
We saw that during the war on drugs, when civil asset forfeiture gave police broad power to take property believed to be connected to crime, sometimes from people who were never charged. We saw it again after September 11, when the government gained huge new security and surveillance powers. More than two decades later, much of that system is still with us. Please remove your shoes before going through TSA is still with us.
Government power works a lot like a ratchet. One click doesn’t seem like much. Neither does the next one. But each click tightens. After enough clicks, you look back and wonder how we got here.
There is another part of this I find hard to understand. We hear plenty of warnings about the government coming for our guns. Even the hint of a new gun restriction brings loud protests about freedom and government overreach. Yet when the same government tells Americans they can’t buy certain drones, cameras, cars, routers, or other products, many of those voices are strangely quiet. I am not arguing about gun rights. I am asking a simpler question. If government overreach worries us, shouldn’t it worry us even when the government is taking away something we don’t personally own? Freedom is a pretty weak idea if we only defend it when it involves things we happen to like.
The ACLU raises another concern. While ordinary people face more limits on drones, police and government agencies are using more of them. We could end up in a strange place where government has more freedom to put cameras in the sky while the people being watched have less freedom to put their own cameras there. You don’t have to own a drone to wonder whether that’s a good idea.
There is also competition to think about. DJI became successful because its drones are world class good and affordable. Removing DJI from the American market doesn’t mean an American DJI suddenly appears. Building that kind of company takes factories, engineers, suppliers, money, and years of work. If we want more electronics made in America, great. Let’s help American companies build products people actually want to buy. Kicking the other team off the field isn’t the same thing as beating them.
Every one of El Paso’s federal representatives supported the legislation behind the original drone restrictions. When I asked why, the answers mostly came down to the same two words: national security. That was usually followed by some version of, “I am a strong supporter of national security. Thank you for your letter.” Well, who the hell isn’t? Sorry Vero, but that’s not much of an answer.
If something is dangerous, tell us what the danger is. Show us the evidence. If a product needs restrictions, explain why. National security matters, and so does protecting our military and personal information. But “national security” cannot become magic words that end the conversation.
This time we actually have a chance to say something. The FCC is accepting public comments on proceeding 26-189, “Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Certain Foreign-Produced Military-Grade UAS and UAS Critical Components.” The Drone Advocacy Alliance has information on how to comment. https://droneadvocacyalliance.com/fcc-take-action-2/
You don’t have to be a lawyer or drone expert. Tell the FCC how drones are used in your community and ask some basic questions. Ask what specific threat has been found? Why should a thermal camera used by a firefighter or a spraying system used by a farmer be called military-grade? What happens to police and fire departments that already spent taxpayer money on equipment the government approved?
Most of all, ask where this ends. Maybe the government has a good case. If it does, show us. Until then, we should keep asking questions and make sure Washington hears them, because once that government ratchet starts clicking, history tells us it usually doesn’t click backward.
The ACLU report, Drones For Them But Not For Us? is available from the American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/documents/drones-for-them-but-not-for-us
Tim Holt is a retired educator a member of the Drone Enthusiasts of El Paso and a local drone pilot.
Artificial Intelligence was used to edit this story. The ideas contained are the author’s.
Read: Read More