Senator Rick Scott Cites Classified Findings to Defend FCC’s DJI and Autel Drone Restrictions

New FCC filings highlight company-specific national security concerns alongside broader supply chain risks behind the original Covered List decision.

Senator Rick Scott has challenged arguments from DJI and Autel Robotics against their inclusion on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Covered List. In an October 14 letter to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, Scott cited years of congressional investigations and a classified Pentagon report supporting the restrictions.

The letter comes as both Chinese drone manufacturers seek to overturn the FCC’s actions. DJI has filed a petition for reconsideration, while Autel has filed an application for review.

Scott, who sponsored legislation that helped form Section 1709 of the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), disputes the companies’ arguments that the government failed to conduct an adequate security review.

“I have read and agree with the analysis detailed in the classified report concluding that DJI and Autel present an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security and that their technology should be on the FCC’s Covered List,” Scott wrote.

The FCC added his letter to both proceedings on October 15.

Supply Chain Security and the Original FCC Decision

The new filings add context to the FCC’s December 2025 decision to restrict equipment authorization for foreign-produced drones and critical components.

That decision followed an interagency national security determination identifying risks associated with foreign-manufactured drone technology.

The original determination emphasized both the security of drone systems and the need for a reliable domestic manufacturing base. It identified potential risks involving surveillance, data security, and disruptions to critical infrastructure. It also raised a broader concern: dependence on foreign manufacturers could leave the United States vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. Domestic production was presented as an important part of national security and industrial readiness.

The restrictions therefore addressed more than the security features of individual drone models. They also reflected concerns about the country’s ability to maintain access to drone technology and critical components.

Scott Points to Classified Investigations

In his letter, Scott argues that Congress had examined DJI and Autel for years before the FCC’s action. He cites classified intelligence briefings, public hearings, meetings with industry representatives, and previous government restrictions.

Scott also points to earlier actions by the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and Defense involving the manufacturers. His letter raises concerns about potential data collection, ties to China’s military, and the effects of Chinese government subsidies on U.S. drone manufacturing.

These are arguments Scott presents in support of the restrictions. His letter does not publicly disclose the classified evidence underlying the Pentagon’s findings. The senator also disputes the companies’ claims that the government failed to review their products before determining they presented national security risks.

Pentagon Documents Added to FCC Proceedings

On October 14, the FCC announced that it had added Department of War correspondence to the DJI and Autel proceedings.

The correspondence includes letters submitted to congressional committees under Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA. The FCC placed redacted, unclassified cover pages in the public records and filed the classified materials under seal.

The FCC made an important clarification:

“However, we note that we did not rely upon these materials at the time of making any related additions to the Covered List.”

The statement distinguishes the Pentagon documents now entering the record from the information used in the FCC’s earlier decisions.

The publicly available materials confirm that the Pentagon submitted classified national security findings. They do not provide the underlying evidence for independent examination.

What the New Filings Mean

The October filings do not announce new restrictions or resolve DJI’s and Autel’s pending challenges.

They do, however, bring additional attention to two related national security concerns: the risks of relying on foreign drone supply chains, and allegations involving specific manufacturers.

The original FCC action addressed broad risks associated with foreign-produced drones. Scott’s letter focuses on the government’s investigations of DJI and Autel and his support for the resulting restrictions.

The underlying classified findings remain unavailable to the public. The FCC must still address the companies’ pending challenges.