DJI is suing the FCC over its decision to ban new drone imports, but the lawsuit is really about whether the US government can block Chinese tech companies without specific evidence of wrongdoing. The precedent could affect everything from smartphones to electric vehicles.

This is the tech Cold War getting very real.

The FCC's decision to block DJI drone imports was framed in national security terms. The agency cited concerns about data collection, potential surveillance capabilities, and the company's connections to the Chinese government. These are the same concerns raised about TikTok, Huawei, and other Chinese tech companies operating in the US.

DJI's lawsuit challenges the legal basis for the ban. The company argues that the FCC hasn't provided specific evidence that DJI drones pose a concrete security threat. Instead, the ban appears to be based on general concerns about Chinese tech companies and their relationship to the Chinese government.

Here's where it gets legally interesting: Can the US government ban a company's products based on nationality and potential risk, or does it need to demonstrate actual harm?

The national security apparatus argues that by the time you have evidence of harm, it's too late. If DJI drones are being used for surveillance or data collection that threatens US interests, you don't want to wait until the surveillance has already happened to act. Prevention requires precautionary measures based on risk assessment, not just evidence of actual wrongdoing.

DJI and its legal team argue that this is guilt by association. Being a Chinese company doesn't automatically make you a security threat. The company points out that its drones are used by US law enforcement, fire departments, and infrastructure inspectors. If DJI drones were actually a security risk, wouldn't we have seen evidence by now?

Both arguments have merit, which is what makes this complicated.

What I find notable is how little specific technical evidence has been made public. The FCC has cited general concerns. Security researchers have identified potential data collection capabilities. But there hasn't been a public presentation of evidence that DJI drones are actively being used for malicious purposes.

That could mean one of two things: either the evidence is classified and can't be shared publicly, or the ban is based on precautionary principles rather than demonstrated harm.

The precedent this sets matters enormously. If the government can ban Chinese tech products based on general national security concerns without presenting specific evidence, that opens the door to banning essentially any Chinese technology company. Smartphones, EVs, solar panels, laptops—all could be subject to similar restrictions.

That might be the point. Some policymakers have explicitly argued for decoupling US technology supply chains from Chinese manufacturers. From that perspective, the DJI ban is just one piece of a larger strategy.

But it also raises questions about how this plays out in practice. DJI dominates the consumer and commercial drone market. There aren't good American alternatives at similar price points with comparable capabilities. Banning DJI doesn't make American drone companies suddenly competitive—it just makes drones more expensive and less capable for US users.

The same dynamic applies to other sectors. If you ban Chinese EVs, you don't automatically have American EVs ready to fill the gap. You just make transportation electrification slower and more expensive.

I'm not dismissing the security concerns. China's government does have a track record of using technology for surveillance and intelligence gathering. Companies operating in China face legal requirements to cooperate with government requests. These are real issues.

But there's a difference between acknowledging security risks and banning products without specific evidence. And the legal question DJI is raising—whether the government met the evidentiary standard required for such a ban—is worth taking seriously.

The lawsuit will likely take years to resolve. In the meantime, DJI's market position in the US is severely damaged. Even if they eventually win in court, the uncertainty alone is enough to push customers toward alternatives.

Which might be the actual goal. You don't need to permanently ban a company if you can create enough legal uncertainty to make customers choose someone else.

The technology is impressive. DJI makes genuinely good drones. The question is whether being a good product is enough when geopolitics and national security concerns enter the picture.

Right now, the answer appears to be no. And that's going to reshape the tech industry in ways that go far beyond drones.