Are DJI Drones Really a Threat to US National Security? A Talk with DJI’s Wayne Baker

by Alexandra Thompson4 days ago

The potential ban on DJI drones in the U.S. has raised concerns across industries, from filmmakers to farmers. CineD’s Graham Sheldon sat down with Captain Wayne Baker, DJI’s Director of Public Safety Integration, to clear up the confusion and address some of the widespread misinformation. Captain Baker, a retired firefighter with 26 years of experience, has seen firsthand how drones can save lives in emergencies. His experience using drones in his work led him to join DJI, where he now shares his insights on the technology’s impact across various industries and addresses concerns related to proposed drone legislation.

To begin the discussion, Graham asked Captain Baker about H.R.2864 – the Countering CCP Drones Act and read directly from the website:

This bill requires the inclusion of telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services produced or provided by DJI Technologies on a list of communications equipment or services determined by the FCC to pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security. Current law prohibits the use of federal funding available through specified FCC programs for purchasing or maintaining listed equipment or services.

Graham noted the widespread amount of misinformation regarding the proposed ban in both the hobbyist and professional drone communities. Captain Baker agreed, saying that the current political landscape in the U.S. Congress is challenging, with some members increasingly opposed to not only drones but anything linked to China. He compared this to the isolationism and protectionism seen in the 1980s toward Japan, which he believes didn’t serve the U.S. well then and isn’t beneficial now.

Captain Baker believes much of the misinformation about DJI has been spread by individuals with vested interests in removing the company from the market. He emphasized that DJI adheres to strict data security standards, and as a hardware/tech company, they don’t store or stream user data. “This is something that only the user can opt to do,” he said. Several third-party inspections have confirmed their compliance, and whenever a security concern was raised, Captain Baker said that DJI promptly addressed it. Despite this, false claims have persisted, including absurd accusations like DJI transmitting heart rate data to China. Even a published paper from the Department of Defense investigation that cleared DJI of security risks was later retracted, likely due to political pressures, according to Captain Baker.

Revolutionizing industries

While many people know DJI drones for their use in film and television, it was noted that they have become essential in other industries as well. Captain Baker explained that DJI was originally a hobby project that made flying RC helicopters easier, but its potential quickly expanded. Firefighters, for example, began using consumer drones like the Inspire 1 to drop life jackets in water rescues and capture aerial footage of dangerous situations. Thermal imaging cameras were developed for the DJI drones to assist in search and rescue operations. Over time, industries like public safety and agriculture pushed DJI to industrialize their products, leading to innovations such as support for power line inspections and agricultural spray drones, which have boosted crop yields by 10-15%. DJI’s technology now plays a crucial role in keeping people out of dangerous environments and improving efficiency across multiple fields.

Captain Baker highlighted DJI’s significant impact on the film industry, recalling how he first saw DJI Phantoms capturing stunning shots on reality TV sets, which inspired him to use drones in firefighting. He also mentioned the film Ambulance, where a young drone operator captured incredible footage. Beyond filmmaking, new business opportunities have emerged that support drones, everything from specialized operators to third-party services, further expanding the industry.

What does this mean for DJI users?

Graham noted that the legislation has passed the House and is now in the Senate, asking what the consequences might be if it becomes law. Captain Baker warned that it could threaten all use of DJI drones in the U.S., with uncertainty about whether it would impact only new products or include existing models. He stressed that this would devastate industries built around DJI drones, from aerial photographers and land surveyors to farmers. While DJI is a global company, the ban would primarily hurt American businesses, including third-party companies that provide accessories and applications for DJI drones.

Graham asked if he had any insight into whether current DJI users might be affected, which might lead to losing access to satellite networks or firmware updates. Captain Baker stated that DJI would never do this voluntarily—it would only happen through legal mandate. While DJI has taken safety precautions, the concern is that their products could be made illegal in the U.S., which is beyond their control. He added that some restrictions are already in place to assist users, not hinder them.

Regulations instead of banning

Graham asked if Captain Baker understood Congress’s concerns, acknowledging that DJI products have been modified by foreign actors, sometimes for malicious purposes. While DJI can’t control how their products are used after sale, Captain Baker emphasized that DJI is committed to making the world a better place through innovations in agriculture, public safety, etc. He argues that banning DJI drones is not the answer, calling it isolationism that undermines American values. Instead, he believes the focus should be on FAA regulations, as the FAA is working hard to catch up with the rapidly advancing drone technology. Measures like Remote ID can help monitor the misuse of drones, and he pointed out that there are other manufacturers, including those using open-source tech, who pose similar risks.

Debunking false claims

Graham asked what the next steps are and how filmmakers or entrepreneurs can help, including lobbying local representatives. Captain Baker explained that because so much of the opposition is based on misinformation, the best way to combat this is through education. He encouraged reaching out to Congress to explain the positive impact drones have had on businesses. While DJI would welcome competition from American manufacturers, removing them from the market without a replacement harms the entire industry. DJI is working with members of Congress to debunk false claims and has been advocating for data security standards, most of which they more than likely already comply with. Baker expressed surprise that more people in the entertainment industry aren’t speaking out about this issue.

Current state update

Graham acknowledged that this was why he wanted to speak with Captain Baker and asked for an update on the legislation in the Senate. Captain Baker explained that the situation remains critical, with growing misinformation about DJI, even concerning the agricultural drones that benefit farmers. He highlighted that the recent passage of the Act in the House during what they call “China Week” is cause for concern, as it reflects an increasingly adversarial stance toward products from China. While the bill has not banned DJI yet, it is moving to the Senate, where DJI is actively engaging with lawmakers. Captain Baker emphasized the importance of DJI users also reaching out to their Senators, as the issue is far from resolved and requires ongoing attention.

Graham concluded by saying that while the CineD audience is global, the ongoing story is unfolding in the United States. CineD will continue to follow and report on this developing situation.

What do you guys think of DJI drones being banned in the US? Do you think they are a risk to U.S. national security? Sign off in the comments!