In recent developments, DJI, the global leader in drone technology, has come under fire following a letter from two U.S. Congressional Committee members addressing Texas-based drone firm Anzu Robotics. The letter, sent by Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, raises concerns about Anzu's potential role as a "passthrough" for DJI to circumvent U.S. sanctions.
The lawmakers' letter highlights suspicions that Anzu Robotics might be helping DJI evade restrictions by using a technology licensing agreement to modify and produce drones based on DJI’s Mavic 3 Enterprise platform. The letter alleges that Anzu’s Raptor T drone is essentially a DJI Mavic 3 repackaged, raising alarms about national security risks and potential circumvention of U.S. legislative restrictions on DJI products.
DJI responded swiftly to the allegations through a blog post, clarifying that its relationship with Anzu Robotics is purely based on a standard technology licensing agreement—a common practice across various industries. DJI emphasized that Anzu is not an affiliate but an independent entity that has acquired the rights to certain DJI technologies under legal terms. The Chinese drone giant further distanced itself from any control over Anzu's operations, particularly in areas such as software updates and data policies, which are entirely managed by Anzu.
Addressing the broader concerns outlined in the congressional letter, DJI refuted claims that it maintains close ties with the Chinese government, a point that has been central to ongoing scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers. The company reiterated that its ownership is primarily in the hands of its founding partners and that no government entity has a stake large enough to influence its operations. DJI also contested its designation as a Chinese Military Company by the Pentagon, asserting that it has no military affiliations and has actively discouraged the use of its drones in combat scenarios.
The allegations against DJI come at a time of heightened tension between the U.S. and China, particularly in the realm of technology and national security. Over the past few years, DJI has faced increasing legislative pressure in the U.S., with Congress enacting measures to limit the company’s influence. These measures include the proposed 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which aims to ban the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from issuing licenses to DJI, and the Countering CCP Drones Act, which seeks to remove DJI technology from U.S. communication networks.
The scrutiny of Anzu Robotics is part of a larger effort by U.S. lawmakers to curb the potential risks associated with Chinese technology companies. DJI, which controls a significant portion of the U.S. commercial drone market, has long been viewed with suspicion due to its alleged ties to the Chinese government and the potential for its drones to be used for espionage.
However, DJI's dominance in the drone market is undeniable, particularly in public safety applications, where its drones are favored for their affordability and reliability. This dominance presents a dilemma for U.S. lawmakers, who are caught between national security concerns and the practical needs of various U.S. agencies that rely on DJI's technology.
As the investigation into Anzu Robotics unfolds, it underscores the complexities of navigating national security in a globalized technology landscape. The outcome of this scrutiny could have significant implications not only for DJI and Anzu but also for the broader U.S. drone market, which may need to adapt to a new reality if Chinese technology is further restricted. The situation highlights the urgent need for domestic innovation and the development of alternatives to foreign technology that might pose security risks.
.png)
