Federal money and drones: what the American Security Drone Act and the FCC Covered List mean for agency surveys

Status as of October 18, 2026. Two things here are still moving: the DJI court and FCC challenges, and agency guidance. Check the dates before you rely on a line.

If any federal dollar touches your project, the drone that surveys it matters. Since December 22, 2025, federal funds cannot pay for, or be used in connection with, a drone made by a "covered foreign entity." Most agencies have DJI in mind, but the test is a list on SAM.gov, not a brand name.

A second action landed the same day and gets confused with the first. The FCC added foreign-made drones to its Covered List. That one controls new equipment authorizations. It does not ground drones you already own.

This post separates the two, using the statute, the FAR text and agency notices. It ends with questions for a scoping call and language for a scope of work.

The short version

• The American Security Drone Act (ASDA) is about federal procurement, federal operation and federal funds. It is not a ban on private drone use.
• Its funding bar started December 22, 2025 and sunsets December 22, 2028.
• FHWA reads "in connection with" broadly. A drone flight that inspects or verifies a federal-aid project can be covered even when local money pays for the flight.
• The FCC action is about equipment authorization. It has its own exemptions and litigation.
• States add their own rules. As of October 18, 2026 we found enacted purchase or use restrictions in 9 states and narrower rules in 4 more. We found none enacted in California or Georgia.
• NDAA-compliant LiDAR exists. It is a procurement-eligibility label, not an accuracy rating.

What the American Security Drone Act says

ASDA is Subtitle B of Title XVIII of the FY2024 NDAA, sections 1821 to 1833 of Pub. L. 118-31, enacted December 22, 2023.

Who is a "covered foreign entity"

Section 1822 defines it by list. A covered foreign entity is one on a list kept by the Federal Acquisition Security Council (FASC) and published in SAM.gov. The statute says that list includes:

• entities on the Consolidated Screening List;
• entities under extrajudicial direction from a foreign government;
• entities DHS, with DOJ, ODNI and DoD, finds to be a national security risk;
• entities domiciled in, or controlled by, the People's Republic of China or its Communist Party;
• subsidiaries and affiliates of any of those.

The statute names no company. The list does the work. EPA tells its grantees to search the Consolidated Screening List by manufacturer name and keep a dated record of the search. The SAM.gov list notice says the covered list includes all entities on the Consolidated Screening List and no others at this time (last updated November 13, 2024). DJI is on that screening list. The Commerce Entity List added it on December 18, 2020, and Treasury lists it as a Chinese military-industrial complex company. The trade.gov download of the screening list on October 18, 2026 shows both entries. Treat DJI as covered, and plan on no DJI equipment for federally funded work. A University of Rochester compliance page reaches the same conclusion for DJI and Autel. We did not view SAM.gov's own search results, so check the maker there yourself and save the dated result.

Which sections bar what

Section 1825 is the one that reaches city, county and district projects. It follows the money, not the logo on the contract.

Exemptions and the sunset

The exemptions are narrow:

• DHS, DoD, State and DOJ, for national-interest research, counterterrorism and similar purposes;
• the Secretary of Transportation, for the National Airspace System and public safety;
• NTSB safety investigations and NOAA missions;
• wildfire management and search and rescue (section 1832);
• intelligence activities and Tribal law enforcement (section 1832);
• case-by-case waivers approved by OMB, with notice to Congress.

Section 1830 protects state and local law enforcement and emergency agencies that buy a covered drone with non-federal dollars. A survey for a flood control district or a road design is not that.

FHWA says the exemptions in section 1825(b), (c) and (d) do not apply to its funds. A consultant on a federal-aid job should not plan on one.

Section 1833 ends sections 1823, 1824 and 1825 five years after enactment, on December 22, 2028.

How it reaches contracts and grants

FAR 40.202

For direct federal contracts, FAR 40.202-3 bars procuring a FASC-prohibited drone. On or after December 22, 2025 it also bars buying services to operate one, and using federal funds to buy or operate one. The clause at FAR 52.240-1 goes in all solicitations and contracts and flows down to subcontracts. The contractor must search SAM.gov before proposing or using any drone.

The interim rule was published November 12, 2024 (89 FR 89464). Its preamble is useful on two points:

• Drones acquired before the operation bar could keep flying until December 22, 2025.
• The rule shortened the statute's "in connection with the operation of" to "operation of." The drafters said it is unclear how far the longer phrase extends.

Grants and pass-through money

Most agency survey work runs through grants, not FAR contracts. OMB M-26-02 (November 21, 2025) carries the section 1825 prohibition to grants and cooperative agreements in its Appendix D. It applies to recipients and subrecipients.

Agencies then wrote their own notices:

• EPA's RAIN-2027-G01 (October 1, 2026) covers subrecipients, including borrowers in EPA-funded revolving loan programs. It also covers previously purchased drones in use on an award.
• FHWA's policy memo FHWA-HIF-26-011 (September 23, 2026) covers grants, cooperative agreements, loans and contracts that use FHWA funds.

FHWA's "in connection with" reading

The FHWA memo is the most practical document for an agency PM. It defines operation "in connection with" federal funds to include any activity used to "support, inspect, document, monitor, or verify the performance of FHWA funded work." That holds "regardless of whether the specific UAS operation is funded with Federal or non-Federal funds."

Its examples of covered flights include:

• a state-funded aerial construction inspection that verifies progress on a federal-aid project;
• a state-funded contractor documenting damage on an Emergency Relief bridge project.

Its examples of flights that are not covered need a project with no federal tie at all, such as an independent state-funded environmental survey.

The memo itself says it has no force of law beyond the statutes and regulations it cites. The statute is what binds.

Kentucky's transportation cabinet told consultants the same thing in December 2025. It named "surveying and imagery" among the work covered. It defined a covered drone as including any aircraft, flight controller, camera or ground control station from a PRC-based manufacturer. The FHWA Kentucky Division letter attached to it says the ban applies to costs incurred after December 22, 2025.

What the FCC Covered List does, and does not do

On December 22, 2025 the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued DA 25-1086. It added UAS and UAS critical components "produced in a foreign country" to the Covered List. It acted on a National Security Determination the FCC received December 21.

The mechanism is equipment authorization. Covered equipment cannot get a new FCC authorization. The notice says the newly covered equipment is identified by place of production, not by company. It does not name DJI.

The FCC's fact sheet states the limits plainly:

• the action does not affect previously purchased drones;
• it does not prohibit import, sale or use of models the FCC authorized earlier.

So the FCC action does not ground a county's existing drone. It does limit new models.

The list has since gained exemptions:

• DA 26-22 (January 7, 2026) exempted drones and components on the Blue UAS list, and "domestic end products," through January 1, 2027.
• DA 26-761 (July 21, 2026) extended that exemption to January 1, 2028. It also removed the end date for conditional approvals tied to onshoring plans.

DJI is fighting its listing. Per an August 10, 2026 summary from Iowa State's CALT:

• DJI filed a petition for reconsideration on January 21, 2026, and it was pending before the full Commission.
• DJI petitioned the Ninth Circuit on February 20, 2026 (No. 26-1029). The court paused the case pending FCC action.
• DJI's opening brief is due November 2, 2026.

As of October 18, 2026 we found no FCC ruling on the reconsideration petition and no Ninth Circuit merits decision. DroneXL reported that on October 14 the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau filed eight Pentagon letters to Congress in the DJI docket (ET Docket 26-22) and said it did not rely on them. Check the FCC docket and the Ninth Circuit docket (No. 26-1029) for the current status. Even a win at the FCC would not change ASDA. The two rules have different authorities and different lists.

State rules

ASDA does not reach work paid for with state and local money alone, but many states have their own rules. As of October 18, 2026 we found enacted purchase or use restrictions in 9 states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio) and narrower rules in 4 more (Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia). Another 16 states have bills that did not become law. In 22 jurisdictions, including DC, we found no enacted law, which is not proof that none exists. Most laws define covered makers by country or federal list, not by brand. Florida, for example, bars its agencies from drones made by companies domiciled in or controlled by a Foreign Country of Concern (Fla. Admin. Code R. 60GG-2.0075). California and Georgia are among the states where we found no enacted law: California's AB 1160 failed, and Georgia's SB 64 and HB 205 did not become law as far as we could find. This is a research summary, not legal advice. Ask your agency or counsel which state rule applies, and whether it covers consultants.

For each state's status, coverage and source, see the state-by-state table in the NDAA buyer's guide.

Questions to ask at scoping

1. Who pays, in each line? Local general fund, state, federal-aid highway, EPA, FEMA Public Assistance, HMGP, BRIC. List every source for the project, not just for the survey line.
2. Does the survey support a federal-aid or federally funded project? If the flights inspect, document or verify that work, plan for FHWA's reading. Do not rely on "the survey line is local money."
3. Is there a pass-through? Recipients are responsible for subrecipients under FHWA's memo. Ask your state DOT or pass-through entity for its written guidance.
4. What do the award terms say? Section 1825 reaches funds "otherwise made available," so it facially covers any federal award. We found no FEMA guidance specific to Public Assistance, HMGP or BRIC drone use. The FEMA drone items we found concerned its counter-drone grants. Read the award terms, and ask the state administrator in writing.
5. What records will the agency want? FHWA tells recipients to keep certifications and provenance records for three years after the final expenditure report. Ask what your reviewer expects.
6. What is the whole system? The FHWA memo's definition includes hardware, software and firmware essential for flight, data transmission or mission performance. A compliant sensor on a covered airframe is still a covered system.

What to put in the scope

FHWA offers model language, based on FAR 52.240-1. Adapt it to your agreement:

"The Contractor is prohibited from procuring or operating a covered unmanned aircraft system (UAS) manufactured or assembled by a covered foreign entity in the performance of this contract, as defined by Section 1825 of the FY 2024 NDAA and 48 CFR 40.201. The Contractor shall provide, upon request, documentation of the manufacturer and supply chain provenance for any UAS utilized in connection with this project."

Then add specifics that make it checkable:

• the funding sources and the federal project number, if any;
• aircraft, flight controller, camera, ground station and LiDAR sensor: maker and model for each, named before notice to proceed;
• a dated SAM.gov or Consolidated Screening List search for each maker, saved to the project file;
• a note on who may substitute equipment, and that a substitution needs written approval;
• accuracy deliverables: checkpoints, an RMSE report by land cover, and the ASPRS edition used.

NDAA compliance says where a system came from. It says nothing about how well it measures. ASPRS Positional Accuracy Standards, Edition 2 calls for at least 30 checkpoints and reports vegetated accuracy as found, not pass or fail. One independent test of a DJI L2 measured about 7 cm RMSE on an open road and about 21 cm under forest canopy. Ask any vendor for the same kind of evidence.

NDAA-compliant LiDAR options

There is no government certificate that declares a LiDAR sensor "NDAA-compliant." LiDAR News (June 17, 2026) says manufacturers and contractors typically make their own representation, and that compliance is judged across the whole system. The strongest signal for aircraft is the Blue UAS Cleared List. DIU handed it to DCMA on December 3, 2025.

These are examples, not recommendations. Every claim below is the maker's own. Verify each before you write it into a scope.

• Aircraft. The Freefly Astro is marketed as "MADE IN THE USA | NDAA / BLUE APPROVED". Confirm the current listing on the Blue UAS list.
• GeoCue TrueView. GeoCue says its TrueView 1 NDAA sensor is designed and manufactured in Alabama, built on an Ouster OS1 MAX Rev8 scanner. The same page logos DJI among compatible drone providers. That is the whole-system point: the airframe must also qualify.
• YellowScan Venturer. YellowScan says the Venturer is designed and made in France, NDAA compliant, using a RIEGL miniVUX-3 scanner. It lists 2.0 cm system accuracy and 150 m laser range. Those are vendor figures, not field results.
• Phoenix LiDAR. Phoenix describes NDAA-compliant payloads built on RIEGL and Ouster sensors with NovAtel GNSS. Its page does not say where they are built.

Cost and lead time

We have no sourced price or lead-time comparison, so this is qualitative and inferred. Fewer aircraft and sensors qualify. Expect a smaller rental pool and less schedule slack than when any aircraft is allowed. Name the equipment class early. Twinn rents equipment per job and is equipment-agnostic, so it can provide NDAA-compliant drones and sensors for projects that require them.

Licensing is a separate question

Topography, contours, DTMs and volumes delivered for design or a permit need a licensee in responsible charge. In California that is a PLS, or a civil engineer legally authorized to practice land surveying (BPELSG Bulletin 50). In Georgia it is a PLS only (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 180-7-.04). In Florida it is a Professional Surveyor and Mapper (PSM). Twinn captures and processes the data. A licensed partner stamps it.

Next step

Before your next scope goes out, write down every funding source and the federal project number, if there is one. Then pick the row in Figure 1 that matches and name the equipment class in the scope. On federally funded work, plan on no DJI equipment and confirm every maker on SAM.gov. Details on what Twinn documents for compliance are at twinndigital.com/compliance.

This post is general information, not legal advice. Ask your agency counsel how your award terms apply.