FCC Steps Up Enforcement of Foreign-Made UAS
Highlights
- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is intensifying its crackdown on companies attempting to bring or market foreign-made drones in the U.S. by using fines, revocations and new rulemaking proposals to enforce its Covered List restrictions.
- For the first time, the FCC has revoked a company's equipment authorization after determining the company falsely claimed to have produced its drone domestically.
- The FCC has also proposed fines of roughly $200,000 against several other companies, representing a continued push by the agency to enforce national security regulations.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) on August 11, 2026, issued an Order of Revocation immediately revoking the equipment authorizations held by a company producing a drone and the drone's remote controller after determining the company falsified information about the equipment's production and assembly. This is the first time the FCC has revoked equipment authorizations for uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) or drone equipment – or any other covered equipment – since it included on the Covered List certain foreign-produced drones and critical components in December 2025.
The revocation comes on the heels of proposed fines of nearly a quarter-million dollars against eight other companies as well as a push to prohibit previously authorized equipment from clone brands of prohibited entities, signaling a sustained and escalating focus on enforcement as a national security tool.
What Led to This Revocation?
The company that applied for equipment authorizations (applicant) had received the necessary authorizations for UAS equipment from the FCC on April 20, 2026. The company had certified that the equipment was not "covered" equipment and not prohibited from receiving an equipment authorization pursuant to written attestation requirements previously adopted by the FCC. In accompanying application materials, the company represented that the product was developed, designed and manufactured in California and another company had assembled the UAS in Texas.
In June 2026, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau began investigating allegations that the company that applied for the equipment authorizations had provided erroneous information in its application. Documents published by a security researcher and reviewed by the FCC indicated that the radio frequency fingerprint for the products appeared identical to that from a prohibited foreign-made drone. In addition, the FCC cited test reports showing that the devices were tested in a foreign country notwithstanding the applicant's claim of U.S. manufacturing and assembly.1
The applicant indicated that the aforementioned Texas-based company had assembled the relevant UAS product. When the FCC reached out to the Texas company to inquire about its role in assembly, that company denied any business relationship with the target and informed the FCC that it did not assemble any products for the company.
In revoking the equipment authorizations, the FCC cited the applicant's false statements and its lack of any record of domestic production in determining that the UAS equipment is covered communications equipment. The agency further indicated that it had considered the fact that testing occurred in a foreign country as relevant to the FCC's decision.
The FCC's Enforcement Bureau used a highly accelerated version of the agency's typical investigation process for gathering facts and informing the applicant of the agency's investigation and potential action. It sent a Letter of Inquiry to the applicant directing it to provide detailed information about the equipment and company. When the applicant did not respond within the requested 14-day period, the Enforcement Bureau sent a Deficiency Letter directing the applicant to respond within seven calendar days. When the applicant again failed to respond, the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) jointly issued an Order to Show Cause directing the applicant to demonstrate why it the agency should not revoke the equipment authorizations. After another non-response from the applicant, the FCC moved quickly to issue an Order of Revocation roughly two months after the security researcher published concerns. The approach of the Enforcement Bureau, combined with the action of the OET and PSHSB, indicates the FCC intends to oversee Covered List compliance in an efficient and comprehensive manner.
Increase in Enforcement and Oversight
The FCC has been taking an increasing number of enforcement and regulatory actions to block foreign drones and UAS components from being sold in the U.S., including fines to nonresponsive companies and pursuing limitations on the further importation and marketing of previously authorized models associated with suspected foreign clone brands.
Earlier this summer, the FCC began investigating whether certain companies had been circumventing the Covered List restrictions by selling drones containing prohibited parts into the domestic market. In July 2026, the FCC proposed fines against eight companies for failing to respond to the Commission's inquiries. Those investigations remain ongoing and could result in additional fines, revocations or referrals – putting companies across the supply chain on notice that the FCC is actively policing compliance. Importantly, enforcement activity has also affected retailers and marketplaces, and the FCC continues to tighten its compliance requirements in an ongoing rulemaking on its equipment authorization framework.
The FCC also released several Public Notices seeking comment on whether to prohibit the importation and marketing of previously authorized foreign-produced UAS and UAS critical components. In one notice, the FCC tentatively concluded that the subject equipment was either exact hardware copies of prohibited equipment or relied so heavily on substantial design, manufacture, assembly or development by prohibited entities that it could still be considered "produced by" such entities. In the other, the FCC proposed to prohibit the continued importation and marketing of "military-grade" covered UAS and UAS critical components. The FCC will decide each matter after the relevant comment period closes and has signaled a desire for prompt action. In particular, it has proposed to make the prohibition on hardware copies effective 30 days after Federal Register publication of its decision and the prohibition on military-grade covered UAS and UAS components effective just 10 days after publication.
Bottom Line
The speed and growing breadth of the investigations and concurrent action on already authorized products shows that the FCC is treating UAS enforcement as a national security priority. In tandem with such oversight and action, the FCC is working to update its procedural rules to provide for use of a streamlined, abbreviated process for enforcement action when it concludes that an applicant has provided false statement or representations, or failed to provide required information to the Commission, a test lab, Telecommunication Certification Body or other another agency.2
Companies manufacturing, importing or reselling foreign-made drones and drone components – or other items within equipment categories recently added to the Covered List, including certain routers, robotics and power inverters – should audit their supply chains, verify the accuracy of equipment authorization filings and monitor ongoing rulemakings closely. The cost of noncompliance – whether through fines, revocations or reputational harm – is rising fast.
Holland & Knight's Drone Team has closely tracked the evolution of the FCC's Covered List for UAS systems and critical components. See our previous client alerts for deep dives on the FCC's expansion of Covered List prohibitions and lead role in policing this technology. If you have questions about the potential impact on your business or other matters relating to UAS regulation and critical infrastructure protection, contact the authors or another member of the team.
Notes
1 Applicants for equipment authorizations may use services of a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) to perform testing necessary for applying for an equipment authorization. Such TCBs operate under strict federal standards and must comply with applicable regulations such as 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.951 and 2.962. The FCC has revoked certain authorizations of TCBs within the past year, especially since issuing its December 22, 2025, update to the Covered List. As described in Holland & Knight's recent alert, the FCC is also considering updating the testing certification process for equipment authorizations altogether.
2 Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through the Equipment Authorization Program, 91 Fed. Reg. 51139, 51144 (Aug. 7, 2026).
Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.