Congress

Republicans clash over drone crackdown

Published

7 months ago

November 26, 2025

A Capitol Hill push by GOP China hawks to impose new restrictions on Shenzhen-based aerial drone maker DJI is facing resistance from Republicans who warn the company’s products have become critical tools for U.S. farming and energy firms.

The fight is playing out after Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, a close ally of President Donald Trump, secured the crackdown in the House version of a must-pass defense policy bill. At stake for DJI are new restrictions on its ability to offer products in the U.S.

Stefanik is making the case that the company’s products expose Americans’ data to the Chinese government — an allegation that the company denies as it lobbies hard to make the case that it operates independently of Chinese officials.

But Stefanik and her allies are facing pushback in the Senate, which opted against including the provision in its version of the bill and where Republicans are raising concerns about potential negative impacts on U.S. businesses and law enforcement. The two chambers are working to resolve their differences in the sprawling defense bill so they can enact it by year’s end.

“They are the primary drone maker in the United States at a reasonable price,” Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, said of DJI in an interview. “This technology is being used more and more. … That’s the crux of the problem.”

The battle over DJI marks the latest flash point among Republicans over how to counter China without sacrificing U.S. business interests. Trump, whose election in 2016 was a boon to the party’s China hawk wing, has himself sought to ease tensions with Beijing in recent months after initiating a trade war. It’s unclear that Stefanik and her allies will prevail with their campaign against DJI.

DJI is the dominant global producer of commercial drones, which it markets to enterprise customers for uses in inspecting infrastructure, surveying land and public safety.

“There are real cost ramifications for commercial enterprises, not just farming,” Sen. John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, said in an interview. “You’ve got the energy industry, where they’re tracking transmission lines, rescue and recovery, all these different other uses. It’s something we’ve got to figure out.”

Boozman and Hoeven say they also have national security concerns about DJI, but Stefanik has been pushing provisions that would take an all-or-nothing approach, rejecting the notion that economic impacts should hold lawmakers back from immediately barring the sale of new DJI products in the U.S.

“It is very important for us to have U.S. drones and not have that data be turned over to the CCP,” she said in an interview. “It has been an issue we’ve worked on for a number of years with traditional bipartisan support to protect our information, whether it’s the topography of their regions or on the installations … or potential troop movements.”

The legislative language Stefanik and other China hawks are pursuing comes as DJI already faces potential restrictions on its ability to sell products in the U.S. after Dec. 23, thanks to an amendment Stefanik secured in last year’s defense authorization bill.

That earlier provision requires federal agencies to audit DJI and another Chinese drone manufacturer, Autel, for national security risks. If no such audit is performed, a ban on domestic imports will go into effect. No national security agency has indicated it plans to conduct the audit in time to meet the deadline.

The new proposal Republicans are now debating would require another federal audit of drone equipment, including software and spectrum band products, developed in countries that are “foreign adversaries.” The language once again targets DJI and Autel.

DJI has spent nearly $3 million on federal lobbying this year, according to disclosures filed with Congress, in appeals to lawmakers from states and districts that rely on its drones to support critical sectors of their local economies – particularly agricultural and law enforcement activities.

“The fundamental point is, this isn’t really about data security,” DJI global head of policy Adam Welsh said in an interview. “This is, frankly, about protectionism and trying to protect a U.S. industry.”

Representatives of DJI’s enterprise customer base acknowledge national security concerns associated with the drones. But they are also warning against the repercussions of a full-out ban.

“It would have a very significant level of repercussions, full stop,” National Sheriffs’ Association CEO Jonathan Thompson said in an interview. “It’s a little like taking cars out of a sheriff’s office and saying you can’t use any cars. These are ubiquitous.”

Even the federal government has had trouble weaning itself off the Chinese-made drones.

After the Interior Department prohibited the purchase of new DJI drones in 2020, the Government Accountability Office found in a follow-up review that the removal of foreign-made drone fleets had significantly impaired the operations of the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service.

“BLM and NPS do not have enough drones for their operations to manage or prevent wildland fires and have shifted some operations to riskier, more costly methods, such as helicopters,” the GAO said in the report.

Sen. Rick Scott, a Florida Republican who is championing a proposal in his chamber that mirrors Stefanik’s language, said in an interview that he has run into resistance at the Senate Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over aviation and technology issues and is chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

“Commerce did not oppose the inclusion of a DJI audit in the [defense bill],” said Phoebe Keller, a committee spokesperson for Cruz. “Staff provided edits to the text and engaged in good faith to clear the language. The sponsors ultimately chose not to engage further but we remain happy to work with the sponsors if and when they decide to reengage.”

A person granted anonymity to share details of the negotiations said committee staff conveyed concerns to Scott’s team about the ramifications of banning drones relied upon by first responders

Scott rejects concerns that there aren’t yet viable alternative drones being produced in the U.S.

“There’s American companies, and there will be,” said Scott, a former Florida governor and health care CEO. “I’m a business guy. If you told me there was an opportunity, I could figure it out pretty fast.”

Congress

Johnson-backed plan to combine Pentagon and election bills advances to floor

Published

4 hours ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Rules Committee advanced a procedural measure aimed at breaking an intra-Republican deadlock Monday night. But GOP leaders are still facing a major battle Tuesday to regain control of the House floor.

The panel approved on party lines a measure to set up Republicans’ $1.1 trillion defense policy bill, a government funding bill and other GOP bills for floor debate. It would then combine the Pentagon bill, once passed, with the contentious elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act and send it to the Senate as one piece of legislation.

That maneuver, telegraphed by Speaker Mike Johnson earlier Monday, is aimed at appeasing House GOP hard-liners who have blockaded the floor, demanding the Senate pass the elections bill that has languished there for months.

However, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, the Republican leading the blockade, said in an interview Monday before the Rules Committee acted that Johnson’s plan is not sufficient — raising the possibility she and allies could vote down the measure on the floor. Other House GOP hard-liners say there are other outstanding issues to battle over Tuesday.

Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Democrat, called the merger move “a big waste of time.” The panel voted down a motion by McGovern to remove the provision to combine the two bills in a party-line vote.

The Senate is set to debate its own version of the defense bill next month, and it is likely that the elections overhaul will be removed in negotiations between the two chambers — as McGovern acknowledged Monday and House GOP leaders privately concede.

“The Senate will just strip the SAVE Act out,” he said at the meeting. “There is a zero percent chance SAVE ends up in the [Pentagon bill] because of this rule today.”

The defense bill faces a tight vote if Republicans can pass the procedural measure. Most Democrats are expected to oppose the measure over its massive price tag, which they contend is wasteful.

The panel is set up debate on 312 amendments to the bill. The slate includes GOP measures to codify a Trump executive order to block transgender people from serving in the military, prohibit coverage of gender-affirming care, block aid to arm Ukraine and strip Democratic-backed protections for collective bargaining for Pentagon civilian workers.

The committee also voted down Democratic proposals to slash $150 billion from the bill’s topline and limit the war against Iran.

Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Congress

Pentagon and elections bills could be combined in bid to unfreeze House floor

Published

7 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday he plans to deploy an unusual procedural maneuver in a bid to unfreeze the House floor this week, seeking to send the annual Pentagon policy bill and the GOP elections bill known as the SAVE America Act to the Senate in a single package.

That is likely a recipe for a continued standoff between the two chambers over the SAVE America Act, which has stalled in the Senate for months due to internal GOP divides. Under Johnson’s plan, the annual defense policy bill, which typically passes every year with large bipartisan majorities, could become a collateral victim of the impasse.

Asked in brief interview if he had talked to Senate Majority Leader John Thune about his plans, Johnson replied, “I have to do my job in the House, and they’ve got to do their job in the Senate, so we’ll see what happens.”

Johnson is seeking to placate House conservative hard-liners, led by Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who have threatened to oppose the procedural measures that give Republicans control of the floor unless they agree to tougher tactics meant to force the Senate into passing the elections bill.

House GOP leaders discussed the plan to merge the two bills over the weekend as Luna pushed to amend the defense bill directly.

She did not say in an interview Monday whether Johnson’s gambit would suffice: “We want it baked together, not able to be stripped out,” she said.

But the Senate is free to work its own will, and members of that chamber are likely to reject any defense bill that has the partisan elections bill attached. That would set the stage for GOP leaders to strip it out when the House and Senate hash out the differences between their competing Pentagon bills later this year.

Johnson, meanwhile, is pushing a separate plan to pass a slimmed-down version of the SAVE America Act through the party-line budget reconciliation process — an option hard-liners have all but rejected.

“I don’t think that that can be done,” Luna told reporters Monday.

He’s also facing another complication: The version of the SAVE America Act he is proposing to attach to the Pentagon bill doesn’t include the latest demands for the bill from President Donald Trump — including a near-total ban on mail voting that is opposed by many Republicans.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Top Trump officials face bipartisan questions in first all-member Iran briefings

Published

8 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawmakers of both parties questioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio and top Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff Monday in the first broad congressional briefings on President Donald Trump’s Iran deal.

While Democrats asked some of the sharpest questions, participants in an afternoon conference call with House members said, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) at one point pressed the administration officials on the fate of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.

According to two people granted anonymity to disclose the private remarks, Witkoff and Rubio repeated assurances the administration has privately made to select lawmakers in prior briefings — that the goal is to negotiate a final deal that would prohibit Iran from keeping its highly enriched uranium.

The memorandum of understanding Trump signed earlier this month, they said, was meant to launch those negotiations. Witkoff, the people said, added that the technical team involved in that part of the talks was traveling from Switzerland to Qatar, where talks between the U.S. and Iran are set to happen Tuesday.

Democrats, meanwhile, pushed the administration for more details on what financial benefits Iran could reap under the memorandum — including proceeds from previously sanctioned oil sales.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) went back and forth with Rubio and Witkoff over the lifting of the oil sanctions, two other people granted anonymity on the House call said. The officials eventually cut off the conversation and ended the call.

At another point, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) raised concerns about Witkoff’s business interests in the Middle East as he’s negotiating with Iran, prompting a sharp defense from Rubio, those people said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked Rubio and Witkoff about the oil sanctions during a separate all-senators call Monday, saying in a statement afterward that they “confirmed to me that Iran will reap billions in oil revenue while retaining dangerous leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.”

“If this is the administration’s defense behind closed doors, Secretary Rubio should make it under oath, in public, before the Foreign Relations Committee,” Schumer added, calling the briefing “delayed, deficient, and devoid of details.”

An administration official granted anonymity to speak candidly countered on Schumer’s characterization, noting that he had previously gotten a briefing of the deal as part of a group of top leaders engaged on national security matters. Schumer, the official said, had the opportunity to ask multiple follow-up questions on the Senate call.

A separate group of White House officials briefed top congressional leaders and key committee chairs in a classified briefing in the Capitol later Monday.

The administration has faced bipartisan skepticism over multiple provisions of the memorandum of understanding — particularly the lifting of oil sanctions and a $300 billion reconstruction fund that many Senate Republicans fear will help fuel Iran’s military and regional proxies.

Rubio and Witkoff sought to ease concerns about the slow reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — the critical trade route whose closure has sparked higher fuel and fertilizer costs. Both officials said more mine removal is required, and Witkoff indicated that Iran broke the terms of the Trump-signed deal by launching a drone attack on a passing ship over the weekend.

They also sought to assure lawmakers that Iran has received no money under the memorandum — especially not directly from American sources. Administration officials have previously pledged in smaller briefings that the reconstruction fund won’t include U.S. funds.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) called the Senate briefing a “productive conversation” but said “much of what I heard today is similar to what I heard last week” during a dinner at Vice President JD Vance’s residence.