Congress

Why Republican lawmakers are split over banning Chinese drones

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

The messy standoff driving a wedge between a bipartisan Senate duo

Published

27 minutes ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sens. Susan Collins and Patty Murray have long prided themselves on working together to advance government funding bills. That collegiality is now showing signs of decay.

The Maine Republican and Washington Democrat have been openly feuding about the path forward on spending measures this summer. It comes after their successful collaboration on bipartisan legislation during Murray’s two-year reign as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which continued when Collins took the gavel last year.

Democrats attribute the clash to Collins’ pursuit of President Donald Trump’s demands for a record military budget that eclipses domestic spending, as she fights to retain her Senate seat in November. Republicans say Murray is playing midterm politics by trying to prevent Collins from landing a deal before Election Day, when Democrats hope to regain House and Senate majorities — and the upper hand in year-end funding talks.

“It’s not personal, but it is very frustrating,” Collins said last week, while insisting she and Murray are still on good terms.

All Murray would say about the state of their relationship was, “We’re talking.”

While that impasse doesn’t necessarily heighten the odds of a government shutdown this fall, it could delay any meaningful Senate appropriations action until after the elections. The outcome of congressional races — including Collins’ toss-up contest against Democrat Graham Platner — could change the power balance in government funding negotiations.

“It certainly looks to me like the Democrats don’t want to give Susan Collins a victory,” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in an interview. “I really think it’s intensely political. She is a very reasonable legislator. If you can’t make a deal with Susan Collins, you don’t want to make a deal.”

Part of Collins’ campaign-trail pitch to Mainers is that she gets results in Washington, and her inability to advance the dozen annual appropriations bills through her committee undercuts that narrative.

Collins isn’t refuting the idea that Democrats might want to deprive her of legislative success as she competes against Platner in one of the closest and most-watched races in the country.

“That’s certainly a viable theory, which is pretty pathetic,” she said in an interview.

This month Collins publicly accused Murray of sending government funding offers that have “made it clear that Democrats are abandoning the appropriations process.” Murray, meanwhile, suggested Collins was at fault for the stalemate by divulging she hadn’t responded to Murray’s latest offer in more than two weeks.

It’s a major tone shift for the two lawmakers, who have earned a reputation for trying to stay out of the partisan fray since they became their party’s top leaders on the Appropriations Committee in 2023. They’ve consistently resisted broadcasting behind-the-scenes friction during tough negotiations and succeeded in reaching cross-party compromises to advance funding bills each year — even after the record government shutdown last fall.

But they’re now at loggerheads over funding totals for the military and domestic programs, along with votes on hot-button Trump policies. Senate Republicans are seeking a military funding boost more than four times larger than any increase in domestic spending, as Trump calls for a record $1.5 trillion defense budget.

“We do not have an agreement,” Murray said, because Republicans “are set on increasing defense in an increasingly huge way that we’ve never had to deal with before.”

GOP senators also want to avoid any amendment votes that could sink approval of appropriations bills, including some related to the Justice Department’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” administration officials have promised not to pursue.

The result is that Collins has yet to hold a committee markup on a single government funding bill with just three months left before federal dollars expire. And some Republican appropriators acknowledge it’s possible the panel won’t vote on any of the spending measures this year given the deadlock.

“Obviously Susan is up this year. And Democrats, at every level and every opportunity, are playing politics with it,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview. “The appropriations process used to be fairly bipartisan. … Murray and the Democrats have turned it into a partisan game.”

Some Democrats openly sympathize with Collins’ predicament in trying to represent politically moderate Maine while holding one of the most influential positions on Capitol Hill during Trump’s second term and unified Republican control of Congress.

“The chair of the committee is being squeezed in every direction,” Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a senior Democratic appropriator, said in an interview.

Many Senate Republicans don’t “give a damn” about funding domestic efforts like public education and biomedical research, Baldwin continued. “I believe that the chairwoman does care about those issues. But you know, she’s in an unenviable position.”

Since Trump was reelected, Collins has worked to negotiate funding bills that spend far more on domestic programs than the president sought. The result has been essentially flat funding for nondefense programs and a 17 percent increase in military spending, which includes the billions of dollars Republicans enacted along party lines last year.

“Chair Collins is very devoted to, or interested in, following through to help the president get more money for the Department of War and munitions, et cetera,” said West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a top Republican appropriator. “And I think Senator Murray is on the opposite page.”

“Rather than legislate and work these things out,” Capito added, “I think it’s been decided on the other side to just be obstinate and not participate and not negotiate.”

Trump is calling this year for boosting Pentagon spending by more than 40 percent while slashing domestic programs by 10 percent. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a senior Democratic appropriator who has served in Congress for more than 40 years, calls it “a massive change” in the way government funding has been divvied up for decades — by negotiating matching dollar-for-dollar increases in both military and nondefense funding.

“We’re so far apart. We haven’t faced anything like that in recent memory,” Durbin said in an interview. “And to accept the premise of it — what’s left for nondefense is terrible.”

Collins could proceed with markups this summer without an agreement with Democrats, as the House Republican majority has done for years. But Republican senators would need to be willing to vote on controversial amendments Democrats might offer — including proposals that defy Trump.

Senate Republican appropriators faced that issue last summer, when the panel unexpectedly adopted an amendment barring the Trump administration from repurposing cash intended for relocating the FBI headquarters. That outcome prompted several GOP senators to withdraw support for the funding bill.

“The challenge is that, if you have every Democrat voting against reporting the bill out — and then they also are offering poison pills — it’s hard to move those bills,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), chair of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI, said in an interview.

During the two years Murray chaired the full committee, Moran recalled, “We had members who wanted to offer what would probably be considered poison pills by Democrats. And Senator Collins talked Republicans out of doing so, to move the process.”

The two sides could easily reach an agreement on amendments and policy stipulations, some Democrats contend, if only Collins and Murray could bridge the divide between the president’s military funding demands and their own domestic priorities.

“Senator Collins is carrying out the administration’s wishes,” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, another senior Democratic appropriator, said in an interview. “And Senator Murray is noting that a reckless increase in defense spending is not in the best interest of Americans.”

“So they’re both advocating for their viewpoint,” Merkley added. “That’s what we do in a democracy.”

Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Congress

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

Published

7 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

10 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.