DJI, the world’s biggest drone maker, has lost its legal battle to be removed from the U.S. Department of Defense’s list of Chinese military companies. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Pentagon had “substantial evidence” to justify the classification, dealing a major blow to DJI’s push to distance itself from claims of links to China’s defense sector.
According to the ruling reported by TechCrunch, Judge Paul Friedman pointed to DJI’s designation as part of China’s “military-civil fusion” strategy and its ties to a state-owned parent company. While some of the government’s justifications were dismissed as too weak, the court held that one decisive factor carried enough weight: DJI’s technology has both “theoretical and actual military applications.”
DJI has repeatedly argued that it is a commercial tech firm with no military affiliation, known primarily for producing consumer and enterprise drones. The company said the listing had caused it to lose business opportunities and unfairly tarnished its reputation. In a statement after the decision, DJI criticized the ruling as overreaching, arguing that the Pentagon’s logic could be applied to a wide range of other tech companies with no direct military role.
The consequences of staying on the list are significant. While DJI drones are not banned in the U.S., federal agencies are restricted from working with the company, and private businesses often shy away from contracts with firms designated as military-linked. The ruling also adds pressure at a time when DJI faces potential import bans and fresh national security reviews later this year.
This outcome mirrors a similar case involving lidar maker Hesai, which also failed to shake off its Pentagon listing. For Washington, the classification underscores growing concerns about the role of Chinese technology in sensitive industries, especially when hardware has potential dual-use in both commercial and defense settings.
For DJI, the decision leaves it navigating not only the fallout of stricter U.S. oversight but also broader questions about how Chinese companies can operate in an increasingly divided global tech landscape. As tensions between Washington and Beijing continue, the ruling signals how difficult it may be for Chinese firms to prove their independence from state influence, regardless of their stated mission or market focus.