U.S. Tariff Deal with China Ignores DJI: A Case of Cronyism

Observing President Trump’s recent successful trade negotiations with China brings to mind a wise young man’s words to his international business school classmates at graduation: “The answer to our problems will not be found in the halls of our respective governments. The key to peace is what we spent the last year learning about—commerce, business, and the free market.”

Our nation’s 47th chief executive understands how the exchange of goods and services leads to prosperity and peace. (Thomas Friedman’s notion that no two countries with a McDonald’s will ever go to war remains a powerful sentiment, though not entirely accurate today.)

President Trump also recognizes the importance of peace through strength.

While “nattering nabobs” and “pusillanimous pundits” wring their hands about tariffs and isolationism, the president has used tariffs as a means, not an end—forcing counterparts to the negotiation table to secure better deals for American workers.

Now that he has secured a deal with the world’s second largest economy, he has suspended tariffs for a year. We hope that the rest of the government will follow suit with this cautious optimism.

This kind of optimism would mean dropping a section of last year’s defense authorization act based on the so-called “countering CCP Drones” bill, which targeted DJI, the world’s most successful commercial drone manufacturer.

Even by Washington’s standards, this bill is bizarre—targeting two companies (DJI and its competitor Autel) from selling in the United States based on accusations that their drones threaten national security.

This occurs because DJI has a presence in China. The company also operates in the U.S., Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere.

DJI is not unique—any device you are reading this on likely has a presence in China, Germany, and other countries due to the peaceful free market in action.

Therefore, the full-court press against one company does not reflect the lofty free market ideals discussed with business school classmates; it is cronyism plain and simple.

Indeed, while DJI dominates the global consumer drone market, U.S.-headquartered drone manufacturers have lobbied for rules that would ban foreign-made drones. They lack the home-court advantage of their American competitors.

That does not mean the government cannot conduct more due diligence. Section 1709 of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act requires a risk assessment by an appropriate national security agency for products like drones.

If a fair and balanced audit identifies problems with the drones—which is unlikely—then bans can be implemented afterward.

As Captain America would say: “I thought the punishment usually came after the crime.”

Despite DJI manufacturing 70% of the world’s consumer drones, it remains a small target in Washington. Politicians would never dare ban iPhones—products with a larger Chinese footprint than any drone—but target DJI because it lacks the lobbying muscle that Apple possesses.

American consumers deserve access to the best products available—that is precisely what President Trump’s trade deal with Beijing aims to achieve.

There are legitimate concerns about China’s militarism—including building hypersonic missiles and nuclear weapons, conducting cyber-espionage, and sending spies to Silicon Valley.

This situation reminds me of a quote from Captain Jean Luc Picard in “Star Trek”: “The road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think.”

President Trump has suspended tariffs with China for one year.

The government should follow the 47th commander in chief’s lead and allow another year for national security agencies to complete a fair review of DJI.