LEDA Challenges AUVSI on Drone Restrictions: Prioritizing Public Safety Over Hasty Bans

The Law Enforcement Drone Association (LEDA) has issued a strong rebuttal to the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) following an opinion piece by AUVSI President and CEO Michael Robbins, published on DroneLife on February 24, 2025. In a detailed letter, LEDA President Jon Beal criticizes Robbins’ call for immediate restrictions on drones and components from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), arguing that such measures could severely hinder public safety operations and cost lives. LEDA’s stance emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes operational effectiveness and community safety over what they describe as fear-driven, premature bans.

AUVSI’s Call for Action

In the DroneLife op-ed, Michael Robbins, representing AUVSI—the world’s largest trade association for autonomous systems—urges the U.S. Drone Industry to prepare for impending restrictions on PRC-manufactured drones. Robbins highlights national security concerns, citing warnings from agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency about vulnerabilities in PRC drones. He references Section 1709 of the FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which could lead to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adding PRC drones to its Covered Entity List, effectively limiting their use in the U.S. Robbins argues that the time for “decisive action” is now, pushing for a shift to U.S. and allied-nation drone technologies to reduce reliance on PRC components. He warns that failing to act could leave the industry vulnerable, likening the situation to a “canary in the coal mine” moment for supply chain security.

LEDA’s Response: A Call for Reason and Readiness

LEDA, representing over 3,200 members globally, counters Robbins’ position with a pragmatic perspective rooted in the realities of public safety operations. Jon Beal, LEDA’s President and Chief Executive Officer, expresses frustration with what he calls AUVSI’s “fear-mongering” tone and its push for an outright ban on PRC drones, including DJI drones. Beal argues that while AUVSI claims to support such restrictions “in both state and federal bills with a sunset period,” the practical implications of a sudden ban would be devastating for law enforcement and emergency response teams.

Beal points to the critical role PRC drones currently play in public safety. He notes that approximately 80% of the public safety drone market relies on Chinese-manufactured drones, a statistic supported by Drone Rescue Map data indicating that over 1,000 lives have been saved using drones, with PRC models likely accounting for a significant portion of those rescues. Beal questions the logic of banning these drones without a viable replacement, asking, “To what does that equate? A ban.” He warns that such a move would leave agencies unable to operate effectively, potentially leading to loss of life in scenarios like search-and-rescue missions, where drones are often the First Responders in harsh conditions.

The Cost of Hasty Drone Restrictions

LEDA’s letter delves into the operational and financial challenges that a sudden ban would impose. Beal highlights the cost disparity between PRC drones and their U.S. or allied counterparts. Agencies currently deploy PRC drones at a cost of $15,000 to $25,000 per unit, while U.S.-made alternatives can cost 7 to 10 times more—potentially $105,000 to $250,000 per unit. For a program operating 10 drones, replacing them with U.S.-made models could mean reducing the fleet to just one drone due to budget constraints. Beal argues this would cripple operational capacity, especially in high-stakes situations like tactical missions, where drones are used to clear structures and reduce risks to human officers.

Beal also recounts a sobering example: the 2007 death of LAPD Officer Randy Simmons during a tactical incident in Los Angeles. He suggests that drones, had they been available, could have prevented such a tragedy—a capability that agencies now rely on daily but could lose under a sudden ban. Additionally, Beal notes that U.S.-made drones often lack the performance of their PRC counterparts, with issues like losing connectivity over short distances, which could further jeopardize search-and-rescue missions in rugged terrain.

National Security vs. Operational Reality

While Robbins emphasizes the national security risks of PRC drones, citing classified concerns from federal agencies, LEDA challenges the lack of concrete evidence. Beal references studies, including one by the Department of the Interior, that found no data being sent back to China from PRC drones—a point often overlooked in favor of speculative fears. He argues that the narrative of PRC drones as a “potential threat” ignores their proven utility in saving lives, as evidenced by their widespread use globally.

LEDA acknowledges the need for secure supply chains but advocates for a more measured transition. Beal cites Brinc CEO Blake Resnik, who suggested a three-year timeline for U.S. manufacturers to scale up production to meet demand, as a more realistic approach. This timeline, Beal argues, would allow agencies to maintain operational readiness while U.S. and allied manufacturers develop drones that match or exceed PRC models in capability and affordability.

Market and Regulatory Implications

The proposed restrictions could reshape the U.S. drone market, but LEDA warns of unintended consequences. Beyond public safety, industries like film, agriculture, and construction rely on affordable PRC drones. A ban could disrupt these sectors, leading to economic ripple effects. Beal also notes the lack of U.S. or allied manufacturers producing drones for public safety at scale, a gap that could take years to fill. Without a clear transition plan, agencies might face “rip and replace” mandates with no funding, further straining budgets and operational capacity.

From a regulatory standpoint, Section 1709 of the FY2025 NDAA signals a growing push to limit PRC technology in the U.S. However, LEDA argues that regulators must consider the practical implications for end users. Beal calls for policies that incentivize U.S. innovation while allowing agencies to choose the best technology for their needs, rather than imposing blanket bans that prioritize security over functionality.

Drone Industry: A Very Competitive Landscape

The U.S. drone industry has made strides in recent years, with companies like Skydio and BRINC developing advanced systems. However, as Beal points out, these drones often fail to match the cost-effectiveness and performance of PRC models, particularly in public safety applications. The reliance on PRC drones stems from their dominance in the market—DJI, a Chinese company, has long been the industry leader, offering reliable, affordable drones with features tailored to emergency response.

Efforts to bolster U.S. manufacturing, such as AUVSI’s Partnership for Drone Competitiveness, aim to reduce this dependency. Yet, LEDA argues that these initiatives must focus on practical outcomes, not just rhetoric. Beal urges U.S. manufacturers to prioritize public safety needs, developing drones that can compete on capability, not just origin.

LEDA: Balancing Security and Safety

LEDA’s letter underscores a critical tension in the U.S. drone industry: the need to address national security concerns without sacrificing public safety. While AUVSI’s push for restrictions highlights legitimate risks, LEDA’s response emphasizes the immediate, life-saving role of PRC drones and the lack of viable alternatives. The debate reflects broader challenges in the global tech landscape, where security, innovation, and practicality often collide.

The path forward requires a nuanced approach. Policymakers must provide clear timelines and funding to support a transition to U.S. and allied drones, while manufacturers must accelerate production and innovation to meet demand. For now, LEDA’s stance is clear: banning PRC drones without a robust replacement strategy risks more than supply chains—it risks lives. As Beal puts it, “Encourage and incentivize U.S. innovation, don’t penalize communities and put lives at risk.”

DroneXL’s Take

The clash between AUVSI and LEDA highlights a pivotal moment for the U.S. drone industry. While security concerns are valid, the operational realities of public safety cannot be ignored. A balanced approach—one that fosters U.S. innovation while ensuring agencies remain equipped to serve—seems the only viable way forward. Without it, the industry risks trading one set of vulnerabilities for another, with communities bearing the cost.

We have posted the entire LEDA letter from Jon Beal, President and Chief Executive Officer Law Enforcement Drone Association below.