Taiwan Drones

NDAA Sections 848 and 889 & Taiwan Drones

Section 889 of the FY2019 NDAA and Section 848 of the FY2020 NDAA are different rules covering different equipment. A Section 889 statement on a flight controller answers a question no drone buyer asked. This guide explains which provision governs which product, and what a compliance claim needs to contain to survive a procurement diligence check.

Last reviewed · reviewed quarterly Buying from Taiwan? ↓
Who this applies to
  • Taiwanese component manufacturers making compliance claims on their websites or datasheets
  • Suppliers preparing to quote a US defense prime or integrator
  • Anyone who has published an "NDAA compliant" label without citing a section
  • Buyers assessing a supplier's published compliance claim

Key points

  • Section 889 (FY2019 NDAA) covers telecommunications and video surveillance equipment from a list of named companies. Entity-based.
  • Section 848 (FY2020 NDAA) covers drone components by category. Origin-based. This is the one that governs drone parts.
  • Section 848 is a genuine Chinese-content test, and Taiwan can pass it. Rigorous origin documentation is what proves it.
  • Neither section governs US market access — that is the FCC Covered List, which works on a different test entirely.
  • "NDAA compliant" with no section cited tells a buyer nothing.

The two provisions

Section 889, FY2019 NDAA

Prohibits federal agencies from procuring, or contracting with entities that use, covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment from named companies — Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision, and Dahua. Enacted in Public Law 115-232 and implemented through FAR subpart 4.21.

Entity-based. The question is whether a named company's equipment is present.

Why it appears on drone websites anyway: "NDAA compliance" entered general use through Section 889, because that provision drove the first wave of supply-chain compliance work across the electronics industry. The phrase stuck; the section number came along with it.

Section 848, FY2020 NDAA

Bars the Department of Defense from procuring or operating drones manufactured in, or incorporating critical components from, a covered foreign country — principally China. Enacted in Public Law 116-92 and set out as a statutory note to 10 U.S.C. § 4871, under the heading "Prohibition on Operation or Procurement of Foreign-Made Unmanned Aircraft Systems". It has no section number of its own in the US Code, which is why it is cited by its NDAA section rather than a code section.

Origin-based. The question is where the component was made.

The prohibition names the components itself. DoD's implementing clause bars a covered UAS that uses flight controllers, radios, data transmission devices, cameras, or gimbals manufactured in a covered foreign country; a ground control system or operating software developed in one; or network connectivity or data storage located in, or administered by an entity domiciled in, one. That clause text is what a contracting officer applies, and it is the wording a US buyer will flow down to you.

That clause has never been made permanent. DoD has carried it on successive class deviations since 2020 — the same clause number, 252.225-7972, reissued under DEVIATION 2020-O0015 and then 2024-O0014. Do not confuse it with FAR 52.240-1, which is a permanent rule implementing the American Security Drone Act, a different statute with a different test.

Which applies to what

Your product Governing provision Can Taiwan pass?
Flight controllers Section 848 Yes, with documented origin
Data links and radios Section 848 Yes, with documented origin
Cameras and gimbals Section 848 Yes, with documented origin
Gyroscopes / IMUs Section 848 Yes, with documented origin
Ground control stations and operating software Section 848 Yes, with documented origin
Motors, ESCs, propellers Not named in 848 Unresolved — see below
Telecom infrastructure equipment Section 889 N/A — different product class
Any UAS, by manufacturer identity American Security Drone Act Yes, unless FASC-listed

The parts Section 848 does not name

Motors, ESCs and propellers are absent from the enumerated list, and the enumeration is the operative text here — unlike the FCC's Covered List, which extends to anything "designed and intended primarily for use in UAS". A buyer applying Section 848 strictly has no basis to reject a Taiwanese motor on the ground of the statute alone.

That is not the same as saying it will never be asked about. Procurement practice under the Drone Dominance Program framework has been broader than the statute in places, and a prime flowing requirements down to you may ask for origin on parts the statute does not name. Answering is cheap if the origin file already exists.

What a defensible claim contains

A compliance statement that survives diligence has five elements. Most published Taiwanese statements have one or two.

  1. The specific provision. "Section 848 of the FY2020 NDAA," not "NDAA."
  2. The specific product line. Model numbers, not the company.
  3. The basis. Component-level origin tracing against a bill of materials — not an assertion.
  4. A date. Supply chains change. An undated claim is a claim about an unknown moment.
  5. A signature. A named person who can be asked about it.

Hedged phrasing — "aligned with," "to the best of our knowledge" — suggests the underlying work was not done, fairly or not.

Note

What happens when a label is taken at face value: a camera sold as NDAA-compliant was found transmitting to China from a Royal Navy vessel. We covered what that case shows about the label's limits. Separately, a Taiwanese procurement fraud case showed what "Made in Taiwan" certifies and what it does not.

Why buyers do not correct you

A procurement engineer who sees the wrong section cited does not usually raise it. They stop replying. The supplier records a lost inquiry and never learns the cause.

Because nobody tells the supplier, the same error can run through years of lost inquiries. Correcting it costs nothing.

Section 848 compliance is not Blue UAS

Passing Section 848 does not put a product on the Blue UAS Cleared List. Blue UAS is a list with an application process, covered in the Blue UAS guide. Section 848 is a procurement standard a buyer applies.

Nor does either one grant US market access. That is governed by a separate rule with a different test entirely.

If you are buying from Taiwan

You are the party who has to be satisfied, and a supplier's published label is not evidence.

Ask for the section. If a datasheet says "NDAA compliant" without naming a provision, the claim has not been scoped. Ask which section they believe applies and why. The answer tells you quickly whether anyone has done the work.

Ask for the basis. Component-level origin tracing against a bill of materials, dated and signed. An assertion at the company level does not survive a flow-down audit.

Ask what changed. Supply chains move. A declaration from eighteen months ago describes a configuration that may no longer ship.

Do not treat "Made in Taiwan" as an origin answer. It is an assembly claim, and a Taiwanese procurement fraud case showed exactly what it certifies and what it does not. A camera sold as NDAA-compliant was separately found transmitting to China from a Royal Navy vessel — the label was never built to catch that.

Where suppliers are usually wrong rather than dishonest. Citing Section 889 on a drone component is the common error, and it reflects how the phrase entered circulation rather than an attempt to mislead. A supplier who corrects it quickly when asked is usually a supplier worth continuing with.

The origin work serves two rules

The component-level origin tracing that supports a Section 848 declaration is substantially the same evidence a US importer needs to certify allied content under the Section 232 tariff cap. Build the origin file once.

Open questions

  • Whether a permanent DFARS rule replaces the class deviation. None was published as of August 2026.
  • How motors, ESCs and propellers are treated under the Drone Dominance Program framework, which has run broader than the statute in places.
  • Whether the FY2027 NDAA amends either section.

Primary sources

Related guides

Where these rules interact

FCC Covered List & Taiwan Drones The FCC Covered List blocks foreign-produced drones and critical components from US market access based on country of production, not Chinese content. Blue UAS & Taiwan Drones Blue UAS Cleared List entry is a defense procurement credential and, since December 2025, an exemption from the FCC Covered List. What listing now buys. Section 232 Tariffs & Taiwan Drones US Section 232 tariffs on drones and components take effect September 3, 2026. Taiwan's 15 percent rate is a conditional ceiling, not an automatic rate.
Free weekly

Taiwan Drone Weekly

The intelligence brief for Taiwan's drone industry, read by procurement officers, investors, and analysts. The rules on this page move often, and the brief is where we cover them as they do.

Get the weekly brief →
Sourcing

What this guide covers