Can the U.S. Government Distinguish Between Chinese Citizens?

The name Zheng Wei is notably common in China, associated with various individuals across multiple professions, including a tennis player, movie director, and academics, among others. Notably, this has led to a significant case involving the U.S. Department of Defense and the drone manufacturer DJI, which is currently embroiled in a lawsuit against the U.S. government. The crux of DJI’s legal challenge stems from accusations that the Pentagon erroneously classified the company as a “Chinese military company” in 2022. This classification has been linked to broad economic sanctions against DJI, a privately-owned Shenzhen-based firm. DJI argues that the identification error underscores the negligence in the Pentagon’s rationale concerning sanctions against the firm.

DJI contends that it remained unaware of the reasons for its designation until legal action prompted the Pentagon to provide supporting evidence. Upon investigation, DJI’s lawsuit asserts that the Pentagon’s rationale included allegations regarding inventor Zheng Wei’s affiliation with the National University of Defense Technology, which was misidentified as a potential military connection. However, DJI produced a sworn declaration confirming that its Zheng Wei is distinct from the university professor. Similar misidentifications surfaced with another DJI software engineer, Zhang Tao, who was similarly confused with an associate of the Military Science Academy by the Pentagon, further illustrating the pitfalls of assuming military connections based solely on names.

In its defense, DJI has highlighted that the ownership of similar names is insufficient grounds for labeling an entity or individual as part of the Chinese military apparatus. This perspective emphasizes a broader issue of racial profiling and anti-Asian bias, suggesting that the U.S. government’s actions rely on superficial links rather than substantive evidence. Furthermore, the Pentagon’s argument was deemed flawed; it alleged that military scientists’ use of DJI products for research indicated military ties to the company. DJI asserted that it cannot control how its products are utilized once sold, thus challenging the validity of the Pentagon’s rationale. This raises the question of whether similar logic could portray DJI as an “American military company,” should U.S. military entities use its products.

The implications of the designation as a “Chinese military company” have escalated far beyond mere classification, leading to challenges within the U.S. sanctions enforcement landscape. The process to blacklist individuals or firms is often opaque, lacking due process that would allow those affected to understand or contest the basis of these decisions. The scheme has generated a substantial $31 million lobbying industry aimed at assisting foreign entities in navigating or avoiding sanctions designations in the U.S. The relative weight of the “Chinese military company” designation primarily restricts access to U.S. government contracts; however, it sells into a broader campaign to marginalize DJI products in the U.S. market.

Recent legislative actions further reflect the backlash against DJI, with the House of Representatives passing legislation banning new DJI products from utilizing American radio networks. This tension underscores the growing scrutiny toward not only DJI’s operations but also the perception of foreign technology companies in the U.S. DJI has also faced challenges in customs processes, with U.S. regulators halting products reportedly linked to the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Despite DJI asserting no involvement in Uyghur labor and maintaining that its products are produced in Shenzhen and Malaysia, these allegations fuel the narrative surrounding the company’s role in potential espionage or human rights violations.

Compounding these legal and regulatory challenges is DJI’s predominant market share within the U.S. civilian and police drone sectors, with the company comprising roughly 90% of hobby drones, 70% of industrial drones, and 80% of drones used by first responders. This dominance has intensified calls for tighter regulations or outright bans on DJI products, framed not only as a matter of national security but also as a means to bolster domestic manufacturing. Various industry advocates have pointed to the perceived security risks associated with foreign-controlled technology and the necessity of a robust U.S. supply chain in times of crisis, reflecting a protectionist stance against Chinese drone products. Ultimately, DJI’s situation highlights a complex intersection of trade, technology, and national security policy, wherein corporate identity is contested amidst broader geopolitical tensions.