Experts Praise Easing of Drone Export Controls, Say More Reforms Needed

The MTCR is “self-defeating on the commercial side, and it's self-defeating on the non-proliferation side,” said Tom Karako, director of CSIS’ Missile Defense Project. “Anything that gets in the way of, frankly, massive quantities of missiles and munitions to our allies, we need to thank it for its service and send it on its way.”

The State Department earlier this month shifted how it previously treated exports of drones under the MTCR, a multilateral body that sets strict export requirements over certain missile technology and other defense-related items (see 2509160027). The agency said it will no longer treat certain advanced unmanned aerial systems (UAS) the same as it treats missiles and instead will “review requests to export UAS similar to how it reviews requests” to export fighter jets.

If implemented as intended, the shift is expected to allow U.S. companies to more easily obtain export approvals for those drones, said Kari Bingen, director of CSIS' Aerospace Security Project and the Pentagon's former deputy undersecretary for intelligence and security. Both Bingen and Karako said they’re hopeful that exporters will see a difference.

“Policy changes are only as good as the implementation that follows,” Bingen said. “A lot of this will fall to the State Department," so it's key to ensure "that they have the people in place and the resources in order to quickly work through the requests and approvals that hopefully are likely to come.”

Karako said he hopes implementation isn’t as “glacial” as it was for previous export reforms for certain unmanned aircraft under the first Trump administration (see 2101110046 and 2007270035).

“I'm not sure it has really ever been implemented as it was intended,” he said of those changes. The White House should tell the State Department: “No, no, we really mean it. Go now and loosen up UAS,” Karako said. “I'm hopeful about that.”

Karako and Bingen said MTCR rules have restricted U.S. companies from supplying other countries with drone technology that they can easily buy from U.S. competitors. Bingen said China, Turkey and Iran are the world’s “leading exporters of armed drones.”

“Our companies are not in that fight and in that marketplace the way we'd like them to be,” she said.

Karako said drones are the “most common thing on today's battlefield” and shouldn’t be export-controlled like a rare, sensitive technology. “These are so not special. They've almost become commodities,” he said, adding that both Ukraine and Russia are making many drones to use in their ongoing war.

"I don't think that the Iranians or the North Koreans were agonizing over MTCR norms when they were sending drones and missiles to Russia to use in Ukraine," Karako said. “I think the national security risk of technology leakage also needs to be offset by the national security risks of working with one hand tied behind our back.”

Karako and Bingen also both stressed that the U.S. should continue to restrict drone exports to adversaries, especially China. But they said those restrictions for too long have cost U.S. exporters sales to friendly nations, which limits their revenue and hurts American innovation.

“There's demand signal there,” Bingen said. Other countries "want our stuff. And when they buy our stuff, that is revenue that goes back into our companies.”

In addition, both speakers acknowledged that looser restrictions on drones could mean a higher risk of those items or other sensitive technologies being illegally diverted to adversaries. Karako said there "always is a risk that the more you spread something out, it'll show up." He pointed to reports that Western chips and other microelectronics have been found in Russian weapons used against Ukraine.

"There's no perfect drawbridge to be pulled up," he said. "Frankly, I think it's hubris to think that we can do that. I think it's also hubris to think that, well, if we just tie our hands, that the demand signal will go away."

Bingen said the export restrictions highlight the "tension" between U.S. national security interests and economic interests. "I used to be the person at the Pentagon that would say, 'Hell, no,' but I have evolved as well, and I recognize that the world has changed. The diffusion of technology has changed," she said. "Part of our national interest is having a strong industrial base leading in advanced technologies, and I would far prefer our allies and partners to ... be dependent on us and working with us in co-production, co-development, etc., than to go to others."

The U.S. should continue loosening other MTCR restrictions, along with controls under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, especially for space-related items, Bingen added. She specifically pointed to radar satellites that are frequently used by commercial companies, such as Chinese fishing vessels, to “image the ground day and night.” Those radars are no “longer just for military intelligence purposes,” and “yet they're still limited by ITAR,” she said.

“I'm very encouraged by” the MTCR reforms, she said, “and I hope that it's one of many steps that tackle MTCR, ITAR, even foreign military sales.”

Karako said he also wants to see ITAR restrictions loosened. Although the U.S. last year introduced an ITAR exemption for Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. as part of the AUKUS arrangement (see 2507250013), he said that “hasn't been going as well as we hoped,” and he wants to see more progress.

“Just because you were to get rid of something doesn't mean that it's the Wild West. It doesn't mean that all end-user restrictions go away,” Karako said, noting that the U.S. still has export controls in place over drones after the State Department policy change this month.

The U.S. should “think through the logical consequences of that, in terms of ITAR and … implementing AUKUS the way it was intended,” he said. “And anything that gets in the way, I think we need to let go.”