Florida Approved Drone List: Manufacturers, Timeline, and Grants

Florida’s approved drone list, maintained by the Department of Management Services under Florida Statute 934.50(7), currently includes five manufacturers: Skydio, Parrot, Altavian, Teal Drones, and Vantage Robotics.¹ State and local government agencies can only buy and operate drones built by companies on that roster, and the technical requirements sit in Florida Administrative Code Rule 60GG-2.0075. The whole framework exists to keep public-agency drone data out of the hands of foreign governments Florida considers hostile.

The Approved Manufacturers

Skydio, a U.S. company known for autonomous flight and obstacle avoidance, widely used by law enforcement and infrastructure inspectors.
Parrot, a French manufacturer with a product line built for government and defense customers.
Altavian, a U.S. maker of long-endurance fixed-wing platforms for mapping and surveying.
Teal Drones, a U.S. producer of small reconnaissance drones originally developed for military use.
Vantage Robotics, a U.S. company known for lightweight, portable platforms.

DMS can add manufacturers as they clear the security requirements and remove them if they fall out of compliance. Check the DMS website directly before making a purchase. A cached copy or a secondhand summary can be out of date, and the roster changes without much public notice.

Who Has to Follow the List

The statute defines “governmental agency” broadly: any state, county, local, or municipal government entity, and any unit of government created by law, that uses a drone for any purpose.¹ County commissions, school districts, special districts, law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical services all fall inside that circle.

Private contractors flying on behalf of an agency have to play by the same rules. A surveying firm hired by a county to inspect bridges cannot bring a banned drone to the job. The obligation follows the contract.

State universities and colleges are covered too, with one narrow opening. Rule 60GG-2.0075 lets a university use a non-approved drone when the work is specifically directed by a state or federal agency and focused on studying drone security threats and vulnerabilities.² Everyday academic drone flying does not qualify.

Why These Manufacturers and Not Others

The list exists because Florida wants to keep drone data away from what state law calls “foreign countries of concern.” Florida Statute 286.101 lists those countries as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, the Venezuelan regime of Nicolás Maduro, and Syria, along with any entity under significant control of those governments.³ Rule 60GG-2.0075 uses the same list.²

China is the country that matters most in practice. DJI, the Chinese company that dominates the global commercial drone market, powered most of Florida’s public-safety drone fleets before this law took hold. Legislators were worried DJI drones could transmit flight data, imagery, or telemetry to servers reachable by the Chinese government. Whether that risk is theoretical or active is debated. Florida decided not to wait for an answer.

The rule reaches down to the component level. “Critical components” include flight controllers, radios, data transmission devices, cameras, gimbals, ground control systems, operating software, network connectivity hardware, and data storage. A drone cannot contain any critical component made by a manufacturer domiciled in, or owned or controlled by, a foreign country of concern.² A drone assembled in the U.S. can still fail if its camera or radio comes from the wrong supplier. That is where procurement reviews usually take the most time.

How Florida’s List Relates to the Federal Blue UAS List

The federal government keeps its own vetted drone roster, the Blue UAS Cleared List, originally run by the Defense Innovation Unit and transitioning to the Defense Contract Management Agency. Blue UAS drones are validated as cybersecure and compliant with federal defense authorization requirements.⁴

Florida’s list overlaps significantly with Blue UAS, which makes sense because the statute lets DMS consult federal guidance when building it.¹ The lists are legally independent, though. A Blue UAS drone is not automatically Florida-approved, and Florida can add or drop manufacturers on its own schedule. Agencies working in both state and federal contexts should verify each list separately.

The Compliance Timeline and the 2023 Grounding

The statute rolled out in stages:

January 1, 2022: DMS was required to publish the approved manufacturer list.
From that date forward, agencies could only buy or acquire drones from approved manufacturers.
July 1, 2022: Agencies still flying non-approved drones had to submit a comprehensive discontinuation plan to DMS.
January 1, 2023: All governmental agencies had to stop using non-approved drones entirely.¹

January 2023 hit hard. Broward County Sheriff’s Office grounded 63 DJI drones that had cost around $300,000. Miami-Dade police and fire rescue grounded 41 drones worth more than $200,000. Smaller agencies took proportional losses. The legislature ordered the fleet replacement without providing initial funding, so departments that had built their aerial capability around DJI started over with alternatives that were often less capable or more expensive.

Grant Funding to Replace Non-Compliant Drones

To soften the cost, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement runs the Drone Replacement Grant Program. It funds acquisitions of drones that comply with Rule 60GG-2.0075, with awards capped at $25,000 per compliant drone.⁵

The program has now run for several fiscal years, starting in FY 2023-24. For the FY 2025-26 cycle, priority went to first responder agencies that had not previously received funding and to agencies in Florida’s fiscally constrained counties. As of October 2025, all available FY 2025-26 funding had been claimed on a first-come, first-served basis, with the project period ending June 30, 2026.⁵ The statute also lets FDLE spend program funds on secure destruction of non-compliant drones, with that authority set to expire July 1, 2026.¹

If your agency missed this cycle, keep an eye on FDLE’s grant page for reopenings tied to returned funds or future legislative appropriations.

Buying From the List and Asking for Exceptions

The routine path is simple. Pick a manufacturer from the DMS list, confirm the specific model meets Rule 60GG-2.0075, and run the purchase through your normal procurement process. DMS is the authoritative publisher of the list, so a procurement officer can point to the DMS website as the source of record.

The harder scenario is an agency that needs a capability no approved manufacturer offers. The statute directed DMS to adopt rules covering discontinuation plans and minimum security requirements, and the administrative code implements that framework.¹ An agency seeking any exception should expect to document why no approved alternative can do the job, provide a security risk assessment covering data flow from collection through processing, and demonstrate encrypted communications between the controller and the aircraft.

The statute sets no timeline for reviewing exception requests, and DMS does not publish a guaranteed turnaround. Build lead time into project planning. Until written authorization is in hand, a non-approved drone cannot be legally operated for any governmental function.

Approved Hardware Is Not the Whole Rule for Law Enforcement

Being on the approved list only settles the procurement question. Florida Statute 934.50 also controls how police agencies use drones. A law enforcement agency generally cannot use a drone to gather evidence without a search warrant. The exceptions are imminent threats to life or property, preventing a suspect’s escape or the destruction of evidence, searching for a missing person, and providing aerial views of crowds of 50 or more for public safety.¹

A department needs both approved hardware and lawful authority before it flies. Having one without the other invites either suppression of evidence or administrative penalties for non-compliant equipment.

1
The Florida Legislature. Florida Code 934.50 – Searches and Seizure Using a Drone
2
Legal Information Institute. Florida Administrative Code Ann R 60GG-2.0075 – Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Minimum Security Requirements
3
The Florida Legislature. Florida Code 286.101 – Foreign Gifts and Contracts
4
Defense Innovation Unit. Blue UAS Refresh List, Framework Platforms and Capabilities Selected
5
Florida Department of Law Enforcement. FY25-26 Drone Replacement Program