The Drone Clause Hands Its Operating Bar to Every Tier
If you hand FAR 52.240-1 down the chain the way you hand down Section 889, keeping the use question at your own desk, the supplier who flies a quadcopter over your job site is working without a prohibition its subcontract was supposed to carry. Your own contract required you to put it there.
FAR 40.202-8 already puts the clause "in all solicitations and contracts," and FAR 40.202-2 applies the section to "all acquisitions, including contracts at or below the micro-purchase threshold and to contracts for commercial products or for commercial services." There is no dollar floor and no commercial exit. As of September 25, 2026 the clause is live in its November 2024 form. FAR Case 2026-001, a proposed rule published June 23, 2026, would move the drone prohibition, with Section 889 and other security prohibitions, into one clause at FAR 52.240-3; no final rule has published as of September 25, 2026.
Three prohibitions, each written against the contractor
Paragraph (b) opens with "The Contractor is prohibited from" and then names three acts:
- Delivering a FASC-prohibited unmanned aircraft system, the drone and its associated elements alike.
- Operating one in the performance of the contract, on or after December 22, 2025.
- Using Federal funds to procure or operate one, on or after December 22, 2025.
A system is FASC-prohibited when it is "manufactured or assembled by an American Security Drone Act-covered foreign entity," and a covered entity is one on a list the Federal Acquisition Security Council maintains, published in the System for Award Management. The clause names no manufacturer. The list decides.
The statute saw the subcontracted flight coming. Section 1824 of the American Security Drone Act bars federal agencies from operating a covered system, and subsection (a)(2) extends that bar to systems used "through the method of contracting for the services." The flights an agency buys from a contractor are the flights the operating limb was written for.
What paragraph (e) sends down
Paragraph (e) of 52.240-1 is one sentence. "The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in all subcontracts and other contractual instruments, including subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services."
Set it beside the flow-down sentence in the Section 889 clause, FAR 52.204-25(e), which inserts the substance "including this paragraph (e) and excluding paragraph (b)(2)." The two sentences are built the same way, apart from that one exclusion.
In 52.204-25 the excluded use limb recites what the agency may not do and carries no sentence beginning "The Contractor is prohibited from," so the use question stays with the prime. In 52.240-1 the operating limb sits under that very phrase. It reads "On or after December 22, 2025, operating a FASC-prohibited unmanned aircraft system in the performance of the contract," and paragraph (e) carves nothing out. The operating bar is a term of the contractor's own paper, and it travels to every tier with paragraph (e) attached, commercial subcontracts included.
So the Section 889 habit is the wrong habit here. A subcontract that carries 52.240-1 with paragraph (b)(2) trimmed, or that carries a delivery bar and nothing else, has not inserted the substance of the clause.
The bar attaches to performance. A supplier holding the flowed-down clause may not operate a prohibited system in performing its subcontract; the clause says nothing about that supplier's other work.
The search comes before the proposal
Paragraph (c) goes down with the rest. It requires a search of SAM for the FASC-maintained list "prior to proposing, or using in performance of the contract, any unmanned aircraft system." That search comes before every drone the supplier proposes or flies on the work, not just one it suspects is on the list.
The definitions decide which aircraft trigger that search. Unmanned aircraft is borrowed from 49 U.S.C. 44801(11) with no weight floor, so a two-pound quadcopter is inside. The test is whether direct human intervention is possible from within or on the aircraft, so a remotely piloted drone is inside too. The system includes its communication links and the components that control the aircraft. A ground robot or a surface vessel is outside, because neither is an aircraft.
The FCC's drone entry runs on place of production. This clause runs on who manufactured or assembled the system and whether that entity is on the list. The FCC's proposed drone prohibition carves out the Blue UAS Cleared List, Conditional Approval holders and continued use of units already purchased. None of those carve-outs appears in 52.240-1.
Exceptions live in the contract
Paragraph (d) lifts the prohibitions where "the agency has determined an exemption, exception, or waiver applies and the contract indicates that such a determination has been made." Paragraph (c) adds that any effort or expenditure tied to a prohibited system has to be "consistent with a corresponding exemption, exception, or waiver determination expressly stated in the contract."
The statute's own exceptions in section 1832 cover wildfire management, search and rescue, intelligence activities, and Tribal law enforcement or emergency service agencies on Indian lands. A supplier that believes its work fits one of them still needs the agency's determination written into the contract, whatever its own view of the work.
The operating and funding limbs have bound contractors since December 22, 2025. Section 1833 keeps the statutory prohibitions behind them in effect until December 22, 2028.
A subcontract that went out with paragraph (b)(2) trimmed sent a supplier onto your job without the operating bar. If the aircraft it flies was manufactured or assembled by a listed entity, its subcontract carried no bar on operating that aircraft on the work. The missing term is a gap in your own compliance, because paragraph (e) of your contract required you to insert it.