Who Wins and Who Loses After US Bans Foreign Robots? (arstechnica.com) 91
The FCC's ban on Chinese-made robots extends well beyond humanoids to quadrupeds, research platforms, and many robot vacuums from allied countries. Supporters call it a major boost for domestic robotics, but critics warn that cutting researchers and startups off from affordable foreign hardware could slow U.S. innovation instead. Ars Technica's Jeremy Hsu examines who stands to gain and who stands to lose from the prohibition: Such an import ban would apply to some of the most affordable robots primarily produced by Chinese companies, including Unitree's humanoid robots that are used by robotics labs and researchers for tasks such as experimental robot surgeries. US consumers would also likely lose access to the newest robot vacuum cleaners that are mainly manufactured by Chinese companies such as Roborock. But the ban also broadly applies to foreign-made robots produced by countries nominally allied to the United States, including Japan, South Korea, and Germany. [...]
The ban on foreign-made robots could theoretically encourage more US and foreign companies to set up manufacturing facilities in the United States. There are already multiple companies racing to scale up production of humanoid robots in US factories, including Agility Robotics, 1X Technologies, and Figure AI. Tesla has been attempting to shift production away from older electric vehicle models and toward its Optimus humanoid robot. Boston Dynamics has already been making its Atlas humanoid robot, along with its four-legged Spot robot and wheeled Stretch robot, at its main facility in Waltham, Massachusetts. The US robotics company is also planning to massively scale up manufacturing of the Atlas robot under South Korea's Hyundai Motor Company, which gained full ownership of Boston Dynamics in July 2026.
"This is one of the strongest technology-security actions in modern US history," wrote Evan Beard, CEO of Standard Bots, in a LinkedIn post. "The message is unambiguous: robotics is a technology America must lead and own -- and foreign-subsidized robots will not be allowed to unfairly dominate US robotics as they did solar." Similar praise came from Rush Doshi, director of the Initiative on China Strategy at the Council on Foreign Relations, who, in a social media post, described the FCC decision as "one of the most significant actions taken so far in support of the US robotics ecosystem."
However, several robotics researchers and analysts interviewed by The Robot Report expressed skepticism about any potential boost to US competitiveness in robotics. Some even warned that the ban could prove counterproductive for US robotics efforts to develop humanoid robots. "In the near term, the measure could slow US physical AI innovation by cutting startups and researchers off from future low-cost Chinese platforms before comparable Western alternatives exist," said Georg Stieler, a global robotics advisor and managing director for Asia at Stieler Technology & Market Advisory, in an interview with The Robot Report.
US domestic production of robots lags behind China in terms of mass manufacturing at lower cost, said Rueben Scriven, a senior analyst at Interact Analysis. "This announcement is more likely to inhibit the US humanoid robotics industry, as the presence of low-cost Chinese humanoid robots has been helping educate the US market through promotional and entertainment use cases -- an effect this policy risks undermining," Scriven told The Robot Report. The report notes that previous FCC bans have done little to help create competitive U.S. alternatives, with restrictions on Chinese drones instead prompting companies to sell barely disguised versions of DJI technology.
The ban on foreign-made robots could theoretically encourage more US and foreign companies to set up manufacturing facilities in the United States. There are already multiple companies racing to scale up production of humanoid robots in US factories, including Agility Robotics, 1X Technologies, and Figure AI. Tesla has been attempting to shift production away from older electric vehicle models and toward its Optimus humanoid robot. Boston Dynamics has already been making its Atlas humanoid robot, along with its four-legged Spot robot and wheeled Stretch robot, at its main facility in Waltham, Massachusetts. The US robotics company is also planning to massively scale up manufacturing of the Atlas robot under South Korea's Hyundai Motor Company, which gained full ownership of Boston Dynamics in July 2026.
"This is one of the strongest technology-security actions in modern US history," wrote Evan Beard, CEO of Standard Bots, in a LinkedIn post. "The message is unambiguous: robotics is a technology America must lead and own -- and foreign-subsidized robots will not be allowed to unfairly dominate US robotics as they did solar." Similar praise came from Rush Doshi, director of the Initiative on China Strategy at the Council on Foreign Relations, who, in a social media post, described the FCC decision as "one of the most significant actions taken so far in support of the US robotics ecosystem."
However, several robotics researchers and analysts interviewed by The Robot Report expressed skepticism about any potential boost to US competitiveness in robotics. Some even warned that the ban could prove counterproductive for US robotics efforts to develop humanoid robots. "In the near term, the measure could slow US physical AI innovation by cutting startups and researchers off from future low-cost Chinese platforms before comparable Western alternatives exist," said Georg Stieler, a global robotics advisor and managing director for Asia at Stieler Technology & Market Advisory, in an interview with The Robot Report.
US domestic production of robots lags behind China in terms of mass manufacturing at lower cost, said Rueben Scriven, a senior analyst at Interact Analysis. "This announcement is more likely to inhibit the US humanoid robotics industry, as the presence of low-cost Chinese humanoid robots has been helping educate the US market through promotional and entertainment use cases -- an effect this policy risks undermining," Scriven told The Robot Report. The report notes that previous FCC bans have done little to help create competitive U.S. alternatives, with restrictions on Chinese drones instead prompting companies to sell barely disguised versions of DJI technology.
China wins (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla doesn't lose as they were never actually going to mass produce affordable humanoid robots with AI anyway.
Ironically anyone who wanted to build a factory in the US because of tarriffs and wanted to use chinese robots with legs to help automate that factory may now be losers too. Interestingly robots with legs have been around since at least 1813 when they built Brunton's Mechanical Traveller, which was terrifying but only ended up killing 13 people.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? China needs exports more than anyone else needs imports. Exports carry their entire economy. Domestic demand has collapsed.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely stupid policy. My former employer bought Fanuc robots from Japan and they were the best-of-breed. If you want to support small American businesses, give them access to the best-of-breed technology. If Chinese produces more advanced robots, then American businesses should be allowed to implement them. If American robotics companies are to succeed, they'll need to be more innovative.
Re: (Score:2)
Conflicted (Score:5, Interesting)
On the one hand, Trump and his idiotic fixation "America First!" goes against all sorts of (unbiased) economic wisdom. I'm strongly against protectionist policies.
But on the flip side, I work in this industry, and China is well known for blatantly stealing American IP. If they won't play by international IP rules, something like this feels like the right response ... I just question if it's really, long-term the right approach, or just a knee-jerk reaction that won't help (and may hurt).
Protectionist and retaliatory tariffs different (Score:5, Informative)
Let's say one nation is using unfair labor and environmental policies to attain a 20% reduction in manufacturing costs in order to attract clients. A retaliatory tariff of 20% removes that advantage, leveling the playing field.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, but first off, we're talking about bans here (not tariffs).
Still, lumping them together ... what makes it "not retaliatory" and protectionist? Surely it's both to a degree? Some % of it came from Trump liking protectionism, and some % came from people getting fed up with China's practices?
Earned vs unearned (Score:2)
“Retaliatory” is earned with respect to some unfairness.
“Protectionist” is preemptive, an attempt to support domestic entities from fair competition. In other words, unearned.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. No difference whatsoever except the propaganda used to justify them. They are identical in every way.
What about offsetting the economic advantage of a predatory trade practice confused you?
Re: (Score:2)
But again, how do you separate the two?
If China flouts international law for years, but there's no specific trigger for a US response, is that protectionist (again, there was no specific trigger) or retaliatory (for the years of flouting international law)?
In the real world things aren't white or black: every government action can't be cleanly divided into neat categories.
Re: (Score:2)
But again, how do you separate the two?
By whether you are responding to predatory practices, that makes it retaliatory.
If China flouts international law for years, but there's no specific trigger for a US response, is that protectionist (again, there was no specific trigger) or retaliatory (for the years of flouting international law)?
In the real world things aren't white or black: every government action can't be cleanly divided into neat categories.
I’m referring to a predatory practice that provides some economic advantage. You are referring to some general violation of international law that falls outside the previous? I suppose tariffs could be used in that case but it seems more common to use some sort of sanctions.
Tariffs are a tool. The motivation and context of their use makes them helpful or not.
Re: (Score:2)
“Protectionist” is preemptive
Like when the USA bans poisoned toothpaste and poisoned baby formula without a trade imbalance.
That seems reactive not preemptive. IE, the bans were earned.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And a bigger tariff lets local production massively increase their margins.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's say one nation is using unfair labor and environmental policies to attain a 20% reduction in manufacturing costs in order to attract clients. A retaliatory tariff of 20% removes that advantage, leveling the playing field.
Only if every country does that too and every country is equally invested in that sector. Your argument assumes a 2 sided trade system where both are equal in production and can meet their own needs. If a country like say the US, is only meeting 1% of its needs from domestic production like with solar panels, and proceeds to impose tariffs on every imported one then rather than being protective it is crippling. A far more effective strategy in many cases, especially in areas of national security like pow
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say one nation is using unfair labor and environmental policies to attain a 20% reduction in manufacturing costs in order to attract clients. A retaliatory tariff of 20% removes that advantage, leveling the playing field.
Only if every country does that too and every country is equally invested in that sector.
No, it works quite well in your own country. By removing the unfair economic advantage your domestic manufactures are now competitive. Offshore manufacture is a PITA, it requires a significant economic advantage to offset that inconvenience.
Your argument assumes a 2 sided trade system where both are equal in production and can meet their own needs.
No, trading partners are often replaceable. If one is unfair a company can move to another. For example Apple moving the manufacturing of iPhones for the US market from China to Vietnam.
If a country like say the US, is only meeting 1% of its needs from domestic production like with solar panels, and proceeds to impose tariffs on every imported one then rather than being protective it is crippling.
No, solar panels are a nice to have, not a must have. Also, domestic manufacture of s
Re: (Score:3)
You're focusing on the US. What are other countries seeing? My guess is that they're seeing China as a more reliable vendor.
Re: (Score:3)
China has done its very best to be a reliable source for a lot of things. The US has done its very best to not even be a reliable customer.
Re: (Score:2)
You are biting off your nose to spite your face.
Capitalism works and this is NOT capitalism.
It is totally true that China steals IP. But most of that is done by the companies in China that American hire to manufacture their products. The solution is to laugh in the face of American companies that decide to manufacture things in China, collect their tears and drink deeply. They want to save money this year to lose in next year. Do not yell at the car thieves, yell at the people that willingly gave them
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Interesting)
If you ever bother to read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," (the "Father of Capitalism," the book that lays it out as an economic theory) you'll discover that anything-goes is what came before Capitalism, and the problems associated with that are what Capitalism was supposed to fix.
Capitalism is when the government peers over the shoulders of business and regulates the economy to ensure that any small competitor with enough Capital to set up shop is able to compete. If a foreign country doesn't fall under a nation's regulation, and is damaging the ability of local small businesses to compete, then banning the import of their products is exactly the solution that would restore actual, real-life "Capitalism."
Unfortunately people left, right, and center are using the word "Capitalism" to describe oligarchy, fascism, and even feudalist economic practices.
The problem with this policy for Capitalism is that the current government can't be trusted to follow through with anything. If a small business responds to this by investing, next week the policy might reverse after China promises some politician's son a business deal.
Re: Conflicted (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that Ayn Rand that rained damnation and fire on any public support for individuals, then later used it herself?
Re: (Score:2)
capitalism is not anarchic - it is a controlled free market
Capitalism doesn't specify whether the market is free or not, only that capital controls the means of production.
expecting latter day Sloshdatters to read Adam Smith or Ayn Rand may be a bit much
Expecting anyone to read Ayn Rand is far too much. Her writing was terrible, her characters were caricatures, her ideas were borrowed from a criminal, and she was a hypocrite through and through. You cannot learn anything of value from a person like that except how not to behave.
Re: (Score:2)
Ayn Rand commenting on Capitalism is exactly what the right rails against; she was an art student who never got an education in business, and 100% of the businesses she was involved in during her life were flops.
We The Living and The Fountainhead were masterpieces, but that's because her focus was not yet on trying to champion right wing politics.
Her later works that the righties like to point to are complete trash. And everything is through the lens of the Russian Revolution, where the enemy is "collectivi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If, instead of spewing whatever you heard, you instead read Wealth of Nations you'd find that Adam Smith gives numerous examples of sort of problems that people attempting to start a business with only capital, and no political protection, faced.
Don't pretend like you're 'splaining something.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything goes [youtube.com] sounds quite good to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic, when you consider all the AI companies exist by their ability to rip and mimic IP stolen for training data.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans blatantly "steal" Chinese IP as well, that's how technology progresses. Or do you think that if China wants to build an airplane they should have to invent a whole new airfoil rather than "steal" from the Wright brothers? I personally have come to think that the whole idea of "imaginary property" is more of a drag on our civilization than a benefit. I used to be of the opposite opinion but the more I learned about the history of technology the less value protecting IP seemed to have for society
Re: (Score:2)
That's really bizarre straw man to choose, considering how long the Wright Brother's patents have been expired.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much everyone ignored the Wright brothers' patents at the time, if they hadn't the worldwide aviation industry would have have been stunted for decades.
Aircraft just have an obvious beginning that pretty much everyone is aware of, feel free to pick your own example.
Re: (Score:2)
Their airfoil design was what got the aviation industry under way, no one else had worked out an actual functional design yet. Otto Lelienthal for example was killed when his glider stalled because of poor airfoil configuration. IIRC they also worked out the mechanics of a wind tunnel trying to figure out the correct shape.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Everybody steals from everybody. It is normal. And even artificial boundaries to that (patents, copyright) were originally supposed to only be short-term, because long-term they do more damage than good. The picture that the US does not steal is as wrong as it could be. The US has and is stealing trade-secrets, engineering concepts, designs, etc., using even its TLAs and everybody knows it. Everybody else is doing the same.
This is how things work. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As usual the Chinese robots seem to be capable of things that American ones can't do, so claiming that it's all stolen IP doesn't really work, unless you think they have a time machine and are stealing stuff you guys haven't invented yet.
Anyway, banning them won't help you. You will just fall further behind, as usual, and then complain that they are "cheating" and that's why they can out-perform US manufacturing. In reality, they put in the work to develop robotics, clean energy, long and deep supply chains
Re: Conflicted (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody does it. It is how things work and progress. Some people are just in denial or cannot compete in that game and hence cry for help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, Trump and his idiotic fixation "America First!" goes against all sorts of (unbiased) economic wisdom. I'm strongly against protectionist policies.
But on the flip side, I work in this industry, and China is well known for blatantly stealing American IP. If they won't play by international IP rules, something like this feels like the right response ... I just question if it's really, long-term the right approach, or just a knee-jerk reaction that won't help (and may hurt).
IMO, we shouldn't be banning unless there are real, verifiable security concerns.
Instead, we should be using a combination of tariffs on Chinese robotics, subsidies and R&D investment at home, partnerships with emerging robotic makers like Vietnam, or partnerships with Mexico where there's a robust and growing deployment and software development industry for robotics and automation.
We cannot be an isolated autarky, so we need to treat this as an onion: Strengthen our position at home first, collabo
Re: (Score:2)
If there are real, verifiable security concerns, force them to deliver their software openly and with sources and the build-system. That, incidentally, should also be done for all other device makers, especially those with really bad security track records, like Cisco. Security track records to bad that it seems likely they place a lot of these remotely exploitable bugs intentionally.
Let's see (Score:2)
Couldn't afford a humanoid robot before.
Still can't afford a humanoid robot now.
Honestly, the ban on new models of connected power inverters (which also slipped into this along with the robot ban) seems more likely to impact average folks. Especially here in Florida where some people do use backup batteries to keep things running during storm-related outages.
You could try talking to a real live girl. (Score:2)
Couldn't afford a humanoid robot before.
Still can't afford a humanoid robot now.
Well, you could try talking to a real live girl. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could try talking to a real live girl. ;-)
I thought it was rather common knowledge around here by now, but I'm gay. If I had a humanoid robot I'd make it do things like clean the cat box [imgur.com] and unload the dishwasher. Probably not in that order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was rather common knowledge around here by now
Nobody knows or cares about that. There's already automatic self-cleaning catboxes.
Unload the dishwasher?! Fuck an A, you already have a robot washing your dishes for you, you can't even pick up a plate? If you don't like unloading it... don't. Lots of people don't unload it. The dishes are perfectly safe in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Most gadgets that automate household tasks really just involve trading one type of activity for another that is less labor intensive. "Robo mowers", for example, will keep the lawn trimmed but don't do the edging, weeding, or blowing the lawn debris away afterwards. Dish and clothes washers have to be manually loaded and unloaded. I'm sure an automatic cat box also requires various maintenance tasks to be done manually, otherwise it will eventually clog up with too much waste. Plus, if you've ever read
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could try talking to a real live girl. ;-)
I thought it was rather common knowledge around here by now, but I'm gay.
Didn’t know. Don’t care. Will probably forget. Apologies for any similar mistakes in the future should I forget. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Inverters are a small amount of control electronics and (hopefully) some high quality, expensive power electronics.
There is no good reason they can't be produced locally.
You know what really hurts "average folks?" Allowing importers to use dumping to put local companies out of business, and the damage those job losses do to the economy.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no good reason they can't be produced locally.
The "good reason" is that there's no vertical integration producing inverters domestically. You're basically buying IKEA style inverter kits from overseas and then paying American wages to the skeleton crew babysitting the automated machines in the factory that assemble the parts into completed products.
But you get to slap a "Made in America" sticker on 'em in the end, so it's all good.
Easy (Score:3, Funny)
The guy who lifts the ban after he's given a shiny award.
The US loses (Score:2)
Obviously. Why is that even a question?
Replacing the onboard code (Score:2)
instead prompting companies to sell barely disguised versions of DJI technology.
If the onboard software is completely replaced with US developed code, that alone would be a big win. Who made electric motors and plastic components a lesser concern.
Re: (Score:2)
DJI code is superior anyhow
Entire replaceable, and likely improvable.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean US software which is known to get compromised by the NSA as opposed to Chinese software where proof of that is still missing? Yeah, great approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the person that does not follow the relevant news.
leading requires cooperation (Score:2)
If we ban all foreign robots, other countries will be retaliatory if possible (and I don't see why it isn't possible), which means we won't be leading anyone except ourselves.
Consumers always lose (Score:5, Insightful)
The aim of the game is to try to benefit U.S. billionaires. You WILL buy their inferior and overpriced products.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I never buy the inferior and overpriced products. :P
Re: (Score:2)
When Musk announced his Optimus robot (trademark lawsuit presumably pending), he had a guy in spandex walk mechanically on stage, and then start dancing.
Little did we know, that was apparently his entire plan. The current version is remotely operated by a guy with a VR headset.
Elon Musk invented employment, only you don't even have to look at the poor pleb, only a sleek, faceless robot. He literally dehumanized work.
Ban on a state level too (Score:2)
Think of all the jobs that could be created in each state!
Re: (Score:2)
No incentive to innovate though, when you have a captive market with no competition. It'll be the same situation as with cars - dogshit vehicles years behind China.
Re: (Score:2)
No robo-vacs?? (Score:1)
The only places outside of China that make robo-vacs charge an arm and a RAM chip.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no room for competition at the low end of the market when the CCP is going to subsidize dumping to capture that section of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
And where do you think they get all that money for all that massive subsidizing you claim they do? Right. They do not. This is a pure hallucination on your part.
Re: (Score:2)
where do you think they get all that money for all that massive subsidizing you claim they do
They have a higher corporate tax rate and actually collect corporate taxes. Ask a hard one.
Re: (Score:2)
Sooo, they get money from their enterprises via high tax that they then give back to subsidize them? How does that work?
Re: (Score:2)
Sooo, they get money from their enterprises via high tax that they then give back to subsidize them? How does that work?
It is not all industries [internatio...irs.org.au], which is why it's possible. They were subsidizing solar panels for example, now it's EVs [ustr.gov]. And crypto mining [cato.org]. And food [usda.gov].
This is not to say nobody else does the same thing, but nobody can do it on the same scale, because nobody has as much manufacturing as China. (How we got there is of course of interest, but not relevant to this conversation.)
Re: (Score:2)
So they are using their economic power to increase their economic power. How is that different from what everybody else does?
Seriously, there is a lot wrong with China, but this is not one of these things. Or rather this is something wrong with basically everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
there is a lot wrong with China, but this is not one of these things. Or rather this is something wrong with basically everybody.
It's wrong because it's against rules to which they agreed. If everyone is doing it, then everyone is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
And what rules would those be?
Re: (Score:1)
> Sooo, they get money from their enterprises via high tax that they then give back to subsidize them? How does that work?
It allows them to take money from established "cash cow" industries to prop up the expansion of selected industries. It's roughly comparable to Microsoft subsidizing an up-and-coming product or category using all their Windows and MS-Office profits, often bankrupting competitors in the process.
Re: (Score:1)
Xi can't subsidize everything.
American workers win (for now) (Score:2)
What few manufacturing jobs are left in the United States are under threat from humanoid robots. Reducing the supply of cheap, subsidized exports slows the almost-inevitable process of replacing human workers with robots.
Re:American Luddites win (for now) (Score:2)
Got along nottobad without humanoid robot so far (Score:2)
Instead of buying consumer robots (Score:2)
How about buying industrial robots that helps with large scale domestic production?
Don't buy fish, buy fishing rods.
I think some simple long term thinking is missing here.
What's stopping beefing up manufacturing capacity using robots? Hopefully it's not the unions.
A lot of things are in the way of progress here. (Score:2)
Any ethical concern other than the environment, is superfluous.
e.g.
would it become too intelligent?
would it take someone's job?
would it make someone feel emotionally hurt?
would it stop people talking face to face?
would it change our traditional way of life?
would it make young people escape supervision?
would it make people blind or lose hair?
That's why other countries are taking over in terms of progress. Just try it out and see what happens, geez.
Re: (Score:2)
Any ethical concern other than the environment, is superfluous.
In that case, you should be killed and fed into a wood chipper aimed at some depleted soil, because that would be environmentally beneficial. Maybe think for at least two seconds before writing something like that. If you want people to believe you're a human, have some human considerations.
Re: (Score:2)
> you should be killed
Off-topic. Obviously anything that's unethical to a point where there already are laws worldwide against it, is not part of this opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to add - the "would it make people blind or lose hair" was a reference to when the light bulb was invented.
Robots are not banned (Score:2)
The only lever the FCC has here is withholding certification for the radios. It does not have the authority to ban robots. China could produce a robot without RF communication or use bands outside of FCCs ability to control.