News: 0184755868

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Who Wins and Who Loses After US Bans Foreign Robots? (arstechnica.com)

(Wednesday July 29, 2026 @11:30PM (BeauHD) from the pros-and-cons dept.)


The FCC's [1]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 [2]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 [3]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 [4]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 [5]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 [6]restrictions on Chinese drones instead prompting companies to sell [7]barely disguised versions of DJI technology .



[1] https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/26/07/29/0441240/trump-administration-bans-new-chinese-humanoid-robots

[2] https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/07/who-wins-and-who-loses-after-us-bans-foreign-robots/

[3] https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7487993956790640640/

[4] https://x.com/RushDoshi/status/2082232082856554587?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[5] https://www.therobotreport.com/industry-reacts-fcc-ban-u-s-imports-new-humanoid-quadruped-robots/

[6] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/12/23/0036201/fcc-bans-foreign-made-drones-over-national-security-spying-concerns

[7] https://www.theverge.com/report/969725/fcc-drone-ban-odyssey-robot-galiview-etak-randolph-howard-eason



China wins (Score:3)

by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 )

as they always do.

Re: (Score:2)

by Morromist ( 1207276 )

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.

Conflicted (Score:5, Interesting)

by machineghost ( 622031 )

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:4, Informative)

by drnb ( 2434720 )

It's not really "the flip side". Protectionist tariffs and retaliatory tariffs are two very different things. Retaliatory tariffs are an essential part of the system, helping to establish fair trade. Fair trade as in an equal playing field. Which is different than balanced trade, equal amounts flowing in both direction. Here too, something different.

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:2)

by machineghost ( 622031 )

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?

Re: (Score:2)

by preflex ( 1840068 )

Indeed. And a bigger tariff lets local production massively increase their margins.

Re: (Score:1)

by HiThere ( 15173 )

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:2)

by gurps_npc ( 621217 )

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: (Score:2)

by backslashdot ( 95548 )

Ironic, when you consider all the AI companies exist by their ability to rip and mimic IP stolen for training data.

Re: (Score:2)

by cusco ( 717999 )

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

Let's see (Score:2)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

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)

by drnb ( 2434720 )

> 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)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

> 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 [1]clean the cat box [imgur.com] and unload the dishwasher. Probably not in that order.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/TcukiWm

Re: (Score:2)

by dsgrntlxmply ( 610492 )

How long does it take it to train the thing to wash its waldos between cat box and dishwasher?

Easy (Score:2, Funny)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

The guy who lifts the ban after he's given a shiny award.

The US loses (Score:2)

by gweihir ( 88907 )

Obviously. Why is that even a question?

Replacing the onboard code (Score:2)

by drnb ( 2434720 )

> 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)

by gweihir ( 88907 )

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.

leading requires cooperation (Score:2)

by bob_jenkins ( 144606 )

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:4, Insightful)

by zephvark ( 1812804 )

The aim of the game is to try to benefit U.S. billionaires. You WILL buy their inferior and overpriced products.

Re: (Score:2)

by gweihir ( 88907 )

Obviously.

Ban on a state level too (Score:2)

by backslashdot ( 95548 )

Think of all the jobs that could be created in each state!

Re: (Score:2)

by SlashDotCanSuckMy777 ( 6182618 )

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.

No robo-vacs?? (Score:1)

by Tablizer ( 95088 )

The only places outside of China that make robo-vacs charge an arm and a RAM chip.

Look, I'm about to buy me a double barreled sawed off shotgun and show
Linus what I think about backspace and delete not working.
-- some anonymous .signature