When the Trump administration announced yesterday that it was banning “advanced robotic devices” from entering the United States, the headlines were all about humanoids. But spying doesn’t require legs — and neither does the FCC’s robot ban. The robot ban will sweep up robot vacuum cleaners too, FCC media relations director Katie Gorscak confirms to The Verge.
It’s not coming for your existing Roomba, and companies can keep importing and selling already approved ones. But the government claims that future foreign robots pose a national security risk, and even robovac companies are suddenly being asked to commit to US manufacturing. While the government did include “humanoid robots” and “quadrupeds” among the bots it wants to ban, the ban is far broader than that. It covers almost any new software-controlled robot that travels over the ground, weighs more than 4.4 pounds (including any dock), can perceive its environment, and has wireless connectivity.
By that definition, the FCC is banning future robot lawnmowers, sidewalk delivery robots, and the robots that crate around packages at your local Amazon warehouse, too. How the government defines the “advanced robotic devices” that will be banned from import is clarified in the FCC's National Security Determination, which explicitly calls out previous reporting on the incredibly poor security that let one man access 7,000 DJI robovacs around the world.
But like the consumer router ban, the FCC isn’t actually targeting companies with poor security. It’s targeting basically every robovac company, regardless of their security practices — because basically every robovac is manufactured outside the US. The FCC is literally demonizing human and dog-shaped robots in its promotional image, but that’s the tip of the iceberg.
Even before the US-based maker of the Roomba went bankrupt, its robots were built by a Chinese company. Just like Apple and Google and most every other gadget brand, these things are not produced domestically. Today, the vast majority of robot vacuums are designed by Chinese companies, too — all of the top five, including Roborock, Ecovacs, Dreame, Xiaomi, and Narwal, are Chinese entities. Even Dyson is turning to Chinese manufacturers. Following bankruptcy, the Roomba brand is now owned by a Chinese company too, its former contract manufacturer Picea.
“There are very few non-Chinese brands these days and their share is so small that it’s difficult to track,” IDC analyst Jitesh Ubrani tells The Verge. Even Matic, our top robovac pick that’s assembled in California, may have to apply for a waiver for new models. It doesn’t yet source 65 percent of components from the United States, co-founder and CEO Mehul Nariyawala tells The Verge. Because yes, even US companies need to swear their robots are made in the US to get the government’s waiver. Meanwhile, foreign companies will need to swear they’re investing in US manufacturing — or lie, like that DJI front company I wrote about.
If Trump and Carr were focused on actually protecting US citizens from the incredibly worrying security practices of smart home companies, I might argue that the FCC shouldn’t exempt cleaning robots, as they can spy just as effectively as a humanoid. The DJI Romo robovac was a chilling example, letting someone on the other side of the planet map out my colleague Thomas Ricker’s home, but it gets much worse — read about the robot lawnmower that ran me over to hear how. But again, the government isn’t asking these companies any questions about security — not one — to get the waiver that lets them through. The FCC only wants to know where they’re designed and made and assembled and tested and influenced, and get a specific commitment to start manufacturing them in the US instead.
Even then, it appears the FCC will simply preference US companies without any new commitments to security or US manufacturing, like it did when it almost immediately let Netgear off the hook — even though Netgear’s routers were among those targeted in the Volt Typhoon incident that helped justify the router ban to begin with. Four unnamed sources told Reuters that “the FCC is expected to exempt many non-Chinese suppliers from the restrictions.” The government isn’t de facto banning every type of robot made outside the US without its special waiver. It already has exceptions for self-driving cars and trains, unmanned aircraft and underwater vehicles, surgical robots, wheelchairs, and fixed robot arms for industrial and medical use. But most robots now have an uncertain future in the United States.
It’s also worth repeating that the FCC is not coming for your existing robots, just like it isn’t coming for your existing routers or drones. But it’s also worth repeating that if these gadgets truly pose a national security risk, it’s kind of silly to do nothing about the ones we’ve already purchased. Jennifer Pattison Tuohy contributed reporting.
The ban has sparked widespread debate about the balance between national security and consumer choice. Critics argue that the broad definition of “advanced robotic devices” could stifle innovation and competition, as many emerging technologies—from autonomous lawnmowers to indoor delivery robots—will now face additional hurdles to enter the US market. Consumer electronics analysts point out that the ban may accelerate the shift of manufacturing to the United States, but that process is slow and expensive. For instance, building a robot vacuum factory in the US could take years and require billions in investment, while the ban takes effect almost immediately.
Another concern is that the ban may inadvertently hurt US companies that rely on foreign-made components. Even American robotics startups often source motors, sensors, and circuit boards from overseas suppliers, mainly in China and Southeast Asia. Under the new rules, any robot that contains a foreign-made part could potentially be blocked unless the entire system is re-certified. The waiver process is still unclear, and many companies worry about the bureaucracy involved.
Meanwhile, privacy advocates note that the ban does not address the underlying security flaws in smart home devices. Instead of requiring better encryption, default password policies, or regular security updates, the government is simply restricting imports based on origin. This approach has been criticized as shortsighted; a robot made in the US could still be insecure if the manufacturer neglects security. The DJI incident was a case of poor security, not Chinese espionage, and similar vulnerabilities could exist in any internet-connected device.
Legal experts are also questioning the FCC’s authority to impose such a sweeping ban. The FCC typically regulates radio frequency devices, not the import of products based on country of origin. The National Security Determination used to justify the ban is a rarely used tool, and its application to consumer robotics may face court challenges. The Congressional Research Service has noted that the ban could be seen as a trade restriction, potentially violating World Trade Organization agreements if it discriminates against specific countries without clear evidence of spying.
As the situation develops, companies that manufacture robot vacuums, lawn mowers, and delivery robots are scrambling to understand the new rules. Some are considering relocating production to the US or finding partners with domestic factories. Others are lobbying for exemptions or a longer phase-in period. Consumer groups recommend that anyone planning to buy a robot vacuum or similar device should do so immediately before the ban affects supply, though used models will remain unaffected.
The broader implications extend to the growing field of service robotics. Robots used in healthcare, education, and hospitality may also fall under the ban if they meet the weight and connectivity criteria. For example, telepresence robots that move on wheels and weigh over 4.4 pounds could be subject to the ban, potentially disrupting hospitals and schools that rely on them. The FCC has not clarified all edge cases, leaving many industries in uncertainty.
In summary, the US government’s ban on foreign advanced robots is a major policy shift with far-reaching consequences. It aims to reduce national security risks by limiting the influx of potentially spy-capable devices, but it does so at the cost of consumer choice and industry innovation. The coming months will reveal how companies adapt, whether the waiver system works, and if the ban actually improves security — or simply moves manufacturing elsewhere.
Source:The Verge News