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.
It was already clear from the government’s ban announcement that it was thinking about robot vacuums. In the National Security Determination that the FCC is using to justify the ban, the government explicitly calls out 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.
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 worrisome 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 a colleague’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.
To understand the full scope of this ban, it helps to look at the history of FCC actions on national security grounds. The FCC previously banned certain Chinese-made routers and telecom equipment, citing similar concerns. That ban led to a wave of industry pushback and confusion, with many companies scrambling to prove their products were not a threat. The same pattern is now playing out in the robot industry.
Robot vacuums have become a staple in millions of homes worldwide. They are equipped with cameras, lidar sensors, and microphones, and they connect to the internet to sync maps and schedules. This makes them potential surveillance devices, as demonstrated by the DJI incident where a security researcher gained access to thousands of units. The FCC argues that foreign-owned companies could be compelled by their governments to use these devices for espionage.
However, critics point out that the ban does not address actual security vulnerabilities. Instead, it focuses solely on the geographic origin of the hardware and software. Security experts argue that a US-made robot could just as easily be insecure, and that the government should mandate minimum security standards rather than imposing a blanket ban based on nationality.
The ban also has significant economic implications. The robot vacuum market is dominated by Chinese firms that have invested heavily in research and production. US consumers have come to rely on affordable, feature-rich devices from these companies. A ban could lead to shortages, higher prices, and reduced innovation. Some US companies, like iRobot (maker of Roomba), have already struggled to compete and eventually went bankrupt. The brand was acquired by a Chinese firm, making it subject to the ban.
Smaller startups and foreign companies face an uncertain path forward. They must either move production to the US — a costly and time-consuming process — or apply for a waiver. The waiver process itself is opaque, and it is unclear how the FCC will evaluate applications. The agency has not published clear criteria, leading to concerns about favoritism and political influence.
Meanwhile, the ban does not affect existing robots already in the US. Millions of potentially insecure devices remain in people's homes, and the government has offered no plan to address that risk. This has led to criticism that the ban is more about protectionism and political messaging than about actual security.
Industry analysts predict that the ban could reshape the global robotics supply chain. US companies may accelerate domestic manufacturing, but that will take years and may not achieve the scale needed to meet demand. In the meantime, consumers and businesses could face a fragmented market where some robots are legal and others are not.
The ban also covers other types of robots, such as lawnmowers and delivery bots. Sidewalk delivery robots, used by companies like Starship Technologies, are now at risk. These robots typically weigh between 20 and 100 pounds and rely on cameras and GPS to navigate. They are manufactured overseas. Amazon's warehouse robots, which move packages around fulfillment centers, might be exempt because they operate in controlled environments, but the definition is broad.
Humanoid robots, which have gained attention recently, are explicitly included. Companies like Tesla, Boston Dynamics, and Figure have developed humanoid robots for industrial and domestic use. If those robots are made outside the US, they could be banned. This could impact the development of next-generation robotics technologies.
The timing of the ban is notable, coming just months before a presidential election. Some see it as a political move to appeal to voters concerned about national security and foreign competition. Others view it as a legitimate step to protect US interests, albeit one that could have been better thought out.
In response, several trade associations have filed comments with the FCC, arguing that the ban is too broad and will harm US consumers and businesses. They have requested exemptions and a longer transition period. The FCC has not yet responded.
Consumers are left wondering what to do. If you are in the market for a robot vacuum, the current options are still available, but future models may not be. Prices may rise as supply tightens. Some companies may pivot to domestic assembly to comply, but that could take months or years.
The ban also raises questions about the role of the FCC in regulating consumer devices. Traditionally, the FCC focused on electromagnetic interference and spectrum use. Now it is wading into national security and trade policy. Legal experts suggest that the commission may be overstepping its authority, but court challenges are likely to come.
Ultimately, the US government's ban on Roombas and other robots is a significant policy shift. It reflects a growing focus on reducing dependence on foreign technology, particularly from China. Whether it will achieve its security goals or cause more problems remains to be seen. As the rules take effect, the industry and consumers will have to adapt to a new era of regulated robotics.
Source:The Verge News