Wang Zichen on U.S. ban on new Chinese humanoid robots

On Al Jazeera English, CCG Deputy Secretary-General discusses robots, supply chains, employment, and Chinese investment in America

Zichen Wang, Deputy Secretary-General of the Center for China and Globalization (CCG), was invited last week to Al Jazeera English’s Counting the Cost, hosted by Scott McLean, on the news that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had banned new Chinese humanoid robots.

The episode, featured Alan Tonelson, founder of RealityChek, a blog, and Lian Jye Su, Chief Analyst at Omdia, a consultancy.

The transcript is based on the programme video and has been lightly edited to remove fillers and repetition. It has not been reviewed by any of the speakers.

Can the US slow China’s robotics and tech rise? | Counting the Cost

Scott McLean

…They do backflips. They direct traffic. They make your coffee. Humanoid robots are no longer a laboratory experiment — they are a growing market. Morgan Stanley estimates the market could hit $5 trillion by 2050, with more than a billion humanoids in use worldwide.

But there’s a problem, particularly for the U.S. Much of the global robot supply chain runs through China. Beijing now makes robot components at a scale and a price that its competitors struggle to match. Washington has banned new imports of foreign-made humanoid robots, citing national security. It also blocked power inverters used in data centres, and solar too. The move is widely seen as part of a broader effort to protect American industry and limit Beijing’s tech rise.

This dispute over humanoid robots is part of a much bigger tech rivalry between the U.S. and China. Washington has blocked the sale of cutting-edge semiconductors to China, also on national security grounds. Critics say this is aimed at slowing China’s military development and maintaining America’s lead in artificial intelligence. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned that Chinese AI firms may face sanctions over allegations of stealing American intellectual property. There’s also drones, solar panels, electric cars — all of these face steep tariffs aimed at keeping them out of the U.S. market. China has responded with export controls on rare earth minerals. These are vital for a wide range of high-tech products, and China controls most of the global supply.

All right, let’s discuss this further. Joining us from Maryland is Alan Tonelson. He is an economist and founder of RealityChek, a blog which discusses economics, national security, technology, and their intersections.

In Beijing is Zichen Wang. He is the Deputy Secretary General at the Center for China and Globalization, as well as founder and editor of the Pekingnology newsletter.

And finally, in Singapore, is Lian Jye Su, chief analyst at Omdia, a global technology research and advisory firm.

Gentlemen, thank you all so much for being here. I want to ask about the broader humanoid market and also that ban from the United States.

So, last year there were about 13,000 of these humanoid robots shipped around the world — a little bit more than that. You probably haven’t heard of most of these companies, so I’m going to help you out. This one is Chinese. This one’s Chinese. Chinese. Chinese. Chinese. Chinese. You get the idea. The only ones that are American are actually just these three here. So just to make the point here, it’s just literally this slice of the pie right here are the Americans — this is everybody else.

So the FCC says that this is about national security. This is what the FCC chair said recently. Watch.

Brendan Carr, FCC Chairman (voiceover)

These robot dogs, these humanoid robots, these power inverters — all of this is going to be critical to the economy of tomorrow and to our national security, and we’re acting right now to make sure that the U.S. domestic market has a chance to succeed and get investments, so that we don’t become overly dependent on foreign nations.

And it’s great that we’re taking this action now rather than five years from now or 10 years from now, when we realize, whoops, we got too dependent on a critical foreign supply chain. So there’s real national security risks here.

So again, Alan, look at the American market share. It is tiny. Is this truly about national security, or is it about the Americans having a bigger slice of that pie?

Alan Tonelson, Founder of RealityChek

Oh, it is absolutely about national security. In fact, I would argue that at this point, certainly, it is almost exclusively about national security, because every manufactured product that China sends to the United States — from solar cells to power inverters to robots — has got hardware and software that can be bugged. In fact, lots of these products have been found to have electronic surveillance devices in them.

And there can be no question that, given the fact that China is an increasingly hostile dictatorship, the United States cannot allow devices like this to permeate even its entire civilian economy. Not to mention those parts of the American economy that produce the so-called dual-use products that have got major defence applications, also.

Scott McLean

Zichen, does Alan have a point here? Is there a national security risk? I mean, the FCC even says that these devices, these humanoid robots, can even be commandeered by malign actors. Obviously, great for spying. Is that a fair point?

Zichen Wang, Deputy Secretary General at CCG

Well, I have to disagree with Alan. First of all, I think the specific ban put out by the FCC says that only new models will have to be banned, which means the products that have already been certified by the FCC will still be able to be exported to the United States. So if it’s about national security, about all the robots from China, why not ban those that are already covered, that are already certified? So this is a half-baked reason.

I understand the language put out by the FCC chair, but I don’t think it’s the right approach. If he can identify a certain risk within a certain product or within a certain class from a certain company, he should name it. He should put remedies specific to the risks. Instead, what we are seeing is a blanket ban, and this is not a prudent way to measure national security.

Also, I would have to respond to what Alan just said: all these robots, yes, they have cameras, sensors, and communication systems. That’s how you make these robots work. All these products will have something like this, which in itself does not make it a national security challenge to the United States. We have testified —

Alan Tonelson

(interrupting) Given the fact that they come from China, they are a national security challenge. Given the fact that they come from China, they are a national security challenge, by definition.

Zichen Wang

I have to disagree with that, because the U.S. imports a lot of things from China —

Alan Tonelson

(interrupting) I know you don’t agree, but this country can’t afford to take chances. I’m sorry. Plus, the economic and the administrative costs — not to mention the technological challenge of inspecting every single such device that comes into the United States from China — are just totally prohibitive. So, this kind of a blanket ban is the most feasible approach, and once again, essential for U.S. national security. There’d be no serious debate about this, whatever.

Scott McLean

Yeah, and worth mentioning also, there are hundreds of lawsuits for—

Zichen Wang

Would you… ban tablets and iPhones from China?

Scott McLean

That's a good point. Alan?

Alan Tonelson

You know what? That could be next. That could be next.

Scott McLean

But then you'd have to make those iPhones in the United States, wouldn’t you?

Alan Tonelson

Or you’d have to make them in the various other low-cost East and also South Asian countries to which iPhone manufacturing has been moving very steadily.

Scott McLean

All right, this is a very interesting discussion. I want to ask—

Alan Tonelson

(interrupting) I’m not concerned about iPhones coming in from Vietnam, or frankly from India. I am concerned about them coming in from China. Absolutely.

Scott McLean

Yeah. Also worth noting, there are hundreds of lawsuits out there of Americans alleging intellectual property theft from Chinese companies or Chinese individuals as well. But that’s a slightly different topic.

Lian Jye, I want to ask you: look, there are some 140 companies in China making more than 300 models of these humanoid robots, but they’re finding that the commercial demand is a little bit soft. If these robots are so great at manufacturing, which, we know, China does pretty great, why aren’t they putting them to use?

Lian Jye Su, Chief Analyst at Omdia

There are a few ways to look at it. I think you can look at it from a demand standpoint, where not all factories are ready for digitalisation, which means they are not ready for full-scale automation, which means, obviously, less adoption of humanoid robots. On the other hand, you can also argue that the robot itself is not yet general-purpose enough. They are good at specific tasks. Those may not necessarily be tasks that are associated with manufacturing or with factory floors at this point.

Click↙【read more】for Full Text