Why the ban on humanoid robot imports will only harm the US

Beijing (ANTARA) - The United States has long positioned itself as a staunch supporter of the global free market. The nation has urged other countries to open their economies, lower trade barriers, and embrace competition. However, when faced with foreign competition, Washington is increasingly abandoning the very principles it claims to uphold.

The latest example is the decision by the US Federal Communications Commission to ban the import of humanoid robots, a move it describes as a step to safeguard national security. Although not explicitly stated, the target of this policy clearly points towards China.

This is not the first such move by the US. Telecommunications equipment, electric vehicles, and now Chinese humanoid robots have been included in the definition of “national security threats,” a scope that Washington continues to expand. Whenever Chinese companies gain a competitive advantage, the increasingly frequent response is to impose restrictions rather than compete.

This contradiction is becoming undeniable. Washington demands market openness abroad while closing its own markets when domestic industries face stronger competitors. On one hand, they call for fair competition from other nations, yet on the other, they frequently swap market rules for administrative barriers when the US is not advantaged. This striking double standard reveals a simple reality: the free market is only embraced when the system serves US interests.

These restrictive measures are unlikely to achieve the goals touted by the US. China’s competitiveness in robotics is built upon manufacturing capabilities, technical talent, a complete industrial supply chain, and one of the largest domestic markets in the world. No import ban can reverse the technological progress China has achieved.

History has repeatedly shown that innovation does not emerge in isolation. Robotics, AI, and other cutting-scale technologies thrive through competition, collaboration, and the free flow of ideas. Politicising technology and using national security as a pretext will only hinder these drivers, ultimately harming global innovation and US competitiveness.

Ultimately, if Washington continues to view competition as a threat rather than a catalyst for innovation, its ambitions to revive domestic industry and maintain technological leadership will likely remain unfulfilled.