Foreign-Produced Technology in the Crosshairs: The FCC’s Covered List Comes for Advanced Robotics

The FCC Takes Aim at Foreign-Produced Advanced Robotics

On July 28, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) added foreign-produced advanced robotic devices to its Covered List – the roster of communications equipment and services deemed by the U.S. government to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety and security of U.S. persons. The prohibition is country-agnostic on its face but widely understood to target technology produced in China. As we wrote separately, the addition of advanced robotics devices to the Covered List is representative of the FCC’s acceleration of its campaign to bar certain foreign-produced technology from the U.S. market, utilizing its authorities in novel ways.

Under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act (the “Secure Networks Act”), equipment on the Covered List is prohibited from receiving FCC equipment authorizations. Because most electronic devices (including robotics systems) require such authorization prior to importation, marketing, or sale in the United States, the practical effect is that new models of foreign-produced advanced robotic devices that fall within the definition on the Covered List are presumptively barred from the U.S. market.

The FCC’s action cited as national security interests the increased use of advanced robotics in monitoring and securing critical infrastructure as well as in the defense space. The U.S. government’s stated concerns also center on supply chain vulnerabilities and cybersecurity exposure – specifically, the potential for remote access, data exfiltration, and surveillance through these networked devices.

The FCC traditionally focused on placing specific entities on the Covered List, but it is now placing entire categories of products on the list. This began with foreign-produced Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) in December 2025, and was followed by foreign-produced routers in March 2026 and foreign-produced power inverters in July 2026. Advanced robotics is the latest, and arguably broadest and most strategically important, product category to date.

What Are “Advanced Robotic Devices”?

In general terms, the Covered List defines an “advanced robotic device”  as a mobile, networked robot weighing over 4.4 lbs. that is capable of autonomous or semi-autonomous navigation, equipped with environmental sensors and network connectivity, and controlled by software (including AI or machine-learning models).

More specifically, the FCC's definition covers any mechanical mobile device that satisfies four cumulative criteria:

1. Locomotion. The device must be capable of locomotion, obstacle avoidance, navigation, or movement on the ground.
2. Remote or autonomous operation. The device must be capable of operating at a distance from a human operator—whether based on operator commands, in response to sensor data, or a combination thereof.
3. Weight. The device, including any docking station, must exceed a total weight of 4.4 pounds (approximately 2 kilograms).
4. Core system components. The device must contain (a) a sensor capable of perceiving its environment, (b) a network-connectivity component (e.g., wireless, cellular, or satellite capability), and (c) software that controls autonomous navigation, movement perception, data collection, or remote command-and-control.

Taken together, these criteria capture a broad spectrum of robotics systems, including Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs), mobile inspection robots, autonomous security platforms, delivery robots, and many other ground-based autonomous or semi-autonomous devices.

Key Exclusions. The definition excludes, among other things, connected vehicles (which are separately address by Department of Commerce regulations), drones (which are separately addressed by the UAS addition), medical devices, underwater vehicles, and fixed industrial robots. The exclusion for “fixed, stationary, non-mobile robots intended for industrial or medical use” is noteworthy – traditional robotic arms bolted to a factory floor, for example, should fall outside the definition (and thus outside the prohibition), while mobile warehouse robots that navigate autonomously are likely covered.

Companies should be cautious in relying on these exclusions. The FCC’s definitions are precise, and edge cases (such as devices that are nominally “fixed” but can be repositioned, or systems that straddle the line between vehicle and robot) may require careful analysis.

What Does “Foreign-Produced” Mean?

Only products that are “foreign-produced” are included on the Covered List. “Foreign-produced“ refers to any article that would not qualify as a “domestic end product” as defined in 48 CFR § 25.101(a).

A domestic end product must satisfy two conditions: (1) it must be manufactured in the United States and (2) its domestic components must account for costs exceeding 65% of the cost of the finished product. The domestic components prong is waived for products that qualify as commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items.

Several features of this standard are worth emphasizing:

• Manufacturing vs. design/engineering. A device that is designed or engineered in the United States but manufactured or assembled in a foreign country would likely be considered “foreign-produced.” U.S. intellectual property ownership and R&D activities, standing alone, will not remove a device from the definition.
• Mixed-origin components. A device incorporating both domestic and foreign components will be considered “foreign-produced” unless the final product satisfies the “domestic end product” standard, including the applicable domestic content thresholds. Inclusion of some foreign components does not automatically mean a device is covered—the question is whether the finished product crosses the 65% domestic content threshold.
• Nationality-neutral. The nationality of the manufacturer is irrelevant in determining whether a device is foreign-produced. A Japanese, German, or American company manufacturing a robot in China (or any other foreign country) is subject to the same test as a Chinese manufacturer.
• Threshold increases ahead. Companies should keep in mind that the 65% domestic component cost threshold is slated to increase to 75% in 2029, meaning that devices that narrowly satisfy the current test may fail it in just a few years.

Implications for Companies

Existing vs. New Authorizations

Devices that received FCC equipment authorization prior to July 28, 2026, remain authorized and may continue to be imported, marketed, and sold. However, the prohibition applies to new models and modifications to existing models that have not yet received all required FCC equipment authorizations as of July 28, 2026.

Even minor modifications to existing devices may require new or modified FCC authorizations, including so-called “permissive changes,” that could be prohibited by the Covered List. As a result, refresh cycles, not current inventory, are where the risk concentrates. Companies that rely on iterative product improvements or periodic hardware updates should carefully evaluate whether each planned change triggers a new authorization requirement.

Enforcement Consequences

The importation, marketing, or sale of covered equipment without valid FCC equipment authorization may subject violators to enforcement action by the FCC, including monetary forfeitures, cease-and-desist orders, and seizure of non-compliant equipment. Willful violations can be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Companies that have received Conditional Approval (that is, that have been granted specific authorization to market and sell specific foreign-produced advanced robotics devices or classes of devices) and subsequently violate its terms face termination of the approval and permanent preclusion from reapplying, in addition to any applicable civil or criminal penalties.

Supply Chain and Contractual Exposure

The effects extend beyond the four corners of the Covered List itself. Companies that integrate foreign-produced robotic devices into broader solutions – whether as systems integrators, resellers, or platform providers – face exposure across multiple dimensions:

• Supply continuity. Suppliers of covered devices may be unable to fulfill orders for new or modified models. Companies should assess whether their vendor base can continue to produce and deliver authorized devices in sufficient quantities to meet contractual commitments.
• Customer commitments. Downstream contracts, particularly those involving ongoing maintenance, product upgrades, or technology refresh obligations, may be implicated if the next generation of a covered device cannot lawfully enter the U.S. market.
• Contractual allocation of risk. Existing agreements may not adequately address the risk that a supplier's product becomes covered. Companies should evaluate whether they hold representations and warranties concerning regulatory compliance, FCC authorization status, and country-of-origin that are sufficiently robust to address the new prohibition.

Near-Term Protective Measures

The FCC has signaled that it will continue to expand the Covered List. Companies with exposure to foreign-produced robotics technology (whether as manufacturers, integrators, importers, or end users) should consider the following steps:

1. Audit product portfolios and roadmaps for exposure. Identify which devices, components, and planned variants fall within the FCC's definition of “advanced robotic devices,” and confirm which models already hold FCC equipment authorization. Particular attention should be paid to products in the development pipeline or nearing a refresh cycle, as these are the devices most likely to trigger a new authorization requirement.
2. Assess “foreign-produced” status against the domestic end product test. Because the standard turns on manufacturing location and the 65% domestic component cost threshold under 48 CFR § 25.101(a), U.S. design or engineering alone will not take a device outside the prohibition. Companies should document country-of-origin and component cost data now, before a listing forces the analysis on a compressed timeline.
3. Preserve optionality on Conditional Approval. The deadline for Conditional Approval applications for advanced robotics devices is January 1, 2028. The diligence burden is substantial – full ownership and beneficial-owner detail, a component-level bill of materials, and a time-bound U.S. onshoring plan with committed capital expenditures. In evaluating applications, the Department of War will assess whether the specific product poses national security risks, whether it poses risks to supply chain resilience, and whether the applicant is committed to establishing manufacturing capacity in the United States. Companies should be aware that a supply chain that significantly relies on China is highly unlikely to result in a successful Conditional Approval application, even with significant onshoring commitments and other mitigation. To date, companies that have received Conditional Approval for other product categories have largely been headquartered or incorporated in the United States or allied nations, including NATO countries and Five Eyes (FVEY) partners.
4. Update supplier representations, warranties, and indemnities. Supplier representations on country of origin, indemnities for authorization failures, and import compliance procedures should be updated to account for enforcement exposure. Companies should consider requiring suppliers to represent and warrant that their devices are not on (and are not expected to become subject to) the Covered List, to provide prompt notice of any regulatory developments that could affect authorization status, and to indemnify the purchaser for any resulting enforcement costs, including replacement, removal, and remediation expenses.
5. Monitor for follow-on guidance and listing amendments. The FCC has narrowed listings after the fact, as it did with UAS and, more recently, power inverters. Within two weeks of the UAS announcement, the FCC removed certain drones and components deemed not to pose national security risks, including products on the Department of War’s Blue UAS Cleared List and products qualifying as domestic end products. Affected companies should track amendments and consider engaging with the FCC and Department of War where a product line warrants an exclusion.

Looking Ahead

The addition of advanced robotics to the Covered List continues a pattern of aggressive FCC action targeting foreign-produced technology. While the prohibition creates significant near-term disruption, particularly for companies with supply chains concentrated in China, history suggests that the scope of these listings is likely to be refined in the coming months. Companies that act promptly to map their exposure, engage with the regulatory process, and shore up their contractual protections will be best positioned to navigate this evolving landscape.

Morrison & Foerster’s Technology Transactions Group and National Security and International Trade teams are actively advising companies across the robotics, industrial automation, and technology sectors on compliance with the Covered List and related FCC, Department of War, and Department of Homeland Security requirements. We are prepared to assist with exposure assessments, Conditional Approval applications, supply chain restructuring, and the contractual and transactional dimensions of these regulatory developments.

Contacts

Seth M. Graham | sgraham@mofo.com | Brandon L. Van Grack | bvangrack@mofo.com | David Newman | dnewman@mofo.com | Margot Benedict | mbenedict@mofo.com |  Sydney Schauer | sschauer@mofo.com