House panel advances GUARD Act to ban Chinese robots not reviewed within a year

A US House subcommittee has advanced legislation that would subject robots made in China and other countries designated as foreign adversaries to national security reviews, while barring from the United States any found to pose a threat.

The Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology passed the Guarding the US Against Adversarial Robotics Dominance Act on September 1. The bill was introduced by John Moolenaar, chairman of the House Select Committee on China, together with Jay Obernolte and Jennifer McClellan.

What the bill does

The mechanism matters more than the framing.

The GUARD Act directs national security agencies to review humanoid and quadruped robots produced by adversary nations. Products deemed to pose unacceptable risks — including backdoors that could be exploited for espionage or remote disruption, according to the sponsors — would be placed on the Federal Communications Commission's Covered List. That would prohibit their importation and strip them of wireless communications licences, effectively ending their commercial sale in the United States.

The approach applies the same framework already used against Huawei, ZTE and DJI.

The regulator got there first

Here is what the announcement does not say.

In late July, the FCC announced action to ban foreign-made robots. Moolenaar welcomed the move at the time, but also argued that Congress should pass the GUARD Act to strengthen the policy and codify it in federal law, making it harder for future administrations to change.

Separately, the House passed a National Defense Authorization Act in July containing a GUARD Act provision requiring the Pentagon to begin determining whether Chinese robots should be banned nationwide. That version, however, excluded the proposal's most sweeping measures.

The September 1 vote is therefore the third step towards the same policy: a regulator has acted, a defence bill has adopted part of it, and the subcommittee is now advancing the full text. The aim is durability rather than novelty. That is a legitimate legislative objective, and it is different from the impression conveyed by a headline saying that a House panel is targeting Chinese robots.

Two other actions in the same week

The robot vote was one of three moves involving the same committee chairman between September 1 and 3.

On September 3, Moolenaar and Chris Smith, chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin requesting a briefing on the department's implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The lawmakers said Congress enacted the law to ensure that goods made with forced labour do not enter US commerce. They argued that strong enforcement protects human rights, supports American workers and prevents US businesses from being undercut by unfair trade practices.

Also on September 3, the Select Committee said TikTok had withdrawn from a commitment to participate in a public roundtable on its algorithm later in September. Moolenaar issued a statement and discussed the matter in a broadcast interview.

What connects them

None of the three represents a new policy.

The UFLPA has been law since 2021, and the letter seeks information about enforcement rather than new legislation. The FCC has already acted against robots, while the bill is intended to entrench that action. The TikTok roundtable concerns testimony about an algorithm that has been under congressional scrutiny for years.

Taken together, the developments point to a shift from writing new rules on China to making existing ones binding — through oversight letters, the codification of regulatory action in law, and pressure for testimony. For companies exporting to the United States, that may be more consequential than another announcement of intent.

What to watch

Whether the GUARD Act reaches the full committee, and in what form. The NDAA version dropped the most sweeping measures. The key substantive question is whether the Covered List mechanism and the one-year default provision survive.

Whether DHS agrees to the briefing. Oversight requests are declined more often than reported. A refusal or delay would reveal more about UFLPA enforcement than the letter itself.

Whether TikTok appears. The company made a commitment and then withdrew it. Whether the committee escalates the matter — and whether a subpoena follows — is the next step in a process that has continued for several years without resolution.

Originally published on IBTimes China