Robotics Roadmap Issue #3
Robotics Roadmap Issue #3
US robotics researchers and industry are looking for a cohesive national robotics strategy that will maintain basic research and innovation while improving domestic production and adoption of robots.
A Leader in Tech Innovation
Robots are a crowd-pleasing example of American innovation and global technological leadership. The latest press release of Boston Dynamics’ Atlas executing the ‘Ghost Rabona’ soccer kick highlights the increasingly natural movements of humanoids (1). At the other end of the spectrum, academic researchers are redefining the limits of miniaturization and building robots at the micrometer scale (2). Private and government funding propel foundational research forward, leading to breakthroughs in both hardware and software across U.S. labs and corporations (3, 4). Such progress reaffirms the U.S. as an intellectual and innovative powerhouse, a reputation that carries large geopolitical weight.
But retaining a lead solely in the R&D phase yields diminishing returns if the U.S. fails to manufacture robotic hardware at scale within its own borders. Critics fear this dynamic prevents the U.S. from reaping the economic benefits of the very technology it pioneers (5, 6). Ramping up domestic production will require a heavily coordinated effort between government, industry, and academics – a pivot from traditional U.S. technology strategy.
Free Market and Military Capital
Historically, the U.S. has maintained a laissez-faire approach to technological innovation, allowing corporate and private investors driven by the free market to shape the course of advancement. This innovation-first strategy is largely credited with fueling the growth of global tech giants and the rise of Silicon Valley, which altogether represents roughly 12% of the national GDP (7). America’s leadership in artificial intelligence can be largely attributed to this free-market engine, which prioritizes high projected profit margins and rapid scalability of software (8).
When it comes to U.S. robotics hardware, the Department of Defense/War (DoD/DoW) has stepped in as one of the primary catalysts for innovation and investment. The Pentagon’s fiscal year 2026 budget requested an unprecedented $13.4 billion for developing autonomous systems; a major increase from years prior. The DoD/DoW is requesting an additional $53.6 billion for autonomous systems and drones for 2027 (9). Private capital has quickly mirrored federal priorities; in the first quarter of 2026 alone, defense technology venture capital investments reached a record $19.8 billion. This surge is tightly bound to contemporary geopolitical conflicts, such as the hybrid warfare seen in Ukraine, where the U.S. plays a key role in funding drone production and in recent times deploying humanoids (10, 11). The significant role that autonomous systems have played in conflict zones like the Strait of Hormuz has also signaled the high dependency of strategic military operations on robotics (12).
A Bottleneck for Domestic Manufacturing
While investment in robotic innovation does provide certain economic benefits, it does not support U.S. competitiveness in critical industries – specifically in physical manufacturing. Hardware inherently requires higher, long-term capital expenditures and yields lower short-term financial returns compared to software. Consequently, there could be less incentive to compete against other global manufacturing leaders. Furthermore, while the DoD funds early-stage R&D and specialized military platforms, its mandate stops short of supporting commercial scaling efforts necessary to implement technologies for broader civilian and industrial applications.
As a result, while the U.S. is the third-largest consumer of industrial robotics in the world (with industrial adoption surging by 11% just last year in sectors like logistics, packaging and automotive) (13), it lacks the infrastructure to build what it consumes. While a few prominent U.S. companies do manufacture application-specific robots (some examples being Intuitive Surgical, Amazon Robotics, and Agility), the U.S. mostly relies on foreign imports for baseline industrial robot installations (14). Contrast this with Japan, which relies on foreign imports for a mere 2% of its domestic installations (15).
The systemic under-development in domestic robotic manufacturing leaves the U.S. vulnerable to hardware dependencies and supply chain disruptions. While industrial leaders like Japan and Germany are reliable trade partners, the U.S. government increasingly views hardware dependencies as a national security vulnerability. In recent years, robots have been reclassified as a critical dual-use technology, considered central to 21st century technological sovereignty (16). This reality makes robotics manufacturing a target for foreign adversaries, since foreign supply chains introduce operational chokepoints.
Currently, the U.S. government responds to these vulnerabilities through aggressive export controls and protective procurement policies, which are designed to slow down adversary agendas by blocking their access to the U.S. IP and markets. As one example, in 2021 the President issued the NSPM-33 (a national security memorandum directed to executive agencies) mandating federally funded research institutions to establish strict internal compliance frameworks (17). While designed to allow the continued recruitment of international talent, it enforces rigid vetting protocols on researchers potentially associated with Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Programs (MFTRP) or of dual national affiliation (18). As another example, in early 2026 lawmakers proposed the bipartisan American Security Robotics Act, a bill designed to ban the federal procurement and operation of unmanned ground vehicles and humanoids manufactured by foreign adversaries, specifically targeting China (19).
Getting by Without a Government-led National Robotics Strategy
Rising concerns over robotics supply chain vulnerabilities strongly echo the semiconductor anxieties that originally led to the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which marked a historical pivot for the U.S. towards an active state-supported industrial policy (20). Today, there is a similar pressure mounting for the federal government to coordinate a sovereign robotics pipeline via a unified national roadmap.
The challenge facing the U.S. does not seem to be a lack of federal funding, but rather how the funding is distributed across multiple agencies with different mandates (21). The National Science Foundation funds basic academic research; Department of Energy runs national research laboratories and funds external research programs developing robotics relating to energy infrastructure; National Institute of Health supports and conducts medical robotics research; NASA funds and develops robotics for space applications; the ARM Institute supports domestic manufacturing initiatives while satisfying dual-use funding criteria through the DoD/DoW; and DARPA funds robotic innovations relevant to national security. (The latter organizes the well-known DARPA Grand Challenges, robotics competitions for fueling research bridging fundamental science and military applications.) Because federal investments from these programs and agencies are confined to isolated, mission-specific niches, the U.S. remains one of the few leading industrial nations without a centralized robotics strategy.
This structural fragmentation may soon change as political attention shifts towards treating robotics as a critical sector (22). In 2025, four state representatives re-launched the bipartisan Congressional Robotics Caucus as a platform for members of Congress to stay informed over the diverse issues surrounding robotics policy (23). In June 2026, legislators formally introduced the bipartisan National Commission on Robotics Act, which calls for an independent commission of 18 robotics experts tasked with providing evidence-based policy to accelerate domestic development (24). This legislative momentum is reinforced by a series of recent Executive Orders (mandates from the US President) demanding a high-level federal coordination including the Unleashing American Drone Dominance Order (25), the Golden Dome for America Order (26), and the Launching the Genesis Mission Order (27).
Robotics Strategies from Non-Government Actors
In the absence of a centralized federal initiative, stakeholders in industry, NGOs, and academia are self-organizing and publishing their own robotics frameworks recommendations for the United States.
In 2025, A3 (Association for Advancing Automation) released their Vision for a U.S. National Robotics and Automation Strategy (28), which argues that the future of U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence is inextricably linked with its global robotics leadership. A3 provides actionable policy items, such as the formation of a governmental robotics office for coordinating federal robotics initiatives, the establishment new standards for nascent robotic hardware and software, and the introduction of tax incentives for rapid robotics adoption and creation of worker training programs.
Complementing these industry goals, in 2025 the nonpartisan thinktank, Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP), has released their Memos to the President – National Robotics Strategy (29). This document couples the call for mass industrial robotics adoption with recommendations for more aggressive trade restrictions on Chinese technologies. Following this publication, SCSP launched its National Security Commission on Robotics for Advanced Manufacturing for implementing this comprehensive strategy; members include industry and academic players including GM, Boston Dynamics, Nvidia, AMD, the University of Michigan and MIT’s Industrial Performance Center (30).
Academics have similarly spearheaded their own national strategies. Once every four years, academics led by Professor Henrik Christensen (UC San Diego) publish a roadmap for U.S. robotics (31). Past editions directly catalyzed the creation of the National Robotics Initiative (NRI), a multi-agency federal program running from 2012 to 2022 that supported foundational research on robotics, specifically promoting collaborative robots for working alongside humans. (Christensen also recently published Global Robotics Technology Roadmap 2025–2035, an independent positions paper synthesizing government and industry strategies across Europe, Asia, and the United States (32).)
All three stakeholders share a common motivation for a national robotics strategy: the nation’s population and workforce are declining; There is a surplus of jobs fulfilling the 3 Ds (dull, dirty, dangerous); Robotics should become a national priority once more. In addition to funding and incentives, authors also discuss the need to consider the impact of technology on the workforce – a topic of large structural tension, with fear of robots displacing jobs and particularly outcompeting blue-collar and immigrant workers (33, 34). Christensen et al. delve deeper into the psychology of the workforce, and recommend a framework which balances technological growth with worker empowerment. They propose that prioritizing human-centered collaborative robots and wearable devices could shift the robotics narrative from a source of widening economic disparity towards heightening workplace satisfaction and production efficiency. However, recent mass layoffs amidst installations of collaborative robots reveal the complexity of this balancing act (35).
The U.S. is in the midst of a major shift regarding how it shapes robotics advancement. Because a formal federal strategy does not yet exist, private and academic stakeholders are proactively drafting the blueprints themselves. Consolidating these ideas into a unified national policy will have far-reaching consequences for national security, geopolitical influence, labor markets, and manufacturing sovereignty. The world watches carefully as this shift unfolds.
Thanks for reading. For our next article we will be delving into China’s national robotic strategies – stay tuned.
Ellen H. Rumley – Policy Analyst
Allison Okamura – Vice President
IEEE RAS Science & Technology Watch Board
References
