When 'Security Risks' Mask Industry Self-interest

On March 22, the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security announced that its Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection had recently held a hearing to assess the security risks posed by Chinese technologies, including artificial intelligence and robotics.

During the hearing, executives from several U.S. tech companies and industry association representatives — described as "industry leaders" — argued that Chinese technologies posed security risks to the U.S. market. Yet a review of the testimony they submitted suggests that many of these so-called risks are little more than recycled accusations and speculative claims with no concrete evidence.

Among the concerns raised were assertions that using Chinese data to train large U.S. AI models could lead to "data poisoning," and that Chinese-made robots might be remotely controlled.

More noteworthy is that these "prominent figures" from the U.S. technology sector were not merely discussing potential risks, they were also offering policy suggestions to U.S. Congress on how to restrict and suppress related Chinese industries.

A closer look suggests that the warnings by these U.S. "industry leaders" may be driven less by genuine security concerns than by corporate or sectoral interests. Their proposals largely focus on reducing the use of Chinese data, technologies, and products in the U.S. market, reflecting a deeper unease among certain American companies — and even parts of the broader AI and robotics sector — about competing with their Chinese counterparts.

For example, Michael Robbins, president and CEO at the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, urged Congress to pass legislation banning federal procurement of unmanned ground vehicles and robots manufactured in China.

He also called for restrictions on the use of Chinese robots, sensors and related equipment in critical infrastructure, as well as limits on Chinese technologies such as LiDAR within the U.S. robotics industry.

Max Fenkell, an executive at the AI company Scale AI, suggested that Congress should investigate Chinese robotics data as a potential national security threat. Matthew Marzano, vice president of software at the robotics company Boston Dynamics, proposed that Congress direct security agencies to conduct national security assessments of Chinese robots currently used in U.S. industrial and government settings.

The unease expressed by these U.S. "industry leaders" appears to stem largely from anxiety over China's rapid technological progress and the scale advantages of its manufacturing sector. Scale AI is a major player in the U.S. data-labeling industry.

In his testimony, Fenkell acknowledged that China currently accounts for roughly 90 percent of the global commercial robotics AI data industry and that Chinese production costs are about 60 percent lower than those of U.S. companies — an advantage that cannot be easily eliminated simply through increased investment.

Data from the international market research firm Omdia further highlights the scale of China's presence in emerging robotics sectors. According to the firm, Chinese companies accounted for about 90 percent of global humanoid robot shipments in 2025.

Marzano also noted in his testimony that at the 2026 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, the number of Chinese companies exhibiting humanoid robots appeared to be about five times that of U.S. companies.

LiDAR technology provides another striking example. In 2025, Chinese company Hesai Technology shipped more than 1.6 million LiDAR units — 64 times the shipment volume of Ouster, a leading U.S. company in the same field.

Ultimately, competition in the technology sector should be determined by innovation and technological capability. Continuous innovation in an open and fair competitive environment remains the most sustainable path for industry development. Resorting to political maneuvering or protectionist measures to exclude competitors may temporarily shield certain companies, but it risks making markets more closed and weakening the fundamental incentives for technological progress.

As leaders of high-tech companies and industry associations, these U.S. "industry leaders" would do better to focus on strengthening their own technological capabilities and improving the cost-effectiveness of their products. Smearing competitors and lobbying politicians may offer short-term tactical advantages, but such "clever maneuvers" cannot resolve the deeper structural challenges facing the development of U.S. industries.！

Source: Science and Technology Daily