Banning robot vacuums won’t enhance safety, but it could lead to lower-quality models in the future.

No other gadget understands your home quite like a robot vacuum. These devices map your environment, adapt to your routines, and many are now equipped with cameras and microphones that roam through every room. As AI enhances their perception, the privacy and security risks associated with these autonomous machines are escalating.

This is why increased scrutiny is warranted. However, the recent ban on foreign-made mobile robots by the Federal Communications Commission, aimed at addressing “unacceptable risks to national security or the safety of U.S. persons,” fails to evaluate products based on their security features. Instead, it focuses solely on their country of origin. This effectively means that no new robot vacuums from major brands can enter the U.S. market unless they are manufactured domestically. And spoiler alert: there aren’t any.

Cybersecurity and manufacturing are not synonymous. If the goal is to create safer robot vacuums (along with robot lawnmowers, companion bots, humanoids, and other devices affected by this ban), this policy misses the target. A robust security standard for robots would necessitate encrypted map storage, security audits, vulnerability disclosures, and transparent data retention policies.

Instead, this ban will likely lead to fewer new models, slower innovation, and higher prices for robot vacuums. In essence, we’ll end up with inferior products compared to what we have now.

I’ve been testing and reviewing robot vacuums for over a decade and have encountered numerous privacy and security issues. The concern that your robot vacuum could invade your privacy or compromise your data isn’t unfounded; it’s a well-documented reality. Many of the largest manufacturers in the industry have faced security vulnerabilities or data breaches.

These incidents highlight the need for stronger cybersecurity regulations rather than focusing on where products are made. The government’s Cyber Trust Mark program outlines necessary security measures, but it doesn’t exist yet, and if it does, participation will be voluntary.

The ban applies to all foreign-made robots, but the FCC’s public notice indicates that China is a particular concern, warning that foreign governments could exploit vulnerabilities in advanced robotics to access sensitive information. China’s commerce ministry has already labeled the policy as “discriminatory and suppressive” against Chinese companies.

There are genuine security benefits to domestic robot production. Mehul Nariyawala, president and co-founder of Matic, the only robot vacuum currently assembled in the U.S. (though it still relies on many foreign parts), emphasizes that domestic manufacturing can help ensure there are no hardware backdoors and hold companies accountable for failures.

However, a robot vacuum made in Massachusetts isn’t inherently more secure than one produced in Shenzhen. The FCC’s ban doesn’t take steps to guarantee that they will be.

This robot ban mirrors previous FCC actions against Wi-Fi routers and drones. So far, several waivers have been granted to router companies that don’t seem to be shifting their manufacturing to the U.S., raising questions about the consistency and fairness of enforcement and whether the rules will achieve their intended goals.

Currently, the practical implications won’t lead to better security; the millions of robot vacuums already in American homes remain unaffected, as do any models currently on the market. If these devices truly pose a risk, as evidence suggests, why leave the primary source of that risk untouched?

In a hopeful scenario, the ban could encourage American manufacturing. Nariyawala believes it “creates the conditions for American startups to design, engineer, and build trustworthy robots at scale.” He notes that consumer robots are where robotics manufacturing can achieve scale, and the supply chains they require will also support defense, industrial, and healthcare robots. “Get it right, educate customers to demand it, and that domestic supply chain stops being an aspiration and becomes an industry,” he states.

But even if he’s correct, and he has more reason than most to hope he is, that transition will take years. Today’s Matic relies heavily on imported components, and its price is set to rise to $1,495 in September, highlighting how far we are from replacing the $300 robot vacuum available at retail. Meanwhile, restricting imports means U.S. households will miss out on the next wave of innovations in this rapidly evolving category.

Chinese manufacturers have evolved from fast followers to leaders in the robot vacuum market over the past decade. Intense competition has led to better navigation, improved obstacle avoidance, self-emptying docks, and enhanced mopping systems. This competition has also pushed American manufacturers out of the market; iRobot, a pioneer in this field, filed for bankruptcy last year and is now owned by its Chinese manufacturing partner.

Without that competitive pressure, progress in the U.S. market will stagnate, and prices will increase. However, the competition I’d like to see isn’t about who can create the most advanced features or the highest suction power; it’s about competing on privacy. I want a robot vacuum that can clean my home without needing an internet connection, with maps stored locally instead of in the cloud, object recognition processed on-device rather than on remote servers, and clear explanations of what data is transmitted and why.

Matic already accomplishes much of this, which is why it’s my top choice among the robot vacuums I’ve tested, but it comes at a steep price for features that should be standard.

It feels like it may be too late to salvage the American robot vacuum industry. However, iRobot co-founder and former CEO Colin Angle, whose startup is developing a robotic companion that could fall under this ban, supports the ban’s stated objectives. “We see this as part of a broader moment for U.S. robotics, one where the opportunity lies in building domestic leadership,” he shared. “That means continued investment in domestic manufacturing, R&D, and talent, and we’re committed to being part of that effort as the category grows.”

If that is indeed the goal, it may succeed, but only by shutting out competition—similar to what Angle argues the Chinese government did to foster its burgeoning robot vacuum market a decade ago. But if the aim is to enhance robot security, we’re still struggling.

Meanwhile, Chinese robot vacuum manufacturers and their U.S. users find themselves in a state of uncertainty. Current products will continue to function and be sold, but the future remains unclear. A silver lining is that existing products can still receive security updates; the FCC doesn’t regulate software patches unless they alter the device’s radio characteristics.

Kristen Marion, global PR brand lead at Eufy, stated that they plan to continue selling, supporting, and updating existing products, adding that “Like others across the industry, we are seeking further clarity on how the rule will be applied to future products, and we will keep our customers informed.” Narwal’s president, Yunlin Kong, expressed confidence, stating, “We’re not going anywhere. The U.S. is one of our most important markets, and our commitment here is unchanged.” Other Chinese manufacturers I contacted echoed similar sentiments or chose not to comment.

The concerns driving the ban are valid. Robot vacuums warrant more scrutiny, especially as AI expands their capabilities beyond simple floor cleaning. However, a broad manufacturing ban that overlooks existing devices and fails to differentiate between secure and insecure products isn’t addressing the core issue. It’s merely hindering the one factor that has consistently worked in our favor: competition. If the government wants safer robot vacuums, the focus should be on regulating their security features, not their place of manufacture.