U.S. Adds New Items to Controlled List Targeting China

On July 28, local time, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) officially updated its "Controlled List," adding advanced robotics equipment and power inverters manufactured abroad to its import restrictions.

Although the U.S. move did not directly name China, it is abundantly clear from the market landscape, policy continuity, and statements by U.S. officials that this is a "targeted effort to contain China."

On July 28, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission updated its "Controlled List."

Targeted Containment Aimed at Advanced Manufacturing

On the surface, the addition of advanced robotics equipment and power inverters—both civilian-use devices—to the controlled list is purportedly to prevent "remote manipulation and data leaks." In reality, however, it is intended to suppress two of China's dominant industries.

Precisely Blocking Key Sectors

This round of restrictions zeroes in on two of China's globally leading industries, with the ban taking effect immediately upon announcement.

The first is advanced robotics equipment. The FCC defines this as "controllable equipment with autonomous mobility, multimodal environmental perception capabilities, and wireless networking communication functions," explicitly citing humanoid robots and quadruped robots as typical examples.

Statistics show that China accounts for nearly 70% of global sales of quadruped robots, and has produced over 400 humanoid robot models—more than half of the global total. Chinese companies' production capacity and product performance consistently rank among the world's best.

Notably, on July 24, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, which explicitly restricts the U.S. military from procuring Chinese-made humanoid robots. Just four days later, the FCC extended the restrictions to the entire commercial market, a timeline far faster than market expectations.

The second category is power inverters. The controlled list primarily targets grid-tied inverters used in photovoltaic and energy storage systems that feature remote communication and control capabilities—commonly known as "smart inverters."

In 2025, approximately 90% of the world's inverters were produced by 23 companies across 7 countries, 16 of which are Chinese manufacturers. About 90% of inverters used in U.S. utility-scale solar projects rely on overseas supply, with Chinese companies being key suppliers.

Ironically, despite the U.S. Department of Energy having concluded in professional tests earlier this February that "there is no conclusive evidence of intentionally introduced malicious communication functions in Chinese-made inverters," the FCC has still blocked Chinese-produced power inverters on "national security" grounds.

A humanoid robot performs precision loading and unloading in a tablet manufacturing plant in Nanchang, Jiangxi.

A Multi-Layered Control Framework

The new regulations establish a three-tier enforcement structure: "ban as the core, flexible control, and limited exceptions."

Core Access Ban: Going forward, equipment models on the list will be completely prohibited from applying for or obtaining FCC certification, effectively closing off legal pathways for new models to enter the U.S. market.

Flexible Control for Old vs. New Products: Products that have already obtained FCC certification and are currently circulating in the U.S. market are temporarily allowed to continue sales and operations. However, all new products that have not completed certification will permanently lose access to the U.S. market.

At the same time, the FCC reserves the right to revoke the certification of existing products at any time, leaving ample policy room for further escalation and dynamic suppression in the future.

Limited Exception Access: The new rules also provide a "conditional waiver" application channel. Equipment manufacturers may submit special security assessment applications to the U.S. Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security. Only products that pass review will be granted conditional market access permits.

It is reported that similar equipment from Europe and Japan can clear customs quickly with only basic testing, while Chinese equipment must undergo additional rigorous procedures, including full source-code audits and long-term on-site factory inspections.

By unilaterally erecting trade barriers and overstretching the concept of national security, the U.S. is essentially using security as a pretext to protect its domestic industries.

Erecting Barriers Harms Everyone

This update to the controlled list will further aggravate technological barriers and supply chain competition in the global advanced manufacturing sector, benefiting no one.

Impact on China: Shrinking Overseas Market Space

The U.S. is a core high-value market for high-end smart equipment and power storage devices, and an important platform for Chinese companies to refine premium products, validate cutting-edge technologies, and build international brands.

Following the implementation of the new FCC rules, opportunities for new Chinese-made robots and networked inverters to enter the U.S. market will be significantly reduced, hindering Chinese companies' efforts to expand overseas and promote brand internationalization.

Current data shows that China's robot exports to the U.S. are limited. Industrial robot exports are mainly directed to Southeast Asia, and emerging humanoid robots have not yet reached large-scale commercial use. Therefore, the impact on the robotics industry is relatively manageable, mainly constraining China's ability to build a global industrial ecosystem for smart equipment.

The situation differs for inverters. In the short term, there will be a direct impact on Chinese manufacturers' operations. However, in the long run, it will not shake the global market share of Chinese inverters.

Furthermore, the U.S. regulatory logic has a strong spillover effect, and other countries may follow suit.

Impact on the U.S.: Higher Costs and Weakened Competitiveness

Chinese robots and inverters have been able to enter the U.S. market on a large scale over the long term because of their exceptional cost-performance ratio and stability.

By artificially blocking compliant, high-quality Chinese supply, the U.S. is forcing domestic companies to turn to more expensive alternatives from Europe, Japan, and other economies. This directly raises procurement and maintenance costs for U.S. data center construction, new energy integration, and smart equipment R&D, undermining its cost advantage and expansion capacity in global technological competition.

In fact, these new controls are likely to backfire on the U.S.'s domestic solar and AI industries.

The U.S.'s latest adjustment to its controlled list shows that, in the global technology race, facing the situation where it is being overtaken, the U.S. is not seeking to run faster, but rather to hinder its pursuers by erecting obstacles.

Today, the multipolarization of global technology and the division and cooperation of industrial chains are irreversible trends. Overstretching national security and pursuing unilateral protectionist trade measures will only deepen the fragmentation of technological ecosystems—and cannot stop the rise of China's high-end manufacturing sector.

Jiu Wan Li: The High Ground

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

US economist Stephen Roach just can’t help himself. He continues to condemn Hong Kong by syndicating his one-sided opinions to regional newspapers, but changing his tactic by referring to the “old Hong Kong.”

He sits among the few remaining doomsday armchair critics who declare Hong Kong is over, dead since the handover in 1997. But he should know better. In his younger days he was chairman of US investment bank, Morgan Stanley Asia, based in Hong Kong. And now at 80 he is a senior fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs and senior lecturer at Yale School of Management.

His latest outburst has appeared in the Bangkok Post, Manila Times, Mumbai Financial Express and Singapore’s Think China (part of the Singapore Press Holdings' flagship Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao) to name just a few, all with the same theme “Hong Kong of old is over.”

As a former Hong Kong taipan, Roach is still living in the past. After a considerable backlash from his previous comments about the death of Hong Kong, he is now inferring that all of his previous comments were referring to an unknown past. He doesn’t mention a new Hong Kong, just an old one.

His change in tactic has come about as a result of a barrage of criticism late last year from indignant Hong Kongers and others more knowledgeable in Hong Kong matters, who drew attention to the city’s runaway success as a leading financial center.

While acknowledging Hong Kong’s success, he wrote that beneath the surface, the story is very different. He noted that Hong Kong is just another big Chinese city and that “the Mandarin name Xiānggǎng celebrates the city’s precolonial heritage seems more apt than Hong Kong, a phonetic translation from Cantonese, the city’s long dominant dialect. This dramatic transformation into Xiānggǎng is the real story. Hong Kong’s defenders are in denial about this new chameleon-like identity, instead viewing it as another example of the city’s inherent resilience. Nice try,” he writes.

This shows just how much Roach is out of touch with reality. Hong Kong has been Xiānggǎng ever since China switched to Hanyu pinyin in 1958 to standardize the pronunciation of Mandarin sounds throughout the country. Xiānggǎng is the official Mandarin name for Hong Kong. But for all intents and purposes, Hong Kong is still Hong Kong.

Yes, Hong Kong is another Chinese city, but with very important different characteristics – the rule of law being one of them. Hong Kong inherited Britain’s Common Law system as its legal base, which is different but more recognizable in the West than the Chinese Civil Law system.
But Roach won’t let it go. “The rule of law,” he said,” long regarded as one of Hong Kong’s greatest institutional advantages, has been severely compromised.” He cited the introduction of the national security laws “which stifled open debate.” However, he failed to acknowledge that the law was introduced immediately after Hong Kong was rocked by deadly riots by activists, and external forces. And, ironically, the new national security law for the UK virtually mirrors the Hong Kong law.

He also cites the resignation of six foreign judges from the Court of Final Appeal “calling the independence of the city’s highest judicial authority into serious question.” In this he found an ally in Lord Jonathan Sumption, a China hawk who wrote in the Financial Times that a Mainland strain of judicial patriotism was poisoning the city’s legal system. He did not mention that many resigned simply because of old age and as Canadian judge Beverley McLachlin, who resigned citing her wish to spend more time with her family told the BBC: "I continue to have confidence in the members of the Court, their independence, and their determination to uphold the rule of law.”

Gazing into his dusty crystal ball, Roach believes that the Hong Kong government seems to think that the Chinese-style central planning offers new hope for its economy and recently launched its first five-year plan. “But, as China is painfully learning, such plans can often over-promise and under-deliver. This suggests that until there is a meaningful test of the downside — for the economy or the equity market — any conclusions drawn about Hong Kong’s resilience are premature,” he wrote. He is apparently oblivious of Hong Kong’s ambitious billion-dollar Northern Metropolis project which will transform land, one third of Hong Kong’s total, into a futuristic science hub with universities, hospitals and new town facilities to meet a new population of 2.5 million.

Hong Kong’s Deputy Financial Secretary Michael Wong Wai-lun, without referring directly to Roach, rebutted: “Some critics appear to be driven by bias against China rather than objective analysis. Their criticism is neither backed by evidence nor aligned with facts. On the contrary, investors and talent have full confidence in Hong Kong, drawn by our global connectivity and international character.”

Just the other day, Roach wrote, a leading reporter messaged me: “Hong Kong is over’ seems over. What would you say about it?” Well, let me be clear: the Hong Kong of old is, indeed, over. Go to Xiānggǎng and see for yourself.”

Much of Roach’s ramblings is old news and repeats of what he has said before. There is nothing new in his latest outbursts. He appears to be an old man living in the past without acknowledging the present or future.