The New York Times recently declared that building robots without China is 'nearly impossible,' a claim that ignores a growing roster of American and allied companies doing exactly that. The Times argument rests on China’s stranglehold over rare earth elements, which are critical for robot motors and sensors, and its massive manufacturing infrastructure. Yet counter-examples close to home reveal a more nuanced reality.
Leading US robot builders such as Agility Robotics, headquartered in Oregon, produce humanoid robots like Digit using predominantly domestic and allied components. Boston Dynamics, now under Korean ownership, also sources from a diversified supply base. In Japan, Fanuc and Yaskawa continue to dominate industrial robotics with limited Chinese dependency, while South Korea’s Doosan Robotics has expanded its collaborative robot lineup using homegrown technology.
The key bottleneck remains rare earth elements: China accounts for about 70% of global mining and over 90% of processing. However, the United States and its partners are actively reducing that reliance. The Pentagon has funded domestic rare earth processing plants in Texas and California. The CHIPS and Science Act includes provisions for critical mineral supply chains. International agreements with Australia, Canada, and the EU are creating alternative sources.
Cost is the other hurdle. Chinese manufacturers benefit from economies of scale and lower labor costs. But as automation demand surges and geopolitical tensions rise, the premium for resilient supply chains is becoming more acceptable. Companies are redesigning motors to use fewer rare earths, and new magnet technologies are emerging from laboratories.
Experts caution that while full decoupling is neither feasible nor desirable in the short term, the 'nearly impossible' framing overstates the challenge. The robotics industry is global, and diversification is accelerating. The question is no longer 'can we build robots without China?' but 'how fast can we scale the alternatives?'
Looking ahead, watch for developments in rare earth recycling, next-generation motor designs, and expanded production capacity in the US, Canada, and Europe. The robotics supply chain is being rewritten, and the first few chapters are already in motion.
Robotics
→ Neutral
No, NYT, It’s Not ‘Nearly Impossible’ To Build Robots Without China
The NYT recently said it's almost impossible to build robots without China. There are counter-examples very close to home, however ...
John Koetsier, Senior Contributor
Forbes
2 min read
7/10
Key Takeaways
- China controls roughly 70% of global rare earth element mining and over 90% of processing, creating a critical dependency for robot motors and sensors.
- Agility Robotics builds its Digit humanoid robot in Oregon using a supply chain that minimizes Chinese components, demonstrating technical feasibility.
- The US Department of Defense has awarded contracts worth over $50 million to develop domestic rare earth processing facilities in Texas and California.
- Japan’s Fanuc and Yaskawa, two of the world’s largest industrial robot makers, rely primarily on Japanese and Asian (non-Chinese) suppliers for their core components.
- Alternative magnet technologies, such as ferrite and bonded magnets, are being commercialized to reduce the need for rare earth materials in robot actuators.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes, several US and allied companies are building robots without relying heavily on Chinese components, though some materials like rare earths still pose challenges.
The New York Times highlighted China's dominance in rare earth mining and processing, as well as its large manufacturing base, arguing that global robotics production depends on Chinese supply chains.
Agility Robotics in the US, Boston Dynamics, and companies in Japan and South Korea are developing robots with minimal Chinese components.
Key challenges include rare earth element availability, cost competitiveness, and access to affordable manufacturing, but investments in domestic and allied supply chains are addressing them.
Through the CHIPS and Science Act, Defense Department contracts, and critical mineral agreements with allies to secure supply chains.
Initially, yes, but as domestic production scales and new materials are developed, costs are expected to decrease over time.
Topics
Original source
www.forbes.com
Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to post a comment or reply.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!