The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is banning imports of new foreign-made humanoid robots and power inverters, citing national security risks, in a move that targets China. Beijing quickly accused the U.S. of protectionism.

The measures are likely to test relations with Beijing ahead of a planned U.S. visit by Chinese leader Xi Jinping to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump in September. China dominates the global market for humanoid robots with an estimated market share of roughly 85%.

The FCC’s ban also includes new imports of quadruped robots, often referred to as four-legged robot dogs. The agency said imports of advanced robots pose cybersecurity and other national security risks. Offshore production of such equipment also leaves U.S. supply chains vulnerable to disruptions.

The ban on power inverters, which are used to convert direct current (DC) electricity into alternating current (AC) electricity and are used in renewable energy systems, data centers and household appliances, could have sweeping ramifications.

This is the latest in US restrictions on Chinese imports.

FCC chairperson Brendan Carr said Tuesday that the move was to “secure America’s critical supply chains.” He said the bans apply to “new versions” of such imports.

The FCC’s bans follow a slew of U.S. restrictions on imports of Chinese products, including drones, and on exports of U.S. advanced technology to China.

The U.S. is also weighing controls on use of Chinese open-source artificial intelligence models at a time when Chinese AI is rapidly gaining ground.

“It’s a steady drumbeat of potential flashpoints heading into (the) Trump-Xi summit planned for September,” said Samm Sacks, a senior fellow at the New America think tank focused on Chinese technology policies.

China has been rapidly expanding the use of robots, with policies supporting its technology sector. Morgan Stanley analysts forecast its market for humanoids could reach $15 billion by 2030.

“Chinese manufacturers have been scaling production and reducing costs faster than most overseas competitors,” said analyst Kangyuxiao Li at Morningstar.

“Restricting their access to the U.S. removes an important future market and protects U.S. developers from potential price competition,” he said. “However, it will not materially slow China’s overall humanoid development, given the size of its domestic manufacturing base and opportunities in other export markets.”

Of the around 15,000 humanoid robots shipped globally in 2025, Unitree and AGIBOT, two of China’s largest advanced robotics companies, each shipped more than 5,000. Their U.S. counterparts, like Tesla and Figure AI, each shipped a few hundred or less, according to the technology research and advisory group Omdia.

On the restrictions on power inverters, Cheng Wang, another Morningstar analyst, said the pressure on U.S. markets should be limited. The ban appears to not impact the continued use of existing devices nor the selling by Chinese companies of models that were previously approved by the United States.

The U.S. government can continue collecting the 10% worldwide tariff it imposed in February while legal challenges to the levies continue to work their way through the courts, a federal court ruled Thursday.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington decision handed a procedural win to the Trump administration, concluding that its case was “likely to succeed on the merits.”

At issue are temporary 10% worldwide tariffs President Donald Trump imposed after the Supreme Court in February struck down even broader double-digit tariffs the president had imposed last year on almost every country on Earth. The new tariffs, invoked under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, are set to expire July 24.

Section 122, which had never been used to justify import taxes before, allows the president to impose worldwide tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, after which congressional approval is needed to extend them.

Section 122 is aimed at what it calls “fundamental international payments problems.” In dispute is whether that wording covers trade deficits — the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them — as the Trump administration contends.

A split three-judge panel of the specialized Court of International Trade in New York last month found the 10% global tariffs were illegal after small businesses sued to stop them. The trade court ruled 2-1 that Trump overstepped the tariff power that Congress had delegated to the president under the law. The tariffs are “invalid” and “unauthorized by law,” the majority wrote.

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Thursday in upholding the power of federal regulators to enforce data privacy laws on telecommunications companies.

The 8-1 decision preserved one of the Federal Communications Commission's key tools, though the companies also won a concession from the Republican administration that could shift the regulatory landscape.

The appeal from telecommunications giants Verizon and AT&T challenged a combined $100 million in penalties imposed after the agency determined that the companies had failed to safeguard customer location data.

The companies argued that the FCC's process was unconstitutional because it gave them little opportunity to tell their side of the story in front of a jury.

The administration defended the fines as an essential regulatory tool. But the government also said companies did not have to pay the penalties right away, a regulatory shift in the companies' favor.

The Supreme Court agreed, affirming the FCC's power to order fines when challenges are still available.

"The orders at issue did not settle the carriers' legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said he would have given the two telecom companies a clearer path to recouping the fines they already paid.

Other agencies use similar enforcement methods, so a sweeping victory for AT&T and Verizon could have had widespread effects, advocates said.

The environmental group Earthjustice applauded the ruling, saying it has direct implications for other agencies and a key energy-efficiency case.

"By rejecting this unsupported attack on agency authority, the Court's decision safeguards the government's ability to enforce laws that protect people, communities, and the environment," said Caroline Flynn, the group's Supreme Court counsel.

The libertarian-leaning New Civil Liberties Alliance was disappointed by the decision, but expected it to help other companies in the future. "In fact, it may even buttress their willingness to challenge future agency orders in federal court before paying any penalties," said the alliance's president, Mark Chenoweth.

A few more carriers may decide to litigate, but the decision leaves the FCC with the power to "publicly announce large fines with much fanfare," said Doug Orvis, a veteran telecom attorney. "It will be interesting to see what happens going forward."

The Supreme Court's conservative majority has sided against federal agencies and limited their power before. That includes overturning a decades-old decision that had given regulators an advantage in court and stripping another agency of a major tool in fighting securities fraud.

A tourist from Washington state pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges accusing him of hurling a coconut-sized rock at an endangered Hawaiian monk seal and was ordered to stay away from Hawaii beaches.

Igor Lytvynchuk, 38, of Covington, Washington, was in U.S. District Court in Honolulu Wednesday, where he pleaded not guilty to charges of harassing and attempting to harass a protected animal. U.S. Magistrate Judge Rom Trader allowed him to remain free pending the criminal case but ordered him to stay away from beaches and marine wildlife while in Hawaii.

"You're not going to the beach, you understand that," Trader told Lytvynchuk, who responded that he understood.

Lytvynchuk declined to comment after the hearing.

One of his defense attorneys, Myles Breiner, said previously his client was trying to protect sea turtles and has since been physically assaulted, threatened and doxed.

Earlier this month, a witness recorded what prosecutors say was a video of him throwing the rock at a Hawaiian monk seal at a Maui beach. He later made arrangements to surrender in the Seattle area as special agents with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were seeking to arrest him, prosecutors said.

The video drew widespread condemnation and demands for prosecution in Hawaii, including from Maui's mayor. Scientists identified the seal as an adult male known as "R404," NOAA said.

According to prosecutors, a state Department of Land and Natural Resources officer investigated a report of Hawaiian monk seal harassment in Lahaina, the community that was largely destroyed by a deadly wildfire in 2023. A witness showed the officer video of the seal swimming in shallow water while a man watched from shore.

The video showed Lytvynchuk throwing the rock, described by a witness as the size of a coconut, directly at the seal, narrowly missing its head, prosecutors said in a criminal complaint.

When a witness confronted Lytvynchuk, he said "he did not care and was 'rich' enough to pay any fines," according to the complaint.

Afterward, a man "brutally assaulted" Lytvynchuk, Breiner said. Lytvynchuk declined to file a police report on the assault, the attorney said.

Breiner explained his client had been to Hawaii previously and was familiar with sea turtles, but not Hawaiian monk seals. Lytvynchuk is a fisherman and thought the seal was an aggressive sea lion, the lawyer said.

"So his response was not to hurt this monk seal, but to get it away from the turtles," Breiner said.

The incident shows NOAA must do more to educate the public about protecting Hawaiian monk seals, Hawaii's U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat, said in a statement.

Since the video surfaced, Lytvynchuk has faced death threats and doxing, including receiving a package at his home containing what appeared to be feces, Breiner said.

He said his client is being treated unfairly because he is a white outsider. "The vast majority of attacks on monk seal and turtle are by locals," he said.

Lytvynchuk is charged with violations of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Hawaiian monk seals are a critically endangered species. Only 1,600 remain in the wild.

If convicted, he faces up to one year in prison for each charge. He also faces a fine of up to $50,000 under the Endangered Species Act and a fine of up to $20,000 under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

At the hearing, attended by numerous Hawaiian monk seal protection activists, Trader set a scheduling hearing for June 9, but said Lytvynchuk is allowed to participate by phone or video from Washington. Trader ordered him not to travel outside Washington and Hawaii. Lytvynchuk said he surrendered his U.S. passport to authorities.

President Lyndon B. Johnson knew the legislation he was about to sign was momentous, one that took courage for certain members of Congress to pass since the vote could cost them their seats.

To honor that, he took the unusual step of leaving the Oval Office and going to Capitol Hill for the signing ceremony. It was Aug. 6, 1965, five months after the "Bloody Sunday" attack on civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, gave momentum to the bill that became known as the Voting Rights Act.

In the six decades since, it became one of the most consequential laws in the nation's history, preventing discrimination against minorities at the ballot box and helping to elect thousands of Black and Hispanic representatives at all levels of government.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court knocked out a major pillar of the law that had protected against racial discrimination in voting and representation. It was a decision that came more than a decade after the court undermined another key tenet of the law and led to restrictive voting laws in a number of states. Voting and civil rights advocates were left fearful of what lies ahead for minority communities.

"It means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation," said Cliff Albright, a co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter. "It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that's not exaggeration."

Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office, said the court's steady work to erode the Voting Rights Act, culminating in Wednesday's decision, amounted to "burying it without the funeral."

The Supreme Court's ruling came in a congressional redistricting case out of Louisiana after the state created a district that gave the state its second Black representative to Congress.

It found that map to be an unconstitutional gerrymander because it took race into account to draw the lines. In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court's conservative majority said the provision of the Voting Rights Act in question, called Section 2, was designed to protect voters from intentional discrimination.

Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent said the bar to show intentional discrimination is "an almost insurmountable barrier for challenges to any voting rights issues to prove discrimination."

Voting rights experts said the ruling leaves the Voting Rights Act only a shell of what it had been and will provide an open door for political mapmakers at every level — from local school districts to state legislatures to Congress — to undermine minority representation.

"We're witnessing the evisceration of America's greatest legislative landmark at the hands of a far right Supreme Court," Democratic U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York said.

Maria Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, said the decision will allow more aggressive "cracking and packing" of populations to dilute their votes, "not just in congressional districts but also in state legislatures, county commissions, school boards and city councils."

Voting rights experts said there is no doubting the law's impact over the decades.

Sherrilyn Ifill, a law professor at Howard University and the former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said there were about 1,500 Black elected officials throughout the country in 1970. Today, that stands at more than 10,000.

"And it isn't because of the goodness of people's hearts," she said.

She said that success was a direct result of Black communities, civil rights activists and lawyers having the tools, through the Voting Rights Act, to file challenges to efforts to diminish the voting strength of Black and Hispanic voters. Most of the Section 2 cases have been over representation in local governments.