From an investor perspective, that changes the way we think about things. Companies can no longer look at a robot simply on the basis of purchase price, performance and availability. They increasingly have to think about tariffs, supply chain exposure, component sourcing, cybersecurity, geopolitical risk and the possibility that today's acceptable supplier could face new restrictions tomorrow.

On the FCC action, I think it was a necessary move, but it isn't a strategy on its own. China has been explicit about its robotics roadmap for years. We haven't. A pause like this only pays off if we use it to build a national robotics strategy with real input from the companies building and deploying robots, and to grow a domestic component base. Today, many U.S. robot makers still rely on Chinese actuators, motors and magnets, so the near-term cost lands on them too.

Q: What has been the effect of these policy changes on companies that use or sell robotics?

A: We're seeing the issue become much more strategic. For companies deploying robotics, they are wondering more and more what their supply chain looks like five or ten years from now. A robot might be economically attractive today, but if the company is dependent on a foreign supplier for the robot itself or for critical components, that creates a different kind of risk than the traditional capital-expenditure analysis captures.

At the same time, these policies could create an opportunity for American robotics companies, but only for those that can source domestically at competitive cost.

But I don't think the answer is to simply replace every Chinese robot with an American robot. The economics have to work and companies that ultimately win will be the ones that can combine competitive economics, reliable performance and trusted supply chains. That is one reason we're paying so much attention to the companies building the underlying infrastructure and technologies that will enable the next generation of physical AI.

Q: How can companies interested in importing robotics from China best navigate the current environment?

A:  The first thing companies should do is stop treating this purely as a procurement decision. They need to look at the entire technology and supply chain stack. That means understanding exactly what they're importing, how it is classified, what tariffs and restrictions apply, where the critical components originate, what data the system collects, how the robot connects to a network, and whether there are potential national security or cybersecurity concerns.

And so, I think we need to start with the basics. Is the model already FCC authorized? Is it a mobile robot or a fixed arm? What's the duty stack on each major component? And what happens to spare parts and software updates if that supplier gets restricted?

They should also be scenario planning. What happens if the tariff changes? What happens if a particular supplier or component becomes restricted? What happens if a customer decides it cannot deploy a particular foreign-made system? Companies should build that risk analysis into their robotics strategy before they make a large deployment.

Q: Does the current policy environment change how you think about investing in robotics?

A: Absolutely, but perhaps not in the way people might expect. We don't invest in robotics simply because something is being made in the United States, and we don't avoid a company simply because it has some exposure to China. We're looking at the underlying technology, the market, the founding team, the economics and the company's ability to build a durable competitive advantage.

What has changed is that geopolitical and supply chain risk has become part of the investment thesis. When we evaluate a robotics company today, we're asking questions that weren't nearly as prominent several years ago. For example, where are the critical components coming from? Can the company manufacture at scale? How dependent is it on a particular geography? What happens if trade policy changes? Can customers deploy its technology in sensitive environments?

That's actually one of the things that makes robotics so interesting as an investment category. It’s an area that is becoming increasingly important to both economic competitiveness and national security.

Q: Everyone is talking about humanoid robots and physical AI. Beyond the hype, where are you actually seeing the most meaningful commercial traction?

A: To us, form follows function. Historically, we’ve built machines with a specific need in mind - usually to address something that humans either can't or won't do. Whether or not they resemble us wasn’t a consideration. Humanoids dominate the conversation now because they're easy to picture and designed for a world built for humans. But behind the headlines, we've seen very few verified deployments at scale.

The real traction is in purpose-built robots doing work that's dangerous, repetitive or hard for people to do consistently. That spans logistics, manufacturing, defense, healthcare, and more. What these markets share matters more than any one of them: an expensive problem, a customer who buys again after the pilot, and a clear economic outcome.

Q: What do you think investors and the broader market are still getting wrong about robotics?

A: I think there are two opposite mistakes happening at the same time. On one side, there is a tendency to underestimate robotics because people think of robots as expensive industrial machines with relatively narrow capabilities. On the other side, there is a tendency to overestimate how quickly AI will translate into fully autonomous physical systems.

 The opportunity is somewhere in between. We're entering a period where advances in AI, sensing, computation and robotics are allowing machines to operate in increasingly complex environments. But commercialization still requires solving very difficult problems around reliability, safety, manufacturing, unit economics and deployment.

That's why we believe the most interesting robotics companies aren't necessarily the ones making the biggest promises. They're the ones quietly solving difficult technical problems and demonstrating that customers are willing to pay for the result. That's ultimately what we look for as investors: not just impressive technology, but companies that can become important businesses.