SB3275 (Humanoid ROBOT Act of 2025) targets national security risks the sponsors attribute to humanoid robots produced by actors tied to countries of concern. It defines "humanoid robot" by form and AI capability, bars executive agencies from procuring or contractors from using such robots when designed, tested, developed, or manufactured by covered entities, and tasks agencies with implementing regulations.
The bill also broadens the scope of Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review to include investments in U.S. businesses that work on humanoid robots by entities tied to covered nations, imposes mandatory declaration requirements for those transactions, and requires the Secretary of Defense to deliver a detailed threat assessment and recommendations within one year. Compliance officers, procurement officials, and corporate counsel should note new contracting flow-downs, CFIUS filing exposure for investment rounds, and an expedited regulatory timeline.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB3275 prohibits executive agencies from entering into new or renewal contracts to procure humanoid robots designed, tested, developed, or manufactured by covered entities and bars contractors from using such robots to perform government work. It directs the FAR Council to issue amendments within 180 days and expands CFIUS jurisdiction to investments in U.S. firms working on humanoid robots by covered-nation actors, with mandatory declarations.
Who It Affects
Federal procurement officers and prime contractors working on contracts that could involve humanoid-robot capabilities; U.S. companies that design, test, develop, or manufacture humanoid robots; foreign entities headquartered in or subject to covered nations and investors with ties to those nations; and DoD and intelligence committees receiving the required threat report.
Why It Matters
The bill creates an across-the-board procurement barrier and a separate investment-screening channel aimed at preventing technology transfer and data exposures tied to humanoid robots. That combination changes both acquisition compliance and cross-border investment risk for the robotics and AI supply chain.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB3275 sets a two-track approach to limit perceived national security exposure from humanoid robots tied to specified foreign actors. First, it defines "humanoid robot" narrowly enough to capture machines that combine integrated AI, a humanlike body plan (head, torso, arms, legs or silhouette), task performance associated with people, and interactive natural language communication.
That definition determines the scope of the procurement ban and the CFIUS expansion.
Under the procurement track, the bill prohibits executive agencies from entering into or renewing contracts to obtain humanoid robots that are designed, tested, developed, or manufactured by "covered entities" — a term that includes governments and political parties of countries of concern, entities headquartered or organized under those countries' laws, and entities owned or controlled by them. The ban extends to contractors: companies awarded government contracts cannot use such humanoid robots to perform or support contract work.
The statute gives the Secretary of Defense a narrow waiver authority for missions tied to national security objectives or research. Agencies must implement the prohibitions through the Federal Acquisition Regulation within 180 days, and prime contractors must incorporate equivalent contract clauses into downstream subcontracts.On the investment side, the bill amends the Defense Production Act's CFIUS provisions to treat transactions involving investments in U.S. businesses that design, test, develop, or manufacture humanoid robots as reviewable—even where the investment does not transfer control.
The amendment explicitly covers transactions by entities organized under the laws of, or owned or controlled by, covered nations and requires parties to submit a declaration for such transactions. Finally, the Secretary of Defense must deliver a comprehensive report within one year analyzing manufacturing ecosystems in countries of concern, military–civil fusion, circumvention of export controls, privacy and data-security risks tied to humanoid-robot data, economic espionage threats, and recommended administrative and legislative measures; the report is unclassified with a classified annex if needed.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill bans executive agencies from entering into or renewing contracts to procure humanoid robots designed, tested, developed, or manufactured by a "covered entity," and bars contractors from using those robots to perform government work.
It defines "humanoid robot" to require integrated AI, a humanlike body or silhouette, capability to perform human-associated tasks, and interactive natural language communication.
The Secretary of Defense may waive the procurement and use prohibitions only for national-security-related missions or research, creating a narrow exemption path.
CFIUS jurisdiction is expanded to include investments in U.S. businesses working on humanoid robots by entities tied to covered nations—even absent acquisition of control—and the bill mandates declaration filings for such transactions.
The Secretary of Defense must produce an unclassified report, with a possible classified annex, within one year assessing threats from humanoid robots in countries of concern and recommending export-control and legislative fixes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions that set scope (including 'humanoid robot' and 'covered entity')
This section establishes the statutory vocabulary the rest of the bill uses. "Humanoid robot" combines technical and form-based criteria (integrated AI, humanlike body/silhouette, task performance, and natural-language interaction), which is the linchpin for identifying regulated products. "Covered entity" ties prohibitions and CFIUS coverage to actors connected to "countries of concern," including governments, political parties, entities organized under those countries' laws, and entities owned or controlled by them. Practically, compliance hinges on applying these definitions to supply-chain relationships and entity ownership structures.
Procurement ban and contractor-use prohibition, waiver, and FAR implementation
Section 3 prohibits executive agencies from procuring humanoid robots from covered entities and forbids contractors from using such robots to perform or support contracts. It grants the Secretary of Defense authority to waive the prohibitions when necessary for national security objectives or research, creating a controlled escape valve. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council must issue FAR amendments within 180 days; those changes must require prime contractors to flow down contract clauses that embody the statutory ban. For contracting officers and primes, this means immediate attention to vendor certifications, supply-chain attestations, and contract clauses once the FAR changes are published.
CFIUS expansion to capture investments in humanoid-robot businesses and mandatory filings
Section 4 amends the Defense Production Act to add transactions involving investments in U.S. businesses designing, testing, developing, or manufacturing humanoid robots to the list of reviewable transactions. Critically, the change covers investments by entities subject to covered nations' jurisdiction and applies "without regard to whether the investment results in control"—meaning minority equity or noncontrolling investments can trigger review. The amendment also adds a mandatory declaration requirement for parties to those transactions, increasing the exposure of VC rounds, joint ventures, and minority investment deals to CFIUS scrutiny and potential mitigation or divestment.
Secretary of Defense threat assessment and recommendations
Section 5 requires the Secretary of Defense to deliver a detailed report within one year analyzing threats from humanoid robots developed in countries of concern. Required elements include assessments of manufacturing ecosystems (notably China), military–civil fusion dynamics, methods of export-control circumvention and IP theft, privacy and data-security risks related to robot-collected data and cloud storage, and economic-espionage risks. The report must be unclassified with the option of a classified annex and is directed to several specified Senate and House committees, providing lawmakers a basis for further legislative or administrative action.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal national-security and procurement officials — they gain a statutory tool to exclude robots tied to covered actors and a mandated DoD threat assessment to inform policy.
- U.S. humanoid-robot developers without ties to covered entities — reduced competition from covered-nation suppliers in federal contracting and clearer procurement rules that may favor domestic vendors.
- Defense and intelligence communities — the required report centralizes analysis of military–civil fusion and data-security risks and can shape acquisition and counterintelligence strategies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Foreign companies and investors tied to covered nations — immediate loss of access to U.S. federal procurement markets and heightened CFIUS scrutiny on investments.
- U.S. companies that rely on components, tooling, or investment from covered-entity-related suppliers or investors — they face compliance costs, supply-chain substitution expenses, and potential limits on funding sources.
- Prime contractors and subcontractors on federal work — they must implement new FAR flow-down clauses, certify compliance, and monitor supply chains for covered connections, increasing contracting overhead.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits an urgent national-security imperative—preventing data exfiltration and technology transfer through humanoid robots—against preserving open investment and a frictionless innovation ecosystem; narrowing procurement reduces immediate exposure but risks fragmenting supply chains, chilling foreign capital, and imposing compliance costs that can slow commercialization of beneficial robotics.
The bill packs broad effects into concise statutory language, but several implementation challenges and trade-offs remain unresolved. First, the operationalization of "humanoid robot" will determine reach: the statutory definition mixes form (humanlike silhouette) with capability (integrated AI and natural-language interaction), which could sweep in telepresence devices, industrial manipulators with conversational interfaces, or software‑heavy systems that lack traditional humanoid shells.
Agencies and the FAR Council will face technical choices about thresholds and testing protocols to make exclusions workable.
Second, expanding CFIUS to cover investments "without regard to whether the investment results in control" and mandating declarations for humanoid-robot transactions will likely broaden filing volume and create uncertainty for investors and startups. That expansion can protect against stealth technology transfer, but it risks chilling legitimate capital flows, raising transaction costs, and producing burdensome retroactive inquiries into routine minority investments.
The Secretary of Defense's waiver authority for procurement mitigates some operational rigidity, but it concentrates discretion within DoD and may create inconsistent waiver standards across programs. Finally, enforcement depends on the effectiveness of FAR amendments, contractor certifications, and interagency coordination with export-control regimes; mismatches among these instruments could leave gaps attackers exploit or impose duplicative compliance layers on industry.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.