Here’s a statistic that should serve as both a warning and an opportunity for our industry: In 2024 China installed more than half of all robot deployments worldwide. How many? 295,000, according to the International Federation of Robotics (IFR). While manufacturers in the U.S. and Europe debate AI pilot programs and incremental upgrades to production, China is executing on a decade-long national strategy around automation.

Much of China’s momentum can be traced to its “Made in China 2025” plan, publicly unveiled in Beijing in 2015. That initiative set ambitious goals in sectors like robotics, machine tools, semiconductors and aerospace, then backed them with low-interest financing, subsidies and procurement policies that favored domestic providers.

Featured Content

DN Solutions and HELLER: A United Vision for U.S. Manufacturing Renewal READ MORE

When Will We See Humanoid Robots on the Manufacturing Floor? READ MORE

Addressing Manufacturing Challenges with Automation READ MORE

The IFR data makes a strong case that “Made in China 2025” has been key for China’s shift from a major automation customer to global automation supplier.

Industrial robots in use, top 10 countries, 2024 (thousands of units). China leads with over 2 million robots in operation. Source: International Federation of Robotics (IFR)

If our industrial tech competition against China was simply an arms race over machines, there may not be much to fret about. But the stakes are much higher than that, and speak directly to who will control the infrastructure, supply chains and labor force that drive advanced manufacturing. The competition revolves less around hardware than it does industrial strategy.

China’s initiative represents a top-down, state-orchestrated approach — that is, Chinese-style central planning that sits at odds with America’s decentralized, market-driven approach to innovation. To be clear, this American model has produced several extraordinary successes in recent decades, from the Apollo program to the personal computing revolution.

But it is also true that the lack of a unified vision has become a vulnerability for U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. Rather than mimicking China’s model, the U.S. needs its own playbook that reflects American strengths in private enterprise, entrepreneurship and regional specialization. We would also be wise to set clear national priorities and align public investment accordingly, with a key focus on the small and mid-sized manufacturers who are otherwise left to navigate these shifting sands alone.

U.S. actions on this front have been mixed, and the inconsistency spans multiple administrations. Today, tariffs on imported goods and export controls over emerging technologies aim to encourage reshoring and strengthen U.S. competitiveness in semiconductors and AI. If successful, these measures would mark a meaningful step in the right direction. At the same time, the Department of Defense and the Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing (ARM) Institute renewed a $35.4 million continuation agreement last year to sustain federal support for robotics R&D and workforce development.

Yet at the same time, the current administration has moved to reduce or restructure funding for parts of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) network that provides taxpayer-subsidized consulting to thousands of small and mid-sized manufacturers. According to a report by Wired back in April, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) declined to renew contracts with MEP centers in 10 states, citing a shift in priorities to support emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum. 

Here is my concern: While the justification for these cuts seem to be the performance of individual MEPs and expectations that states and the private sector will bridge the gaps, reducing support for small and mid-sized manufacturers cuts directly against the logic of reshoring and “Made in the USA” objectives.

If the shops that constitute so much of our nation’s production capacity are unable to modernize and survive, the entire foundation of the reshoring narrative risks falling apart. Reshoring requires short, strong supply chains built around networks of regional businesses that can automate and compete. Investing in automation and robotics represents the only path for success.

This is why now is the time for a unified strategy to drive national adoption of robotics and automation. In a country so divided along ideological differences, surely this is something we all can get behind. If we do not, I fear that American job shops will be left to bear the burden of this “strategy gap” alone, and our opportunity for long-term U.S. competitiveness will slip further and further away.

Clearly, the solution here is not to mirror China. But we must think and act like a nation that’s serious about winning the future of manufacturing.

In the meantime, the metalworking industry must strengthen the impact of existing, proven programs that connect the dots between technology, workforce and competitiveness. And yes, I am going to tout programs and events like The Automated Shop Conference (TASC) and the Top Shops benchmarking program, which has identified thousands of examples of small and mid-sized manufacturers succeeding through automation, process integration and workforce investment. TASC brings together shop leaders, technologists and software developers for candid discussion about where automation is succeeding and where it’s stalling.

If this sounds like a call to arms, that’s because it is. A unified U.S. strategy may be wishful thinking for now, but a unified industrial voice is not. Shops shouldn’t have to wait for a federal plan or policy directives to find success, but they shouldn’t have to act alone, either. Until we unite and fortify existing support networks, we will have to close the strategy gap from the ground up.