Lawmakers and industry leaders gathered this week in Washington, D.C., underscoring the urgent need for a coordinated federal approach to robotics and workforce development as the U.S. pursues efforts to reshore manufacturing. The event, hosted by the Association for Advancing Automation (A3) and law firm DLA Piper, featured discussions on policy, education, and industry needs, while technology providers such as ABB Robotics, Boston Dynamics, FANUC, General Robotics, Intrinsic, Path Robotics, Standard Bots and education institutions like Lorain County Community College (LCCC) showcased their contributions. Against a competitive global backdrop, stakeholders pressed for a long-term strategy that connects education, business, and government, noting that substantial financial investment alone will not resolve existing challenges.
Other recent reports on similar Congressional Robotics Caucus gatherings referenced a prolonged hiatus in committee activities between 2019 and 2025, with renewed focus placed on both technological innovation and workforce concerns following key supply chain disruptions during the pandemic. Experts identified a mismatch between the rapid pace of robotics and AI development and the limited reach of U.S. policies supporting industry growth, drawing contrasts with China’s expansive national robotics agenda. As previous events emphasized reskilling and inclusivity, this latest session shifted towards making robotics an integral part of long-term manufacturing strategy and federal policy dialogue.
How Do Sector Stakeholders View the Need for Federal Coordination?
Advocates called for cohesive national action on robotics and skills development, raising concerns that fragmented policies reduce America’s global competitiveness. Jeff Burnstein, president of A3, opened the session emphasizing the necessity of unified strategies to meet reshoring goals. Legislators highlighted the continued erosion of domestic manufacturing despite strong university and industrial assets, with Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) pointing out frequent misconceptions:
“There’s a misperception that robotics leads to a loss of jobs. Technology is disruptive, but it always results in more jobs — just different jobs. We need to equip the workforce with the right skill sets.”
Proponents argued that in the face of global competition, especially with state-led initiatives from China, coordinated U.S. policies are increasingly essential to maintain economic and national security.
What Role Does Education Play in Addressing Workforce Gaps?
Panelists agreed that addressing skills shortages is critical, with sectors like welding facing an aging workforce and lengthening lead times due in part to lack of qualified labor. Efforts to create direct pathways from education to employment in robotics were highlighted by technical training centers and educators. Terri Sandu of LCCC and Ohio TechNet referenced tools like RoboticsCareer.org to guide individuals toward robotics opportunities, and stressed the need to clarify existing federal and state programs for small and midsize businesses. Jason Moore and Matt Peters from MCCTC emphasized that certifications in robotics offer affordable career paths compared to traditional degrees. Meanwhile, Ashish Kapoor from General Robotics noted limited availability of specialized robotics programmers, suggesting a stronger STEM pipeline is needed to meet future demand.
Is Funding or Focus More Critical for U.S. Robotics Policy?
Industry representatives expressed that strategic attention may outweigh financial incentives in driving robotics deployment and effective workforce integration. Boston Dynamics’ Brendan Schulman noted that the U.S. lags behind other nations in robotics usage and manufacturing capacity, despite extensive government engagement. He suggested that government leadership could introduce robotics into the broader innovation and public service landscape:
“We want to bring robotics into the AI race, and agencies could even use robotics in their domains to serve people, provide jobs, and develop new weapons. Only the federal government can lead that kind of culture change.”
Calls for federal harmonization of policies, standards, and permitting were recurrent, with experts warning about growing talent shortages and global market share imbalances.
As policymakers convene, the dialogue demonstrates substantial awareness that national competitiveness in robotics is contingent on more than just budget allocations. Experts advise embedding robotics education from secondary school through post-secondary programs, pointing to international practices such as China’s mandated PLC courses and robotics-focused educational tracks. The Congressional Robotics Caucus plans ongoing engagements to refine and recommend concrete policies to legislators and the administration, keeping workforce training, federal strategy formulation, and industry advancement under review.
Examining the development of robotics policy over recent years reveals persistent gaps between innovation, educational infrastructure, and federal action. Compared to global leaders with robust national strategies, the U.S. continues to face workforce shortages, fragmented support for robotics enterprises, and inconsistent alignment between emerging technology and policy. For readers, the key takeaway is the importance of advocating for federal strategies that encourage not just investment but also cohesive program design, workforce readiness, and early STEM exposure. As robotics and AI become more intertwined, cultivating talent and supporting industry growth through targeted policies will help U.S. manufacturing remain globally relevant and responsive to economic and security challenges.
