It reflects a growing recognition that robotics is no longer simply another technology market. It is becoming a strategic capability that will shape manufacturing, economic competitiveness and national security for decades to come.

The decision was the right one. But it would be a mistake to believe it answers the larger question facing the United States.

Protection may buy America time. It will not, by itself, make America the world’s robotics leader.

That challenge runs much deeper.

For much of the past two decades, America has rightly celebrated its capacity to innovate. Our universities remain the world’s finest. Our entrepreneurs continue to build transformational companies. Artificial intelligence is the latest example of American ingenuity shaping the global economy.

Yet innovation alone has never guaranteed industrial leadership.

Increasingly, success depends not on who invents first, but on who can manufacture, deploy and scale those innovations most effectively.

China understood this years ago. Today, its commercial shipbuilding industry has more than 230 times the production capacity of the United States. It also operates more than two million industrial robots across its factories, around five times the American total. Those figures are about far more than ships or automation. They reflect a long-term national strategy to expand industrial capacity, strengthen supply chains and turn technological advances into manufacturing advantage.

That is the real lesson behind the FCC’s decision.

For the past three years, public debate around artificial intelligence has focused almost exclusively on software. We have argued about foundation models, generative AI and the future of office work. Those discussions matter, but they have obscured another transformation that may ultimately prove just as important.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to reshape the physical economy. At GrayMatter Robotics, we describe this transformation as Factory SuperIntelligence: manufacturing environments where AI continuously perceives, learns and adapts in real time, enabling factories to become smarter, more productive and more resilient.

Factories, shipyards and warehouses are becoming intelligent. AI-powered robotics can now inspect, grind, sand, coat, assemble and move materials in environments that have traditionally resisted automation because every part is slightly different and every production line presents new variables. Instead of following fixed instructions, these systems perceive, adapt and make decisions in real time.

The implications reach well beyond robotics.

Across aerospace, defense, shipbuilding and advanced manufacturing, the greatest constraint on growth is no longer demand. Companies have customers. Defense contractors have contracts. Shipbuilders understand the urgency of increasing production. What many lack is the skilled workforce needed to deliver at the pace required.

Experienced tradespeople are retiring faster than they can be replaced, while fewer younger workers are entering industrial careers. Simply hiring more people is unlikely to solve the problem.

This is where physical AI changes the equation.

Its purpose is not to replace skilled workers. It is to augment the workforce and make them more productive. By automating repetitive, physically demanding and highly variable tasks, intelligent robotics allows experienced people to focus on the work where their judgment and expertise create the greatest value. The result is greater throughput, higher quality and more resilient manufacturing.

We see that every day at GrayMatter Robotics. Working with manufacturers across aerospace, defense and heavy industry, we have found that the greatest value of physical AI is not labor substitution. It is removing production bottlenecks that have constrained factories for years. Improving one stage of production often accelerates every stage that follows, allowing manufacturers to produce more with the workforce they already have.

That matters because industrial productivity has once again become a strategic capability.

Countries that can manufacture aircraft, naval vessels, critical infrastructure and advanced technologies more quickly will enjoy advantages that extend far beyond economics. Industrial capacity increasingly underpins supply chain resilience, defense readiness and national competitiveness. Robotics should therefore be viewed in the same light as semiconductor manufacturing, energy infrastructure and advanced materials. It is foundational to long-term economic strength.

The FCC has acknowledged that reality. Now the United States needs a strategy that matches its strengths in innovation with equal ambition in production.

That means investing in domestic manufacturing capacity, strengthening supply chains for critical components and accelerating the deployment of American robotics across industry. It also means setting the highest possible benchmark for quality and performance. Protection should never become an excuse for lower standards or weaker competition. The objective should be to build an ecosystem where American and allied manufacturers compete to produce the world’s best robotics, raising the bar for the entire industry rather than simply shielding it from global competitors.

It means becoming an ambitious early customer for domestic robotics companies in the same way previous generations of policymakers supported the growth of aerospace, semiconductors and the internet. Most importantly, it means recognizing that the race will not be won by protecting markets alone, but by creating the conditions in which American companies can build, deploy and scale world-leading technologies.

America has never lacked ideas. The question is whether it can translate those ideas into industrial capability.

The FCC has taken an important first step. The next one is harder, but ultimately far more important. The countries that lead the next industrial era will not simply invent the future. They will have the capacity to build it – and the ambition to set the global standard for how it is built.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.