Why Are Foreign-Made Routers Banned?

“Malicious actors have exploited security gaps in foreign-made routers to attack American households, disrupt networks, enable espionage, and facilitate intellectual property theft,” the FCC wrote. “Foreign-made routers were also involved in the Volt, Flax, and Salt Typhoon cyberattacks targeting vital US infrastructure.”

Foreign-made consumer routers were added to the Covered List, which details equipment and services “deemed to pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.”

Bogdan Botezatu, director of Threat Research at cybersecurity firm Bitdefender, says this ban is a step to harden the cybersecurity readiness of US households, given ongoing geopolitical tensions.

“Consumer routers sit at the edge of every home network, which makes them an attractive target and a strategic risk if compromised at scale,” he says. Asked whether he thinks the risk is real, Botezatu says the risk is real, though there’s no easy way to prove intent. “[Internet of Things] devices, including routers, are a weak point across the internet.”

Which Routers Are Banned?

The ban only affects the sale of new Wi-Fi routers aimed at consumer households. The ban does not apply to existing FCC-approved routers on sale in the US. Previously purchased routers already in use in homes across the country are also fine and are not part of the ban, according to the FCC’s FAQ. These routers can continue to be sold, used, and updated with new firmware.

Any new router manufactured outside the US now requires FCC approval before it can be imported, marketed, or sold in the US. This includes routers from US companies that are manufactured overseas, which is the vast majority of the market right now.

What Does Foreign-Made Mean?

This is decidedly murky. The ban is concerned with “consumer-grade” routers and could include any that are designed or manufactured outside the US or manufactured by companies that are not completely US-owned and operated. All the major players in the market, including Netgear, TP-Link, Asus, Amazon’s Eero, Google’s Nest, Synology, Linksys, and Ubiquiti, fall under the definition. As do most, if not all, of the routers supplied by internet service providers in the US.

Just like the recent federal drone ban, the router only applies only to new routers, but manufacturers can apply for Conditional Approval from the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. Applications must include details about ownership, board membership, and country of origin for components, IP ownership, design, assembly, and firmware, among other things. The final section requests details of the applicant’s US manufacturing and onshoring plan, so there’s a clear push to persuade companies to commit to making their routers in the US.

“No routers or manufacturers have been granted a Conditional Approval so far, but as the process gets underway, we expect approvals to be granted in a timely manner,” an FCC spokesperson tells WIRED.

What About Foreign-Made Components?

Well, the FCC provides some clarification in its FAQ (“covered” here means banned):

“Non-‘covered’ devices do not become ‘covered’ simply because they contain a ‘covered’ component part, unless the ‘covered’ component part is a modular transmitter under the FCC’s rules,” it says. “Therefore, a router produced in the United States is not considered ‘covered’ equipment solely because it contains one or more foreign-made components.”

Manufacturers importing components from China but assembling them in the US will presumably be OK, though it’s far from clear. “Applicants will need to be able to have sufficient evidence that the routers were not produced in a foreign country to make this certification, but there is no specific documentation or evidence required,” according to the FCC.

Let’s look at the big three US router brands and see how they’re affected.

Will TP-Link Be Banned?

Since all of its routers are made overseas, TP-Link will have to apply for Conditional Approval or spin up manufacturing in the US to sell any new routers. Estimates vary, but TP-Link’s US consumer router market share is somewhere around 35 percent, with Netgear and Asus accounting for another 25 percent or so.

The US Commerce, Defense, and Justice departments have reportedly been investigating and considering a ban on TP-Link routers for more than a year over concerns about the company’s links to China. No ban has been enacted until now, but Texas attorney general Ken Paxton sued TP-Link in February, claiming the company allows the Chinese Communist Party to access American consumers’ devices. Detractors have also criticized perceived predatory pricing, claiming TP-Link flooded the US market with a wide range of affordable routers to establish dominance.

TP-Link has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and claims it has divested from its Chinese roots and is now headquartered in the US with the bulk of manufacturing in Vietnam. TP-Link’s cofounder and CEO, Jeffrey Chao, recently applied for permanent US residency through President Trump’s Gold Card program, according to the Times of India.

“Virtually all routers are made outside the United States, including those produced by US-based companies like TP-Link, which manufactures its products in Vietnam,” a spokesperson from TP-Link tells WIRED. “It appears that the entire router industry will be impacted by the FCC’s announcement concerning new devices not previously authorized by the FCC.”

TP-Link is a privately owned company and not publicly listed on any stock exchange. Chao and his wife, Hillary, are listed as the company’s sole owners.

Will Netgear Be Banned?

While it is a US-founded and headquartered company, Netgear’s routers are manufactured abroad, mostly in Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and Taiwan, so it will have to apply for Conditional Approval. The company has moved away from China in recent years. Netgear has been lobbying the government on “cybersecurity and strategic competition with China.”

“We commend the administration and the FCC for their action toward a safer digital future for Americans,” a Netgear spokesperson tells WIRED. “Home routers and mesh systems are critical to national security and consumer protection, and today’s decision is a step forward.”

Netgear is a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq, mostly owned by institutional investors, including BlackRock and Vanguard. The company’s stock rose on news of the ban, suggesting that many investors believe it won’t be hit too hard.

Will Asus Be Banned?

Asus primarily makes its routers in Taiwan, though it has production facilities in China and works with several third-party manufacturers. Recent tariff pressures led the company to branch out to Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico, and the Czech Republic, but the bulk of its routers still come from Taiwan or China. Asus will have to apply for Conditional Approval to sell new routers. The company did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

The company is listed on the Taiwanese Stock Exchange and is mostly owned by public shareholders. The ban doesn’t appear to have impacted its stock price.

Are Any Routers Manufactured in the US?

The only routers I know of that are manufactured in the US are some Starlink Wi-Fi routers, which are primarily made in Texas. Starlink is part of Elon Musk’s SpaceX company, but many of the components in these routers come from East Asia.

Botezatu says what matters more than geography is the security model behind the product. Companies that invest in “long-term firmware support, vulnerabilitgy management, and built-in protection layers” offer stronger security.

How Will the Router Ban Impact Ordinary Folks?

It’s not entirely clear, but it probably won’t have a huge immediate impact. There is already a wide range of Wi-Fi 7 routers and mesh systems on the market that will continue to be sold—they enable speeds well in excess of what most people need at home. Whether companies spin up manufacturing in the US or find other ways to satisfy government agencies that their wares are not a security risk, the result is likely to be higher prices for consumers.

“This ruling has the potential to significantly disrupt the US consumer router market,” Brandon Butler, a research manager of Network Infrastructure and Services at IDC tells WIRED. “In the near term, much will depend on how quickly conditional waivers are processed. Most vendors are likely to pursue them, but any delays could constrain supply and create upward pressure on pricing.”

If you haven’t upgraded to the latest Wi-Fi 7 standard, now might be a good time to do it. But it’s worth keeping in mind what you’re buying. Botezatu says consumers should “stick with reputable manufacturers that have a track record of issuing updates and maintaining their devices. Check that your router is still supported and runing the latest firmware.”

Unanswered Questions

The ban does leave several unanswered questions. Why is it being applied only to consumer routers? Which routers or manufacturers will be granted a Conditional Approval? Why are the foreign-made routers currently on sale and in our homes deemed safe? The FCC did not address these questions.

The US Department of Defense appears to be illegally punishing Anthropic for trying to restrict the use of its AI tools by the military, US district judge Rita Lin said during a court hearing on Tuesday.

“It looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic,” Lin said of the Pentagon designating the company a supply-chain risk. “It looks like [the department] is punishing Anthropic for trying to bring public scrutiny to this contract dispute, which of course would be a violation of the First Amendment.”

Anthropic has filed two federal lawsuits alleging that the Trump administration’s decision to designate the company a security risk amounted to illegal retaliation. The government slapped the label on Anthropic after it pushed for limitations on how its AI could be used by the military. Tuesday’s hearing came in a case filed in San Francisco.

Anthropic is seeking a temporary order to pause the designation. The relief, Anthropic hopes, would help convince some of the company’s skittish customers to stick with it just a bit longer. Lin can issue a pause only if she determines that Anthropic is likely to win the overall case. Her ruling on the injunction is expected in the next few days.

The dispute has sparked a broader public conversation about how artificial intelligence is increasingly being used by the armed forces, and whether Silicon Valley companies should give deference to the government in determining how the technology they develop is deployed.

The Department of Defense, which now calls itself the Department of War (DoW), has argued that it followed procedures and appropriately determined that Anthropic’s AI tools could no longer be relied upon to operate as expected during critical moments. It has asked Lin not to second-guess its assessment about the threat it claims Anthropic poses to national security.

“The worry is that Anthropic, instead of merely raising concerns and pushing back, will say we have a problem with what DoW is doing and will manipulate the software … so it doesn’t operate in the way DoW expects and wants it to,” Trump administration attorney Eric Hamilton said during Tuesday’s hearing.

Lin said that it was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s role—not hers—to decide whether Anthropic is an appropriate vendor for the department. But Lin said it’s up to her to determine whether Hegseth violated the law by taking steps beyond simply canceling Anthropic’s government contracts. Lin said it was “troubling” to her that the security designation and directives more broadly limiting use of Anthropic’s AI tool Claude by government contractors “don’t seem to be tailored to stated national security concerns.”

As Anthropic’s spat with the government escalated last month, Hegseth posted on X that “effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.”

But on Tuesday, Hamilton acknowledged that Hegseth has no legal authority to bar military contractors from using Anthropic for work unrelated to the Department of Defense. When asked by Lin why Hegseth would have posted that, Hamilton said, “I don’t know.”

Lin further questioned Hamilton about whether the Pentagon had considered taking less punitive measures to move the department away from using Anthropic’s tools. She described the supply-chain-risk designation as a powerful authority typically reserved for foreign adversaries, terrorists, and other hostile actors.

Michael Mongan, a WilmerHale attorney representing Anthropic, said it was extraordinary for the government to go after a “stubborn” negotiating partner with the designation.

The Pentagon has said it is working to replace Anthropic technologies over the coming months with alternatives from Google, OpenAI, and xAI. It also said it has put measures in place to prevent Anthropic from engaging in any tampering during the transition. Hamilton said he didn’t know if it was even possible for Anthropic to update its AI models without permission from the Pentagon; the company says it is not.

A ruling in the other case, at the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, is expected to come soon without a hearing.

Fujifilm has recently unveiled the latest addition to its instant camera range, with the aptly named Instax Mini 13.

As the Fujifilm Instax Mini 12 has a spot on our best instant cameras list, are there enough improvements with the Mini 13 to warrant an upgrade? Or, is the Mini 12 still a great choice for many.

We’ve compared the specs of the Fujifilm Instax Mini 13 to the Mini 12 and noted all the noteworthy differences between the instant cameras below. Keep reading to see what’s new with the Mini 13 and to decide whether or not you should upgrade.

For more of an overview, we’ve also rounded up a list of the best cameras we’ve reviewed recently. 

Price and Availability

At the time of writing, Fujifilm is yet to provide an exact launch date for the Instax Mini 13, and instead has promised the instant camera will be available “in or around late June 2026”. Its current MSRP is £79/€89.99/$93.95.

Advertisement

In comparison, the Fujifilm Instax Mini 12 is readily available to purchase now and has an RRP of around £79.99/$94. Having said that, it is possible to nab the instant camera with a decent price drop.

Instax Mini 13 includes a self-timer

One of the main new additions to the Instax Mini 13 is the inclusion of a self-timer. The timer is fitted with an LED lever that allows you to switch between either a two-second or ten-second countdown. The shorter two-second timer is designed for capturing hands-free selfies with reduced blur, while the ten-second alternative enables easier group shots and different angles.

Advertisement

As mentioned, this is a brand new addition to the Mini 13 so the Mini 12 unfortunately lacks this tool. Even so, it’s still worth noting that we found the Mini 12 to be easy to use, thanks to the few buttons or features on offer.

Both feature a selfie mirror and close-up mode

If you’re coming from an older Instax Mini, then you’ll be pleased to know that both the Mini 13 and Mini 12 are fitted with built-in selfie mirrors at their respective fronts. It’s a great addition that allows you to check whether everyone is in the frame before potentially wasting a precious print.

Not only that, but both cameras also benefit from Close-Up Mode which is enabled by twisting the lens twice. Essentially, Close-Up Mode could also be classed as “selfie” mode, and ensures the main subject is captured right in the centre.

Advertisement

Speaking of similarities, it’s also worth noting that both the Mini 13 and Mini 12 have automatic lighting adjustment and promise to print a photo in just five seconds and have it develop within 90. 

Instax Mini 13 has new film

Alongside the launch of the Instax Mini 13, Fujifilm has also revealed a couple of new additions and updates to its existing line-up. Firstly, the Instax Up! Smartphone apps will now integrate AI to increase image scanning precision, which is thanks to an update to its “overall learning capability”. This, according to Fujifilm, is promised to recognise images over backgrounds for “more precise scans” overall.

Advertisement

In addition, Fujifilm is also introducing a new Pastel Galaxy-themed film roll which includes sparkly, gloss embellishments and more colours too. This will be available by “late June 2026” with an MSRP of €9.99.

Although both of these new additions are introduced with the Instax Mini 13, the film and smartphone app updates will be supported by the Instax Mini 12.

Advertisement

Instax Mini 13 includes a camera angle adjustment accessory

Designed to work with the self-timer, the Instax Mini 13 comes equipped with a camera angle adjustment tool. Made up as part of the wrist strap, the tool can be used to position the camera with a slight upward tilt – negating the need for a tripod or any additional equipment.

Instax Mini 13 has more of a square design

Although at first glance you’d be forgiven for not noticing a huge design difference between the two, there are a few things to consider. Firstly, although both are undoubtedly portable, it’s fair to say that neither are quite pocket-friendly cameras to whip out in a flash. If that’s something you’d prefer, then we’d recommend the Instax Mini Evo instead.

Otherwise, alongside the addition of the timer lever at its side, the Mini 13 also has more of a uniform rounded shape compared to the Mini 12. Either way, both cameras are compact and come in a choice of five pastel colours too.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Early Verdict

With the addition of a self-timer, a rounder and more uniform design and the inclusion of the camera angle adjustment accessory on its wrist strap, the Instax Mini 13 looks set to be a brilliant instant camera – especially if you’re coming from an older model.

However, whether you really need to upgrade from the Instax Mini 12 is still up for debate as, although the Mini 12 may lack the self-timer, it still sports Close-Up Mode, automatic light and flash control and speedy photo printing too. We’ll be sure to update this versus once we do review the Instax Mini 13.

Kyndryl’s Ismail Amla discusses the company’s new policy as code process, and how it can help address AI issues such as agentic drift.

When it comes to AI adoption in enterprise, compliance concerns are becoming ever more important.

According to Kyndryl’s most recent Readiness Report, 31pc of enterprise customers cite regulatory or compliance concerns as a primary barrier limiting their organisation’s ability to scale recent technology investments.

2026 marks an important point on the AI compliance timeline in particular, with the EU’s AI Act transparency rules coming into effect in August.

Last month, Kyndryl announced its new ‘policy as code capability’ – a new process designed for creating policy-governed agentic AI workflows for enterprises.

“Policy as code is the process of translating an organisation’s rules, policies and compliance requirements into machine-readable code, so AI systems are restricted to only operating within pre-defined guardrails,” explains Ismail Amla, senior vice-president at Kyndryl Consult. “Human experts continue to oversee all activities related to these processes.”

Compliant design

“Many organisations, especially those in complex, highly regulated environments, want to scale agentic AI, but are held back by concerns around security, compliance and control”, says Amla.

Speaking to SiliconRepublic.com, he says policy as code can help organisations support “consistent policy interpretations” and define clear operational boundaries, subsequently ensuring agent actions are explainable, reviewable and “aligned with organisational standards”.

Amla also says the framework can help reduce costs, accelerate decision-making, eliminate errors and “power AI-native workflows within defined policy guardrails”.

“By embedding policy and regulatory requirements directly into AI agent operations, policy as code can help organisations execute AI workflows that are governed, transparent, explainable and aligned to business requirements.”

But what about the long-term applications of policy as code?

Amla says the main benefit of the process is “trust through stronger governance, better transparency, lower operational risk and more reliable AI at scale”.

“Managing agentic workflow execution in this way supports controlled and responsible deployment of policy-constrained AI agents in sectors such as financial operations, public services, supply chains and other mission-critical domains, where reliability and predictability are essential,” he explains.

Catch the drift

Over the past year, according to Amla, the biggest change he’s noticed in AI adoption is that organisations are moving beyond proofs of concept and “focusing more seriously on what it takes to make AI work in production and at scale”.

“That means more attention on infrastructure, governance, data quality and organisational readiness,” he says. “Organisations are moving from experimentation to making more strategic decisions with the experience they have gained to drive higher value outcomes and performance for their organisation, and receive a return on their investment.”

But with increased focus on serious AI integrations comes risk, particularly if an organisation is not fully prepared.

Amla warns of something called ‘agentic drift’, which refers to when an AI agent can appear reliable while working toward unwanted outcomes due to a gradual separation from the agent operator’s original intention or goal.

“Agentic drift creates pressing challenges for all organisations, but it is especially acute in the public sector and highly regulated sectors, such as banking and healthcare,” says Amla.

“In these industries, organisations cannot move from pilots to production if issues around control, trust and compliance remain unresolved. It’s clear enterprises urgently need a way to constrain what agents can do at runtime and close governance gaps long before drift leads to financial or compliance failures.”

Amla believes that policy as code can help address this issue, due to its ability to allow businesses to translate their rules and policy into machine-readable instructions that “govern how AI agents reason, adapt and act”.

“This greatly reduces the risk of agentic drift,” he says. “It also alleviates the trust and compliance concerns standing between large enterprises and a return on their AI investments.”

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Sony is shutting down Dark Outlaw Games, a first-party game studio led by former Call of Duty producer Jason Blundell, Bloomberg‘s Jason Schreier reports. Before leading Dark Outlaw Games, Blundell was the head of Deviation Games, which was an independent studio, but also happened to be developing a PlayStation game before it shut down, Schreier says.

Dark Outlaw Games had yet to announce what it was working on, but considering Blundell’s experience with the Call of Duty franchise, it seems likely the studio was developing a multiplayer project for PlayStation. Blundell was a programmer and producer at Activision before making the jump to Treyarch to work on Call of Duty 3, and he contributed to multiple Call of Duty: Black Ops games after that, including serving as the director for the campaign and Zombies mode of Call of Duty: Black Ops III and the career and Zombies modes of Call of Duty: Black Ops 4.

Engadget has contacted Sony for more information about the fate of Dark Outlaw Games. We’ll update this article if we hear back.

The studio’s shutdown is being paired with cuts to staff at PlayStation focused on mobile development, according to Schreier. Sony has made a habit of laying off staff and shutting down studios in the last year, seemingly as a way to retreat from an earlier investment in online, live-service multiplayer games. The company shut down Bluepoint Games in February following attempts to get a live-service God of War game off the ground. Sony also closed Firewalk Studios after the spectacular failure of multiplayer shooter Concord in October 2024. And a year before that, Naughty Dog officially abandoned work on a standalone multiplayer version of The Last of Us in December 2023.

That leaves Sony with at least two Horizon Zero Dawn spin-offs, a co-op game from original developer Guerilla Games and a MMO from developer NCSoft; Fairgame$, which is still in active development despite the departure of Haven Studios head Jade Raymond; Arrowhead Game Studios’ Helldivers 2; Bungie’s Destiny 2 and Marathon; and if you really want to stretch, Gran Turismo 7. Sony clearly hasn’t given up on producing online multiplayer games, but it’s not hard to characterize its attempt to expand into the space as a disaster.

For developers using AI, “vibe coding” right now comes down to babysitting every action or risking letting the model run unchecked. Anthropic says its latest update to Claude aims to eliminate that choice by letting the AI decide which actions are safe to take on its own — with some limits.  

The move reflects a broader shift across the industry, as AI tools are increasingly designed to act without waiting for human approval. The challenge is balancing speed with control: too many guardrails slows things down, while too few can make systems risky and unpredictable. Anthropic’s new “auto mode,” now in research preview — meaning it’s available for testing but not yet a finished product — is its latest attempt to thread that needle. 

Auto mode uses AI safeguards to review each action before it runs, checking for risky behavior the user didn’t request and for signs of prompt injection — a type of attack where malicious instructions are hidden in content that the AI is processing, causing it to take unintended actions. Any safe actions will proceed automatically, while the risky ones get blocked.

It’s essentially an extension of Claude Code’s existing “dangerously-skip-permissions” command, which hands all decision-making to the AI, but with a safety layer added on top.

The feature builds on a wave of autonomous coding tools from companies like GitHub and OpenAI, which can execute tasks on a developer’s behalf. But it takes it a step further by shifting the decision of when to ask for permission from the user to the AI itself. 

Anthropic hasn’t detailed the specific criteria its safety layer uses to distinguish safe actions from risky ones — something developers will likely want to understand better before adopting the feature widely. (TechCrunch has reached out to the company for more information on this front.)

Auto mode comes off the back of Anthropic’s launch of Claude Code Review, its automatic code reviewer designed to catch bugs before they hit the codebase, and Dispatch for Cowork, which allows users to send tasks to AI agents to handle work on their behalf.  

Auto mode will roll out to Enterprise and API users in the coming days. The company says it currently only works with Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6, and recommends using the new feature in “isolated environments” — sandboxed setups that are kept separate from production systems, limiting the potential damage if something goes wrong.