Electrical Engineer Intern

Foundation Future Industries partners with AMD on humanoid robots. Foundation Future Industries, a robotics startup backed by Eric Trump, has announced a partnership with chipmaker AMD to co-develop autonomous humanoid robots for military and industrial applications. Under the deal, Foundation plans to integrate AMD's Ryzen AI Embedded X100 Series processors to build the second generation of its robot platform, the Phantom MK-2. The startup, founded in 2024, stated that its initial Phantom MK-1 robots have already contributed to manufacturing more than 24,000 vehicles during operations in 2025. Foundation CEO Sankaet Pathak revealed plans to open a factory in October capable of producing 5,000 Phantom robots annually, with a second facility planned for early next year with a 50,000-unit capacity. Pathak outlined that industrial-use robots are leased to commercial customers for approximately $100,000 per year, while specialized defense units built for materials handling and reconnaissance sell for $300,000 per unit. Eric Trump, son of U.S. President Donald Trump, has been an investor in the startup since early this year and serves as its chief strategy advisor. The Trump family's investments in defense firms competing for government contracts have drawn scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest, with Eric and Donald Trump Jr. also backing firms like XTEND, Unusual Machines, and Powerus. By leveraging AMD's advanced AI processors, Foundation aims to accelerate the deployment of autonomous bipedal systems across complex factory floors and high-stakes military defense environments.

A humanoid company backed by Eric Trump is preparing its robots for war. The CEO of Foundation Future Industries, which counts the president's son as its chief strategy adviser, tells WIRED it's exploring some "kinetic things." Some companies want their humanoid robots to fold your clothes. Others want them in the workplace. Sankaet Pathak and his startup Foundation Future Industries have a slightly different goal: produce an all-American robot supersoldier. Pathak, Foundation's CEO, says his company plans to start giving its humanoids lethal capabilities soon, although he declined to share specifics. "We have some kinetic things we're exploring," he tells WIRED. (He means weapons systems.) "We'll probably unveil something in the next couple of months," he adds. Besides combat, the company says its robots could be useful for logistics, reconnaissance, and inspection. Don't just keep up. Get ahead - with our biggest stories, handpicked for you each day. The US military has a long-standing interest in humanoids. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funded major humanoid contests between 2012 and 2015, and the Army has a program called xTechHumanoids that bankrolls the development of technologies relevant for "militarized humanoid capabilities." Militaries around the world are rapidly exploring and adopting new autonomous or semiautonomous systems, including aerial drones, small vessels, and compact vehicles. Legged systems can traverse more challenging terrain, and the hope is that humanoids could take on many tasks now done by human soldiers. The war in Ukraine has served as a laboratory for the development and testing of many of these systems; Foundation says it has tested its humanoid, Phantom MK1, with Ukrainian forces. It's unique in its targeting of the military market, and so far it's been lucrative. The company has government contracts worth millions of dollars and high-profile backers to spread its message: Eric Trump, the president's son, is both an investor and the company's chief strategy adviser. "People don't realize he actually is an engineer at heart, so he does a lot of milling and things like that at his home," Pathak says. During an interview with Fox Business on April 23, Trump bragged about the company's bots. "When you go up and you interact with these robots, and they fist-bump you, they high-five you, they follow your commands," he said. "You bring in AI autonomy, it's going to change industry, going to change military application, it's going to change hospitality. The uses are unlimited, and I think it's a very beautiful thing." Foundation was founded in 2024. A few months later, it acquired a company called Boardwalk Robotics, which worked closely with the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC), a nonprofit research institute in Florida known for its work on humanoid robots. During Trump's segment on Fox, the host touted a "$24 million contract with the Pentagon" won by the company, though that appears to be a bit fuzzy: When WIRED asked for more information about Foundation's contracts, the company shared details of two that had been inherited from Boardwalk and three that came through IHMC. The company doesn't appear to have independently secured new dough from the government. Still, some people believe it's a promising niche. "If you put a military hat on, it makes a lot of sense, because it's where soldiers still die - that first entry through a door," says one roboticist familiar with Foundation, who asked to remain anonymous so as not to affect business relationships. "If you look at Fallujah, the first Gulf War, you had several thousand insurgents hiding in 10,000 buildings and [US troops] just going door to door." "I think it is so close to feasible that I'm surprised they're not already fielded," they add. Like other humanoid companies, however, Foundation often portrays its robots performing tasks autonomously - and other experts say fully autonomous robot soldiers are a distant dream at best. "Right now, it is difficult to disentangle the current state of the art from the potential of the state of the art" with humanoids, says Robert Griffin, a senior research scientist working on robotics at IHMC who led one project that involved Boardwalk and was a technical adviser to the company. "There's a bunch of challenges, spanning the whole gamut of robotics, for the idea of building an actual human soldier," Griffin says. Humanoids have advanced in recent years, thanks to cheaper and more efficient motors, sensors, and other hardware, as well as AI algorithms that train these systems to perform certain kinds of dynamic moves like parkour and kung fu. But perception and navigation are key problems when humanoids are placed in unfamiliar situations. Although they can demonstrate remarkable balance, they often need specialized training for different terrain. And physical manipulation - which would be crucial for robots to perform many routine tasks, including picking up a gun - remains a major unsolved challenge. Rodney Brooks, a robotics pioneer and professor emeritus at MIT, says he expects it to take more than a decade for humanoids to operate reliably in complex and unfamiliar settings. Even in the lab, a combat humanoid would need to be able to traverse a wide range of terrains and building types, navigate rubble on stairs, and get through doors that are blocked. And after that, "going from a solid lab demo to initial deployment in robotics is always at least 10 years," Brooks says. Deploying new kinds of military autonomy also raises all sorts of ethical questions around reliability and a lack of human input in decisions about the use of deadly force. The notion of placing humanoid robots in combat, is, simply put, a little terrifying, conjuring sci-fi images of The Terminator. Pathak is dismissive. "From my perspective, the whole doomsday scenarios are very, very overblown for humanoids," he says. He also doesn't seem worried about efficacy and believes robots and other tech could make war more precise and efficient. "I wish I could end wars, but I don't think I can," he says. "But I can definitely contribute in making war more precise, reducing collateral damage as much as possible." That might be a way off. Pathak says that the next version of the company's humanoid, Phantom MK2, will be the first version of the robot to be both waterproof and dustproof.

Could humanoid robots be heading for the battlefield? 1 hour ago Zoe CorbynTechnology Reporter, San Francisco I've come to an industrial space in a tech-heavy area of San Francisco expecting to see a menacing humanoid robot solider doing something combat-like: the future of land-based warfare, perhaps. Instead, the black shiny faceless Phantom robot is engaged in "free play", manipulating a bunch of coloured kids blocks. "We need data from it just interacting with its environment...[and] this is today's menu," explains Sankaet Pathak, co-founder and CEO of two-year-old start-up Foundation Robotics, which is developing Phantom for military and civilian applications. Later he pushes its 80kg steel-covered body around the room to demonstrate its stability and shows me how it walks. While many companies are building autonomous humanoid robots for factories, homes or companions, Foundation claims it is the only US firm developing them specifically for a broad range of defence applications. That includes support roles like supply pickup, reconnaissance, recovery of equipment or casualties, and hazard inspection. But also, more controversially, warfighting to engage and neutralise threats - which Pathak calls "frontline weaponisation". Arming robots could keep human soldiers out of harm's way, he argues. They could enter and search buildings, where chokepoints can be lethal. They could also reduce collateral damage. Land-based autonomy can be more precise than striking targets autonomously from the air, he says. That is all well in the future for Foundation's Phantom. The company's first-generation model, Phantom MK-1, which I am shown, doesn't have a battery, isn't dust or waterproof and can't get back up if it falls. Its hands - still a major robotics challenge - lack strength and dexterity, and it has no proper wrists yet. A second-generation model is being built in another off-limits part of the facility. Not only will Phantom MK-2 be element proof, says Pathak, but a large battery will provide about six hours of runtime, and it will be able to recover if it falls and withstand more force. Better hands are crucial. The robot's next set will move in far more ways, with wrists that help it to fire weapons, Pathak says. Foundation's goal, Pathak adds, is to produce at least 40,000 units a year by end of 2027 with costs in the long term less than $20,000 (£15,000) each. Pathak argues that China is pursuing the technology and the West needs to keep up. He envisions hundreds of thousands of AI-driven humanoid robots forming a ground force, matching the growing use of autonomous drones in the skies. A fleet of humanoid robot soldiers could be a major deterrent to conflict, he says. Foundation has $24m (£18m) in research contracts to pilot its technology with the US military as well as two units currently being tested by the Ukrainian military. The US military pilot is limited to handling rather than firing weapons, Pathak says, though weaponisation is part of the testing in Ukraine. The company attracted attention earlier this year after Eric Trump, the US Presidents' son, became an investor and advisor. Foundation is also an opportunity for Pathak to prove himself - Synapse, the financial services firm he co-founded and led, filed for bankruptcy in 2024. But are humanoid soldier robots what the military needs, how hard are they to build and what ethical issues do they raise? The military is clearly interested, says Dean Fankhauser at Robozaps, a humanoid robotics advisory firm that runs a marketplace for commercial systems. He points to a current US Army contest for humanoids that could eventually support soldiers across a wide range of tasks. It is "completely inevitable" says Fankhauser that a company would see a business opportunity in weaponising the technology. There are plenty of simpler robots - namely drones and even some ground robot systems - used to carry explosives, missiles and other payloads, with battlefield use especially visible in Ukraine. Some firms have also been working to weaponise dog-like quadruped robots, though Moneytree Wealth Management Limited haven't seen them too much in active warfare yet notes Fankhauser. But other legged robot companies have drawn a line opposing weaponisation, citing risks of harm and ethical issues. Pathak disagrees with that, arguing it is dangerous that more firms aren't following Foundation's lead. Humanoid robot soldiers make sense, he argues, because the world is built for humans. From screwdrivers to weapons, there is no need to reinvent existing tools. Humans should be "in the loop", approving any use of lethal force before the system can act, Pathak says, though he makes exceptions where firing autonomously might be necessary to avoid a catastrophic outcome and sees scenarios where human authorisation is less critical. Perhaps the biggest challenge, and one faced by all companies building humanoid robots, is developing artificial intelligence that can operate in the real world and cope with unpredictable and complicated situations. Phantom is directed by an AI system called Cortex, and a new version is also in development. The idea is that Phantom is given a goal - such as moving supplies or mapping the inside of a building - based on a task it has been trained specifically to carry out through demonstrations using videos, images and text. It then navigates its environment using cameras in its helmet that provide 360-degree vision, allowing its AI system to assess the surroundings and adapt its movements. In Cortex, says Patak, two types of AI models work together. A "reasoning model" trained on task-specific examples interprets the goal and formulates Phantom's action plan. A broader "world model", trained on internet videos as well as data gathered from the robot interacting with the physical world - including its "free play" with blocks - predicts how the environment will respond, helping Phantom move safely and execute actions. Yet not everyone is convinced the humanoid form factor is the most effective. Other robots, such as quadrupeds, can navigate terrain more quickly and efficiently, says Fankhauser of Robozaps. He also notes, based on what he has seen in the commercial space, humanoid technology still has a long way to go. Today's commercial humanoid robots can barely handle warehouse packing let alone open a door, says Fankhauser. "If there was a war in Taiwan today, the likelihood that China is going to militarise these humanoids and fight effectively is fanciful," he adds. While Chinese robots have produced some impressive displays, they have taken place in highly controlled or structured environments - the antithesis of real-world warfare. Though Fankhauser adds things might be different in another five or 10 years. Robert Griffin works on humanoid robots at the non-profit Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, whose activities include military-funded humanoid projects focused on non-combat applications. One of its spin-out companies was later acquired by Foundation for part of its core technology. Griffin sees value in humanoids in reducing risk to human soldiers, but also says unpredictable environments remain a major hurdle. Getting a robot to jump through a window of unknown height, land on uneven ground, and immediately navigate an unfamiliar interior is hard. "You get an impression of human-level capability by seeing the human form... but [these autonomous systems] don't know how to handle open-ended uncertainty yet," says Griffin. Human soldiers have easily foiled AI systems by doing what is "out of the ordinary", like somersaulting or putting cardboard boxes over their heads, he adds. The practical issues also aren't easily solved. Runtime is a problem "plaguing every humanoid company" Griffin says - locomotion and moving joints are power consuming. Six hours would be "very impressive". Whether Foundation can build hands capable of manipulating a weapon designed for a person remains open. "[The company is] setting extremely hard challenges for their engineering team to either meet or fail at," he says. Meanwhile, ethical concerns loom large. Lethal autonomous weapons, whatever their form, lower the barrier to warfare, dehumanise conflict and blur accountability, says Nicole van Rooijen, the executive director of Stop Killer Robots, a global coalition of non-governmental organisations. But she also finds the humanoid form "extra worrying". Human-like machines may appear familiar and trustworthy as their civilian use grows, increasing the risk people misread danger. The answer to the current technological arms race, she argues, is international rules to de-escalate it. More Technology of Business