Two Republican lawmakers are pressing federal regulators to dig into Chinese electronics maker Anker, warning that its popular Eufy-branded cameras and gadgets could quietly open the door to foreign snooping and other national-security headaches inside American homes. Rep. Elise Stefanik and Sen. Rick Scott say Anker’s fast-growing U.S. footprint, paired with earlier security lapses, is enough reason for the Federal Communications Commission and the Commerce Department to take a hard look. They are also zeroing in on promotions aimed at military families and what they describe as Chinese government subsidies that could help fuel Anker’s reach.
In a letter to FCC Chair Brendan Carr and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the lawmakers urged regulators to scrutinize who really controls Anker, whether American user data is being routed through servers in China, and what concrete steps agencies could take to blunt any surveillance risks, according to The New York Post. The letter, as described by the Post, warned that Anker’s ties to Beijing “could introduce foreign surveillance and destructive capabilities into American households.” The paper added that representatives for the FCC, the Commerce Department and Anker did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The push comes on the heels of earlier enforcement trouble. In January 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James secured a $450,000 settlement after investigators found that certain Eufy camera feeds “were not always securely encrypted” and could be accessed without authentication, according to the New York Attorney General’s office. Under the deal, distributors agreed to beef up encryption, conduct regular security testing and add clearer consumer safeguards, the release notes.
Security researchers and tech reporters had been sounding alarms well before that settlement. In 2023, The Verge reported that Anker acknowledged some web-portal streams from Eufy cameras could be unencrypted, and the company pledged fixes. Later coverage revealed that Anker had explored paying customers to share home-security footage so it could train its artificial intelligence systems, an approach that reignited privacy worries, according to TechCrunch. Those episodes widened scrutiny of the brand, TechCrunch reported.
This is not Anker’s first run-in with Capitol Hill. In September 2025, Rep. John Moolenaar, who chairs the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, asked the Commerce Department to investigate what he described as possible tariff evasion and pointed to Anker’s security problems as part of the concern, according to the Select Committee’s press release. That letter pressed officials to scrutinize how Anker’s products are classified and routed as imports, warning that any gamesmanship could give the company an unfair price edge.
What Regulators Could Do Next
The FCC has recently bulked up its national-security work and set up a Council for National Security to coordinate investigations and enforcement across the agency, a venue that would be a natural home for any Anker probe, according to the commission’s own announcement. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security has authority to open export, import or enforcement inquiries and can team up with the Justice Department and other agencies. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, can review foreign ownership stakes and deals that raise security concerns. Each body brings different tools to the table, from penalties and mandatory security overhauls to restrictions on imports or market authorizations, depending on what any investigation uncovers and how aggressive regulators choose to be.
For American consumers, the brewing fight is a not-so-gentle reminder to keep an eye on their own gear. That means installing firmware updates, double-checking privacy and cloud settings on smart-home devices and thinking carefully about where video or biometric data might be stored and who can touch it. For now, the federal scrutiny Stefanik and Scott are seeking would layer more oversight onto a company already facing state fines, unflattering headlines and pointed questions from Congress.
