The Quantum Race: Why the US Needs Clear Rules for Government Investment in Future Technologies
Quantum computing presents a unique challenge for U.S. industrial policy. Unlike sectors such as drones, batteries, or rare earth metals, where the government can stimulate the market through procurement and regulation, the quantum field is at a stage where commercial products are virtually nonexistent, the dominant architecture is undefined, and production chains are only just forming. This is precisely why early government intervention may be justified—before critical dependencies take shape.
National Security at Stake
The connection between quantum technologies and national security is obvious: scalable quantum computers are capable of breaking public-key cryptography, and related developments find applications in sensors, navigation, and communications. This is a rare case where direct government investment can be not just useful, but necessary. However, such support should not become a universal model—it requires clear frameworks and principles.
Commerce Department Program: $2 Billion for a Quantum Future
On May 21, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the signing of nine letters of intent totaling $2.013 billion under the CHIPS and Science Act. The funds are directed toward building two quantum factories and supporting seven companies. Key recipients include: IBM ($1 billion for superconducting wafer production), GlobalFoundries ($375 million for a secure quantum factory), as well as Atom Computing, D-Wave, Infleqtion, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, Rigetti, and Diraq—each receiving between $38 million and $100 million.
A condition of the support was that the government would receive a minority, non-controlling stake in each company. It is this clause that drew criticism from Google, which refused to participate in the program, fearing that the requirements would slow the path to building a useful quantum computer.
Three Principles for Government Investment
In my view, the proposed approach—three key principles for direct investment—is the most balanced. First, intervene only where there is a clear threat to national security or an economic vulnerability that the market cannot address on its own. Second, do not invest in areas where ready-made products already exist—in the case of quantum computing, this principle does not yet apply, as the necessary technologies have not reached an industrial level. Third, maintain distance between the government and business: taxpayers should benefit from the growth of companies, but direct equity ownership creates political risks.
The use of warrants is proposed as an effective tool—this would allow the government to participate in the increase in companies' value without full control over them. Such a mechanism appears more flexible and less burdensome for innovation than direct equity participation.
Expert Opinion: The quantum race is not just a technological challenge but a strategic issue. The U.S. is right to invest in this sector, but the key factor for success will not be the amount of funding, but the government's ability to build a system that stimulates innovation without stifling it with bureaucracy. Google has already shown that even giants are unwilling to tolerate excessive control. The balance between support and freedom is what will determine who emerges victorious in this race.