US Investments in Quantum Technologies: Rules of the Game or a Game Without Rules?
Quantum computing is not just another technological trend, but a potential existential challenge for the entire digital infrastructure. That is why the discussion about how the state should invest in this sector goes far beyond ordinary industrial policy. The question is not whether to invest, but how to do so without creating new dependencies and stifling innovation at its root.
Unlike drones or batteries, where the market is already formed, the quantum field is in its infancy. There are virtually no commercial products, the dominant architecture is undefined, and production chains are just beginning to take shape. This makes early government intervention not just justified, but critically important for national security. After all, a scalable quantum computer could crack modern public-key cryptography, threatening not only financial systems but also state secrets.
Commerce Department Program: $2 Billion for a Quantum Future
In May, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the allocation of $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 a subsidiary focused on superconducting wafers), GlobalFoundries ($375 million for a secure factory), as well as Atom Computing, D-Wave, Infleqtion, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, Rigetti, and Diraq — each receiving between $38 million and $100 million.
The condition for support is a minority, non-controlling stake for the state in each company. It was this clause that prompted Google to decline participation. The corporation believed such requirements could slow the path to creating a useful quantum computer. And this makes sense: government involvement often comes with bureaucracy and political risks incompatible with the flexibility needed for breakthrough research.
Three Principles for Government Investments
To avoid mistakes, three clear principles for direct investments have been proposed. 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 money where a finished product can be purchased. In the quantum sector, this approach does not yet work, as the necessary products simply do not exist. Third, maintain distance between the state and business. Taxpayers should benefit from the growth of supported companies, but direct equity ownership creates political risks.
Warrants are considered an effective tool — they give the state the right to participate in the growth of companies' value without full control. This allows for stimulating innovation without turning it into a government project.
Earlier, the U.S. President signed an executive order to accelerate the transition of federal systems to post-quantum cryptography. This is a strategic step aimed at protecting against future quantum attacks. However, as I have noted before, the problem is more complex for Bitcoin: a decentralized network cannot be updated by government decree.
My expert assessment: The U.S. is betting on quantum technologies, and this is the right move. But the key challenge is finding a balance between state control and market freedom. If the rules of the game are too rigid, we risk not a quantum breakthrough, but quantum stagnation.