US Quantum Investments: Experts Demand Clear Rules of the Game
Quantum computing is perhaps the most striking example of why the US needs a targeted industrial policy. However, large-scale government injections into technology startups cannot occur in a legal vacuum. Leading analysts come to this conclusion, pointing to the need to develop transparent and predictable rules for investments in this sector.
Why Quantum is a Special Case
Unlike drones, batteries, or rare earth metals, where the government can simply purchase products or introduce regulations, quantum computing is more complex. There are virtually no commercially mature products here, the dominant architecture is undefined, and supply chains are only just forming. It is at this early stage, when dependencies have not yet taken hold, that government intervention can be not just justified, but critically necessary.
The connection between quantum technologies and national security is obvious: scalable quantum computers have the potential to break modern public-key cryptography in the future. Additionally, related developments find applications in sensors, navigation, communications, and scientific calculations. This is a rare case where direct government investment truly makes sense, but it should not become a universal template for the entire economy.
Commerce Department Program: $2 Billion for a Quantum Future
In May, the US 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 towards building two quantum factories and supporting seven companies developing quantum computing. Key recipients:
- IBM — $1 billion to create a subsidiary for producing quantum-class superconducting wafers.
- GlobalFoundries — $375 million for a secure quantum factory.
- Atom Computing, D-Wave, Infleqtion, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum — $100 million each.
- Rigetti — up to $100 million.
- Diraq — up to $38 million.
A condition for receiving the funds was a minority, non-controlling government stake in each company's capital. It was this clause that caused Google to refuse participation in the program: the corporation believed such requirements could slow the path to creating a useful quantum computer.
Three Principles for Government Investments
Analysts propose three key principles for direct government investment in technologies:
- Intervene only when there is an explicit threat to national security or a serious economic vulnerability that the market cannot address on its own.
- Do not invest money where a finished product can be purchased. In the case of quantum computing, this approach does not yet work, as the necessary products do not yet exist in industrial form.
- 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 proposed as an effective tool—they give the state the right to participate in the growth of companies' value without full control over them.
My View on the Situation
Quantum computing is not just another technological race, but a fundamental shift in the security paradigm. The US is right to invest in this sector, but Google's mistake shows how fine the line is between stimulating innovation and creating bureaucratic barriers. If the government wants to be an effective investor, it must learn not only to give money but also to step aside in time. Otherwise, we risk getting not quantum supremacy, but quantum stagnation.