US Quantum Investments: Why the State Needs Clear Rules of the Game
Quantum computing presents a unique challenge for U.S. industrial policy. Unlike mature industries—drones, batteries, or rare earth processing—the government cannot simply purchase finished products or regulate the market here. Commercial products in this field are still rare, the dominant architecture is undefined, and supply chains are in their infancy. This is why early government intervention, as current trends show, may not just be justified but critically necessary to prevent technological dependence.
National Security and $2 Billion at Stake
Quantum technologies are directly linked to national security issues. Scalable quantum computers have the potential to crack public-key cryptography in the future, while related developments find applications in sensors, navigation, and communication systems. In May, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced the allocation of $2.013 billion under the CHIPS and Science Act. The funds will go to two quantum foundries and seven development companies.
Key recipients: IBM will receive $1 billion for a subsidiary to produce superconducting wafers, and GlobalFoundries will get $375 million for a secure foundry. The list also includes Atom Computing, D-Wave, Infleqtion, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, Rigetti, and Diraq. However, a condition of the support was that the government would receive a minority, non-controlling stake in each company. It was this clause that caused Google to decline participation—the corporation believed such requirements would slow down the path to creating a useful quantum computer.
Three Principles for Government Investment
Analysts commenting on this situation have formulated three key principles for direct government investment in technology companies:
- Intervention only when there is a clear threat: Support should be provided only in cases where national security or significant economic vulnerability is at stake, which the market cannot address on its own.
- Do not fund what can be bought: The government should not invest in products that already exist on the market. In the quantum field, this approach is not yet applicable, as the necessary solutions have not yet been created on an industrial scale.
- Distance between government and business: Taxpayers should benefit from the growth of supported companies, but direct equity ownership creates political risks. Warrants may be the optimal tool—they provide the right to participate in value growth without control over the company.
Against this backdrop, President Trump has already signed an executive order to accelerate the transition of federal systems to post-quantum cryptography. However, as experts rightly note, for decentralized networks like Bitcoin, the problem is much more complex—they cannot be updated by government decree.
My professional opinion: The current model of government investment in quantum technologies is both a breakthrough and a risk. On one hand, the U.S. is trying to avoid repeating mistakes made with semiconductors, where dependence on Asian manufacturers became a vulnerability. On the other hand, excessive regulation and demands for equity stakes could deter the most innovative players, as happened with Google. The key question is not whether the government should participate, but how to make this participation effective without killing competition or creating "quantum monopolies" with state support.