US Quantum Investments: Experts Demand Clear Rules of the Game, Not Blind Subsidies
Quantum computing is becoming one of those rare technological fields where direct government funding can be justified — but only under strict and transparent rules. This is the conclusion reached by leading analysts, who emphasize that current U.S. policy in this area, despite ambitious investments, risks turning into a costly experiment with no guaranteed results.
Unlike mature industries — such as battery manufacturing, drones, or rare earth metal processing — the quantum technology market is in its infancy. There are virtually no commercial products, the dominant architecture has not been determined, and supply chains have not been formed. In such a situation, early government intervention can prevent the formation of dangerous dependencies, but it can also distort market incentives.
The issue is made particularly acute by the factor of national security. Scalable quantum computers have the potential to crack modern public-key cryptography, threatening not only financial systems but also government communications. Related developments in sensors, navigation, and communications only amplify the strategic importance of the sector.
Commerce Department Program: $2 Billion for a Quantum Leap
In May, the U.S. Department of Commerce officially announced the signing of letters of intent totaling more than $2 billion under the CHIPS and Science Act. The funds are distributed between two quantum factories and seven development companies. Key beneficiaries include: IBM ($1 billion to create a subsidiary for superconducting wafers), 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 key condition is a minority, non-controlling stake for the government in each company. It was this clause that led Google to decline participation: the corporation believed the requirements would slow the path to creating a useful quantum computer.
Three Principles for Government Investments
Analysts propose three clear rules for such investments:
- Intervene only when there is a clear threat to national security. The market should solve most tasks on its own; the government steps in where private capital is powerless or uninterested.
- Do not fund what can be purchased. In mature industries, government procurement is more effective than direct subsidies. Quantum technology is an exception, as ready-made industrial products do not yet exist.
- Maintain distance between government and business. Direct equity ownership creates political risks and conflicts of interest. A more effective tool is warrants, which give the government the right to participate in value growth without controlling the companies.
Of particular note is the recent U.S. presidential executive order on the accelerated transition of federal systems to post-quantum cryptography. This is a logical continuation of the strategy: protecting existing infrastructure from future attacks. However, as experts rightly note, for decentralized networks like Bitcoin, the problem is much more complex — they cannot be updated with a single government directive.
My comment: Current U.S. policy resembles an attempt to simultaneously build an engine, a car, and a road. It is expensive, but perhaps justified. The main risk is that bureaucratic mechanisms for distributing funds will prove slower than the development of the technology itself. Warrants and minority stakes are a reasonable compromise, but only if the government does not begin to interfere in companies' operational decisions. Otherwise, we risk getting not an innovative breakthrough, but an expensive "quantum Soviet-style system."