Join War on the Rocks and gain access to content trusted by policymakers, military leaders, and strategic thinkers worldwide.
Editor’s Note: This is the third article in a four-part series. The first article, “America’s Quantum Moment,” was published on Oct. 13, 2025, and the second, “The Supply Chain Chokepoints in Quantum,” was published on Oct. 20, 2025.
Policy interventions are intended to modify behavior toward — it is hoped — positive ends. It helps, of course, to predict the downstream effects of these actions. And yes, that involves knowing the subject matter. Successful policy interventions are measured by the benefit of the intervention outweighing the cost. Easier said than done.
In previous installments in this series, we have outlined the impetus for policies that will ignite American quantum manufacturing. We have detailed how gaps in today’s supply chains would be an impediment to such a goal. As noted throughout this series, we’re definitely not spectators — we have skin in the game. One of us is an active quantum scientist and technologist, and investor at deep technology fund DCVC with portfolio companies in this space. We both regularly engage with companies across dual-use and defense tech, compute, materials and manufacturing, and space.
In this third installment of the series, we tackle some of the policy and investment tools that are currently available, their shortcomings, and offer alternatives. Deep tech is the foundation of wealth for America, and quantum technologies could make reindustrialization over the next few years a reality. We are optimistic that quantum technologies and manufacturing would become an American jobs story, with the right policy levers.
Prediction Is Hard, Especially About the Quantum Future
Between the start of this four-part series and the publication of this article, there have been several announcements (and debates) across the tech, investment, and policy domains. On the private side, JPMorgan Chase announced a $1.5 trillion investment initiative over the next decade to bolster industries critical to U.S. economic and national security, and on the public side, the Trump administration is reportedly interested in investing directly in quantum computing companies.
Export Controls and Quantum Technologies
Export controls illustrate the gap between intent and execution. In September 2024, the Bureau of Industry and Security, an agency of the Department of Commerce, imposed controls on quantum computing systems, targeting advanced quantum computers that could threaten U.S. national security if accessed by adversaries. In particular, the controls required licenses for exporting systems above specified qubit counts and coherence thresholds. Groups like the Quantum Economic Development Consortium argued that the rule’s language created ambiguities on what systems required controls, the treatment of cloud-based systems, and when improved capabilities would merit new restrictions.
A lack of clarity around such controls allows over-compliance and under-compliance to occur simultaneously. For instance, some companies restrict legitimate collaborations with allied researchers to avoid inadvertent violations. Others interpret ambiguities permissively, confident that regulators lack the technical staff to enforce nuanced distinctions. But neither outcome serves American interests. Effective export controls require clarity on controlled technology categories, periodic revision as qubit performance improves, and coordination with allies to adopt equivalent restrictions.
The September 2024 rule also required companies to report foreign nationals from countries of concern who have access to controlled quantum technologies — but only for new hires. Existing employees with access may remain unreported unless the company voluntarily discloses them. This has created a perverse incentive: closing pipelines for new talent to minimize reporting burdens, while ignoring potential risks posed by existing employees. A better approach would be to require disclosure of all personnel with access to controlled systems and case-by-case risk mitigation.
Gaps in Investment Screening: the America First Investment Policy
Investment screening affects how and where quantum companies secure capital. The Bureau of Industry and Security and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States both play a role. The Committee reviews transactions involving foreign investment in U.S. companies, aiming to prevent adversaries from acquiring critical technology or intellectual property.
The February 2025 America First Investment Policy memorandum illustrates how the People’s Republic of China has long used direct investment and partnerships with US companies to elicit technology transfer to Chinese entities. The Committee treats all qualified investment with equal suspicion, leading to lengthy reviews. This uncertainty discourages foreign investors — including those from allied nations with substantial sovereign wealth funds — from participating in funding rounds. In 2024, fifty-five percent of transactions referred to the Committee were investigated, but only one was cancelled. Between 2022 and 2024, investments by the Chinese government or connected entities triggered the most investigations. After China, countries such as Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Japan were investigated. Considering the friction caused by Chinese investment, restricting Chinese capital or connected entities from the outset, similar to the covered entity list created by the Secure and Trusted Communications Network Act of 2019, should be considered.
Quantum startups cannot afford prolonged fundraising delays. Even when the Committee does approve investments, it often imposes what the administration has termed “overly bureaucratic, complex, and open-ended mitigation agreements” — leading to unbounded compliance costs rather than clear, targeted actions. Meanwhile, Chinese entities continue accessing critical technologies through more sophisticated channels that evade review: minority stakes below thresholds, licensing arrangements rather than equity investments, and partnerships with seemingly independent third-country entities.
The solution requires differentiation. The America First Investment Policy directs the Treasury to create an expedited fast-track process for allies based on objective standards, while simultaneously restricting Chinese-affiliated entities from accessing U.S. technology. Applied to quantum, this means: expedited 30-day investment reviews for allies (Five Eyes, European Union, Japan, South Korea) or previously vetted actors; categorical restrictions on investments from Chinese-affiliated entities in quantum companies; preference for time-bound or more targeted requirements on covered firms; and expansion of Committee authority over greenfield quantum facilities to shield U.S. talent. Pairing brightline rules for trusted investors while closing the door on adversaries promotes American innovation while protecting national security.
Federal Action and Recently Introduced Legislation
U.S. innovation is a complex layering of capabilities and efforts. It is our superpower. This ecosystem was built on the foundational insight articulated by Vannevar Bush in his seminal 1945 report Science: The Endless Frontier. Bush’s vision of sustained government investment in basic research, coupled with university excellence and private sector innovation and commercialization, created a uniquely American model that has driven technological superiority for eight decades.
The United States implemented its quantum strategy in 2018, and then-President Donald J. Trump signed the National Quantum Initiative Act into law. This legislation helped support promising research and coincided with growing private investment in the sector. But it expired in 2023, and reauthorization is needed.
The CHIPS and Science Act’s Tech Hubs program demonstrates how funding can succeed — or stall — based on regulatory alignment. The program awards grants to support regional technology clusters, including quantum hubs. Failures of similar efforts, particularly the CHIPS Act, are instructive. The program showered favored companies with capital, juicing demand, while ignoring supply constraints, such as failing to reform (or waive) environmental regulations and attaching workforce mandates to projects. Policymakers’ focus now should be on creating a permissive regulatory environment for potentially large investment.
On the Hill, the 119th Congress has been busy, with several pieces of legislation focused on U.S. quantum competitiveness and security introduced. One is the National Quantum Cybersecurity Migration Strategy Act, introduced by Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Gary Peters, which directs the Department of Defense to work with the federal government to establish a post-quantum cryptography migration plan. Other pieces of legislation, also introduced by Sen. Blackburn, task the Defense Department to develop a defense-focused quantum strategy and testbed, respectively. Other legislation looks to accelerate near-term applications with a quantum-specific sandbox and improve coordination between the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy.
States Are Taking Bold Action in Quantum Tech
New Mexico is positioning itself as a national leader in quantum technology through partnerships linking its national labs, universities, and private sector under the DARPA-backed Quantum Frontier Project. Maryland is pursuing a similar path, with its “Capital of Quantum” initiative expected to attract more than $1 billion in investment. Pairing tech hub grants with targeted regulatory waivers could further amplify the impact of these public-private efforts.
Done Right, Quantum Is an American Jobs Story
Workforce development determines whether quantum tech can transition from prototypes to production. The quantum industry projects needing 250,000 jobs by 2030, yet job postings increased only 4.4 percent year-over-year as of April 2025, with a 13.9 percent month-over-month decline. Over 50 percent of quantum jobs do not require advanced degrees, but training programs for technicians, manufacturing specialists, and field engineers remain sparse. Worryingly, 50–70 percent of quantum-relevant PhDs awarded in the United States go to foreign nationals, predominantly from China. The result is that quantum companies cannot hire enough qualified personnel to scale manufacturing, even when funding and facilities are available.
No policy effort to support U.S. leadership in quantum technologies will be successful without people to understand the principles, do the work, and deliver real-world success. We need new pathways from classrooms and labs to factory floors. Education reform needs to focus on advanced manufacturing skills, using such technologies as automation, artificial intelligence, additive manufacturing, and more, to improve efficiency, precision, and adaptability. Building a quantum skills pipeline that has multiple entry points for talented individuals interested in this field can deliver upward mobility and growth potential. Technicians and engineers need to learn practical manufacturing skills that can prepare them to understand how to apply quantum to sensing, measurement, engineering, and product development. Supporting such a workforce includes community colleges and certificate programs that prepare people as technicians in advanced manufacturing, as well as undergraduate and graduate college programs, tailored to teaching the necessary real-world skills being developed in classrooms and labs.
To win the quantum race, we need to build on the policy and investment foundation laid during the first Trump administration and advance a forward-thinking and nimble strategy across supply chain resilience and domestic manufacturing capacity, public-private-academic infrastructure partnerships at the state and federal levels, and strategic workforce development. The quantum economy can be an American jobs story — but only if we make it one. Right now, we have the research lead, the capital, and the talent pipeline. What we need are the right policy signals that match the pace of innovation, investment screening that distinguishes allies from adversaries, and strategic workforce development that turns scientific promise into manufacturing reality. Get the policy right, and quantum becomes the next chapter in American industrial leadership.
Prineha Narang, PhD, is an American scientist, engineer, and entrepreneur. She is a professor at UCLA, operating partner at DCVC, and a non-resident senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation.
Joshua Levine is a research fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation.
Image: Midjourney
