U.S. Quantum Leadership

Quantum technology represents a new frontier for innovation, and progress in quantum technologies is essential for U.S. leadership. This report discusses how to accelerate and reinforce U.S. leadership in quantum technologies through increasing research and development (R&D), strengthening the quantum industrial base, accelerating commercialization, increasing workforce development, and building international partnerships.

Quantum technologies leverage the physics of quantum mechanics for computing, communications, and sensing. Progress is vital for national security and economic competitiveness. While many quantum technologies are in an early stage of development, they will become essential for maintaining the United States’ technological edge.

This report is the product of more than a year of discussions, workshops, and consultations among members of the CSIS Commission on U.S. Quantum Leadership, a group composed of some of the leading figures in quantum science and industry in America. It presents a comprehensive set of recommendations to ensure U.S. leadership in quantum technologies.

Unlike other emerging technologies, many quantum technologies are too new and too experimental to solely rely on private investment. Private investment in quantum technology between 2019 and 2023 was approximately $8 billion, though this pales in comparison to the booming investment in AI, which has received estimated capital expenditure of over $200 billion based on reporting in 2024. Market forces alone may not ensure U.S. quantum leadership. This will change as quantum technologies mature, but for now federal spending on quantum technology represents an essential investment. Quantum technologies are a strategic outlay since they will reshape the economic and security landscape. Although they may not have the immediate effect of artificial intelligence (AI) or semiconductors, early investment in quantum technologies will pay off later, and as experience shows, it is risky and expensive to fall behind.

Three case studies demonstrate the strategic importance of quantum technologies:

1. Quantum Navigation: Electronic warfare (EW) is now central to combat. Quantum sensing remedies one of the greatest EW vulnerabilities: The Global Positioning System (GPS) is increasingly susceptible to jamming and spoofing by adversaries like Russia, China, and even Iran. Quantum sensing technologies offer a secure alternative for military and civilian navigation. These systems use quantum measurements of Earth’s gravitational and magnetic fields rather than satellite signals to provide jam-resistant positioning and navigation capabilities. Inertial quantum sensors can provide precise measurement of acceleration and velocity. This is important not only for location but also for precise timing, which is essential for business and finance.

2. Quantum as a Service (QaaS): Quantum computing will be able to solve problems that conventional computers, no matter how powerful, cannot. Rather than compel individual organizations to build their own expensive quantum computers, QaaS provides cloud-based access to quantum computing resources (where computing resources are accessed remotely through the internet), allowing researchers to experiment and businesses to build the apps and software quantum computing requires. QaaS is the most practical path to near-term commercialization. The QaaS market was valued at approximately $2 billion in 2021, and the right blend of investment and incentives can lead to continued expansion for research and industrial growth.

3. Post-Quantum Cryptography: Quantum computers will eventually break current encryption methods, perhaps as early as the end of the decade. Whatever the timeline, the United States does not want a quantum decryption surprise from China, as this would be a major threat to both national security and commercial communication. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed quantum-resistant cryptography standards, but transitioning the economy to these new standards will require time and investment.

The quantum industrial base has six elements: research, workforce, materials, fabrication, software, and testing. The U.S. quantum industry consists of over 150 companies ranging from tech giants to start-ups (with perhaps another 400 companies around the world, including in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Israel, and the United Kingdom) working across computing, software, communications, and sensing.

The are parallels between the development of quantum technologies and the development of high-performance computing (HPC) in the last century, where sustained federal investment was crucial before commercial applications had emerged. Like HPC, quantum technology requires sustained government support and market-strengthening measures to reach private sector viability and to strengthen national security in the face of technological and military rivalry with China and others.

Quantum technologies may seem distant (and some are), but there are real security problems that the United States faces today that require quantum solutions. EW warfare has reshaped battlefields and targets GPS. Quantum sensing provides the best solutions to GPS vulnerability. The United States’ signals intelligence enterprise is at risk from both opponent decryption capabilities that allow them to read out traffic and opponent use of post-quantum encryption to keep the United States from reading their traffic. Making progress in developing and deploying quantum solutions for cryptography is essential, and both of these areas reflect immediate security problems that require quantum solutions and justify further investment.

To keep and expand the United States’ leadership in quantum technologies, the CSIS Commission on U.S. Quantum Leadership has developed the recommendations provided below. The chief conclusion from the report is that U.S. leadership in quantum technology requires taking advantage of the United States’ unique strengths in technology and innovation. Technological investments have paid dividends to the United States for decades. The United States cannot wait for a “Sputnik moment” (when the Soviet launch of the first satellite energized the United States in science and technology) to catalyze investment in quantum. This is not a competition that the United States can afford to lose. The right policies and investments today can ensure U.S. leadership now and into the future.

Summary of Recommendations

The overarching recommendation of the commission is that Congress should double the funding levels for quantum R&D at the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Defense (DOD), and other executive departments and agencies, using a reauthorized National Quantum Initiative (NQI) as the coordinating vehicle (NQI reauthorization bills now call for $2.7 billion). The United States needs to significantly increase current spending to accelerate R&D and guarantee technological advantage over foreign competitors.

National Security

• Establish a comprehensive quantum sensing initiative for strategic applications, with an early focus on positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT).

• The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should strengthen efforts to speed federal agencies in adopting quantum-resistant encryption.

• The Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) should collaborate with sector-specific regulatory agencies to update cybersecurity regulations and set compliance deadlines, beginning with industries most vulnerable to quantum threats, ensuring tailored solutions based on sector risks.

• By 2030, the United States should amend acquisition regulations to require quantum-safe encryption for critical systems in both the public and private sectors.

• Congress should fund a DOD program to ensure a secure supply chain for critical materials and components crucial to producing quantum technologies.

• The United States and its allies must take a coordinated approach to export controls to prevent leakage of U.S. and allied quantum technology to adversarial states. These protective measures should be clear, appropriately targeted, and compatible with the goal of accelerating progress in the United States and allied nations.

• Congress should authorize the use of appropriated funds for joint programs with allied nations to strengthen cross-border commercial and research partnerships in quantum.

• NIST should develop shared-use quantum testing and metrology facilities, enabling quantum companies and researchers to access essential equipment and advance prototype development. This should be coordinated with the Microelectronics Commons hubs, which aim to provide quantum tech prototyping capabilities. The program should be adequately funded to ensure it meets the needs of the quantum developer community.

• Congress should establish a comprehensive quantum sensing initiative focused on sectors like medical devices, semiconductors, autonomous vehicles, and electrical grid management, with efforts from various agencies working to advance quantum technologies for strategic applications and position the United States as a global leader.

• The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) should initiate a “Grand Challenge” program to incentivize the development of utility-scale quantum computers, rewarding progress toward quantum advantage with milestone-based funding.

Research

• Funding to support R&D for quantum applications should be increased.

• The DOE, NSF, and Department of Commerce (DOC) should launch programs to make quantum computing resources available to a broader base of researchers, accompanied by increased funding for foundational research in quantum technology.

• Congress should authorize the DOE to establish a program office with $500 million in funding to develop an advanced quantum computing facility and to integrate quantum systems with HPC for scientific and industrial applications.

Workforce

• Congress should fund the NSF to:

  • Support quantum workforce development programs, including for bachelor’s and master’s students, to address growing demand for quantum technicians and engineers to build and maintain quantum systems.

  • Develop and distribute a comprehensive undergraduate quantum science curriculum, enabling broader access to quantum education and preparing students for roles in quantum technology industries.

• Congress should expand existing visa programs to bring foreign quantum talent to the United States.

Previous technological investments have paid dividends for decades. Quantum offers the same opportunity. Policies that reinforce research, build the quantum industrial base, and promote commercialization are the best ways to ensure U.S. quantum leadership.

Quantum Technology Is the Next Frontier for Technology

Technology is an arena for competition among countries and companies. The connection between technology and national power is complicated. Many elements must work together for successful outcomes. The connection between scientific research and technological strength is equally complicated, but the reason the United States needs to invest more in quantum technology is simple: Being on the cutting edge of technology makes the United States safer, richer, and stronger.

Quantum technology represents one of the most important frontiers for innovation, and continued progress is critical to maintaining U.S. technological leadership. This report provides a description of quantum technologies and recommends policies to build U.S. global leadership in quantum technology and ensure future leadership in the face of rising competition from adversarial nations. The key steps are increasing funding for research, accelerating the commercialization of quantum technologies, strengthening the quantum industrial base, creating programs to foster a quantum workforce, and creating mechanisms for international partnerships.

Quantum is part of a larger story on the importance of research, innovation, and technology to economic growth, national power, and international competition. Investments in research, science, and technology helped make the United States a global power and remain foundational to U.S. global leadership. As the pace of change and innovation increases, the opportunities for growth also increase, and the consequences for countries that fall behind will be more severe.

Opportunities of Quantum Technologies

• Exponential increases in processing power for specific computing tasks

• Replacement of vulnerable GPS with secure positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) systems

• Breakthroughs in drug discovery and materials science

• Ultra-secure communications using quantum cryptography

• Enhanced medical imaging and diagnostics

• More accurate climate modeling and weather prediction

• Accelerated machine learning and AI

• Advances in battery and clean energy technology

• Improved financial management

Risks of Quantum Technologies

• Quantum computers breaking current encryption

• Improved detection of stealth aircraft

• Improved antisubmarine capabilities

• Disruptions in financial markets

• Use of quantum sensing for surveillance

• Supply chain vulnerabilities for critical components

While quantum’s full potential will take years to materialize, its strategic importance is clear today. The United States should pursue three broad goals for quantum policy: supporting R&D, building a quantum industrial base, and accelerating the commercialization of quantum technologies. First, the government must expand its support for research to accelerate the United States’ lead and to match and outperform foreign competitors. Research alone is not enough. Government intervention and support for the quantum industry is also necessary. The challenge for commercialization lies in linking quantum technology to the existing U.S. innovation ecosystem, with its successful blend of academic research, venture capital, and commercial markets. Entrepreneurial competition is central to the U.S. innovation advantage, and policies that reinforce research, build the quantum industrial base, and allow for commercializing quantum technology are the best ways to ensure U.S. quantum leadership.

QUANTUM TECHNOLOGIES

Quantum computing uses quantum properties to enable faster processing and solve complex problems beyond the reach of conventional computers. It could revolutionize fields like cryptography, optimization, and AI.

Quantum sensing uses quantum properties like superposition and entanglement to achieve ultra-high precision in measurements, offering breakthroughs in areas like medical imaging, navigation, and gravitational wave detection. Quantum sensors can measure exquisitely small signals with greater stability over long time frames, offering major end-use advantages.

Quantum communications use entanglement and quantum key distribution (QKD) to create highly secure communication channels that could revolutionize cybersecurity and data encryption.

Quantum technologies exploit the properties of quantum mechanics to provide new capabilities in computing, communications, and sensing. These new capabilities provide advantages for economic competitiveness and national security, but some also create new risks. The United States has made good progress in quantum policymaking, but more needs to be done in light of growing competition. While they present different risks, both China and the European Union are investing heavily in quantum R&D.

Some of the challenges in these areas are not unique to quantum. Expanding the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce has been an issue for decades, and adding more visas or permanent residencies for STEM talent is a perennial request. Quantum is not the only priority, and others take precedence. The CHIPS and Science Act, for example, authorized support for quantum technology but did not appropriate funds. Instead, CHIPS money went to semiconductor production. This was the right decision, but funding for quantum technology research and work still needs to be expanded.

This reflects a broader strategic competition driven by critical and emerging technologies, the most important of which are AI and semiconductors. Many challenges facing the quantum sector mirror broader issues in U.S. science and technology policy. There are areas of overlap among the workforce, materials, and, in some instances, fabrication of these different technologies. The key difference is that AI and chips have immediate military and commercial applications, whereas quantum technologies, at this time, do not. This situation will change as quantum technologies mature and applications are created. For now, however, quantum applications remain further away than other emerging technologies.

One question then is why the United States ought to spend more on quantum. Spending on quantum technologies is a strategic investment that keeps the United States at the frontier of critical and emerging technologies. The investment required is small compared to the future payoff. This report’s central recommendation is that spending a few billion dollars more on quantum technology out of the $1.7 trillion in federal discretionary spending (about 0.5 percent) is a wise investment for both national security and the future of U.S. competitiveness.

Government Quantum Spending

United States: $1.2 billion, National Quantum Initiative (2018–23)

China (exact figures uncertain due to limited transparency): $10 billion (estimated), National Laboratory for Quantum Information Sciences; $15 billion, quantum R&D

European Union: $1.1 billion, Quantum Flagship

• Germany: $2.2 billion

• France: $2 billion

• The Netherlands: $680 million

United Kingdom: $3 billion

Israel: $350 million

Japan: $206 million

Australia: $650 million

India: $960 million

Canada: $265 million

South Korea: $2.3 billion

Three examples of the use of quantum technology help explain why it is essential for the United States to stay competitive in quantum technology and ahead of its strategic competitors. Races are won by going faster, and while new technologies often come with big promises, there are tangible cases in security and business where quantum will make a crucial difference: cryptography, precision navigation and timing, and hybrid supercomputing.

Case Study 1: Reinforcing Vulnerable GPS

One of the lessons of Russia’s war against Ukraine is that EW dominates the battlefield. Russia, whatever its other shortcomings, has excelled in EW, and it shares or sells its EW expertise to China, Iran, and North Korea. This puts U.S. communications and radars at risk, as well as the U.S. arsenal of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) and other systems that rely on GPS. Work by the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) is actively involved in developing quantum sensing technologies for the DOD. The DIU aims to develop mature quantum sensing technologies, including work on inertial sensing and magnetometers to demonstrate their operational utility. Quantum sensors offer significant improvements in precision and sensitivity, enabling enhanced capabilities for military operations. Quantum sensing technologies can be used for advanced anomaly detection for antisubmarine warfare (ASW) and aircraft and can address critical operational PNT gaps for the DOD for environments where GPS signals are unavailable or unreliable.

Russia and China have developed the ability to jam GPS, which uses relatively weak radio signals from satellites located 12,000 miles away. Both nations have invested heavily for years to find ways to degrade GPS signals, advancing well beyond blunt force jamming, which uses a more powerful signal to drown out GPS. U.S. opponents can spoof GPS signals, create interference, and hack GPS systems. Russia is doing this now in Ukraine, and some U.S. weapons are at a disadvantage. In a war with the United States, China or Russia could even destroy GPS satellites. China and Russia are also not the only hostile countries likely to go after GPS: Iran may have used GPS spoofing to deceive an advanced U.S. drone into landing in its territory, and Syria and North Korea routinely interfere with the GPS systems used on commercial airliners. Aviation officials have expressed concern that this is extending beyond conflict zones, with estimates that up to 1,000 commercial flights a day were affected by GPS spoofing incidents in 2024. These losses can include commercial risks beyond navigation. For example, infrastructure like data centers and the power grid rely on GPS protocols for synchronization and timing that are increasingly vulnerable to even relatively amateur EW technology.

Every year, GPS will become more vulnerable. Quantum sensing technologies offer a replacement. Quantum navigation systems do not rely on a radio signal; instead, they use quantum sensing technologies to better measure variations in Earth’s gravitational or magnetic fields. Highly accurate atomic clocks can improve inertial navigation systems, as can atom interferometers and optomechanical systems, and new algorithms can provide precise and jam-resistant navigation. Instead of using a GPS radio receiver, quantum navigation will use onboard systems small enough to fit in combat aircraft and munitions. There are even quantum technologies that the United States could use now to gain an advantage over its adversaries. But quantum navigation and timing have more than military applications. GPS is essential for finance, banking, mining, commercial transport, and logistics. The DOD is already investing in these systems, and there have been successful initial tests. Quantum sensing technologies will create the resilience needed for a world that depends on GPS. The benefits of secure navigation and timing, like cryptography, justify increased federal investment.

QUANTUM LEADERSHIP AND THE UNITED STATES

Where Does the United States Stand?

The United States has strong academic institutions, national laboratories, and private companies. It leads in quantum computing and quantum sensing. U.S. researchers have made advances in developing quantum software and algorithms, crucial error correction techniques, and hardware platforms for quantum computers. Quantum sensors are being developed for applications in medicine, materials science, and navigation. To sustain its lead, the United States must continue to prioritize quantum research funding, strengthen collaboration between academia and industry, make production scalable, and invest in a skilled quantum workforce.

Quantum R&D is often cast as a race among competing nations and companies. If there is a race, it is not just in research but in the adoption and use of quantum technologies. The United States, with its vibrant tech innovation system, has an advantage here.

Quantum research is conducted in more than a dozen countries, including China, and is an important area for cooperation between the United States and its allies. Some quantum technologies are already transitioning from research to practical applications. The number of companies offering quantum technologies and services is growing, and quantum applications in sensing are already entering commercial use. However, the “race” metaphor fails to capture the importance of collaboration among researchers in different countries. The ability to build partnerships with other countries, both governmental and private, is a key advantage for the United States. The recommendations in this report discuss how to manage risk and extend collaboration in light of this diffusion of research among many countries and how best to fashion international partnerships that serve the interests of the United States and its allies.

▲ Table 1: National Quantum Strategies

The quantum industry is global and evolving rapidly, and the number of companies fluctuates with investment and with mergers and acquisitions activity. Publicly available information suggests that over 150 U.S. companies are focused on quantum technologies, ranging from tech giants to start-ups. More than a third of these are in quantum computing, and another third are developing the software and algorithms needed for quantum applications. The remainder work in communications, sensing, and metrology (such as quantum sensors, atomic clocks, and precision measurement equipment) or specialized areas like the production of materials and other technologies needed for quantum devices. There are perhaps another 400 companies outside the United States, principally in Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Canada, and China, mainly focused on developing quantum computing and software or on quantum communications.

In many technology areas, such as AI, private sector spending outstrips federal investment. This is not yet the case for quantum technology. The U.S. government has made relatively significant investments in support of developing foundational research in quantum technologies. U.S. government support is coordinated under the National Quantum Initiative (NQI), established by the National Quantum Initiative Act of 2018. The NQI aims to ensure U.S. leadership in the field by supporting quantum research with funding and better coordination among federal agencies, including NIST, the NSF, the DOE, and the DOD. The National Quantum Coordination Office (NQCO) in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has overseen these efforts and promotes public-private partnerships through initiatives like the NIST-funded Quantum Economic Development Consortium (QED-C). These initiatives aim to incentivize innovation and expand the United States’ quantum ecosystem. In December of 2024, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation introduced the National Quantum Initiative Reauthorization Act (NQIRA), which builds on the National Quantum Initiative Act of 2018 and would authorize $2.7 billion in funding to further advance quantum R&D at federal agencies over the next five years. It would also place further emphasis on developing practical quantum applications. The NQIRA represents a vital step forward in advancing U.S. quantum leadership and ensuring the United States remains at the forefront of this technological revolution. Through reauthorization of the NQI, the United States will be able to reinvigorate federal funding and R&D in quantum technologies and advance toward a future of practical quantum applications.

Innovation in the United States

• U.S. innovation is based on researchers, investors, companies, and entrepreneurs.

• U.S. soft infrastructure—culture, law, capital markets, and firms providing business and legal skills—gives the United States an advantage.

• The five industry sectors that spend the most on R&D are aerospace, pharmaceuticals and biotech, computers, scientific instruments, and semiconductors and communications equipment. Quantum technology will affect all of these sectors, which, in combination with universities and start-ups, form the core of U.S. innovation.

• There are 945 research universities in the United States, 219 of which have high levels of research activity. Five of the world’s top ten research universities are in the United States. Federal support provides about 55 percent of the funding for academic research.

• University research is complemented by work at 17 national laboratories operated by the DOE, 42 federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), and military-affiliated research labs.

• There has been a resurgence of research in quantum technology at major corporations, and there are roughly 50 venture capital firms focused on quantum technologies.

• The tech workforce has seen persistent shortages, but the United States has an advantage in that its universities remain the most attractive global destination for graduate education.

The NSF and DOE already make substantial investments in quantum infrastructure and research projects—including quantum computers and the specialized chips they use, new kinds of sensors, quantum communication devices, and unique software—since the hardware and software needed for quantum computing is very different from conventional computing software. The 2018 NQI nearly doubled federal spending on quantum research and catalyzed private sector investment. The NSF awarded nearly $20 million to support the construction of a nanoscale fabrication facility for quantum devices. The Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration has designated two of its new tech hubs to focus on quantum information science (QIS). The Elevate Quantum Tech Hub in Colorado is set to receive approximately $41 million, and Illinois has made sizeable state-level contributions to its quantum ecosystem. These efforts create a robust foundation for quantum technology development.

Beyond the NQI, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has funded a variety of quantum projects, including on benchmarking quantum algorithms and developing fault-tolerant prototypes. The U.S. intelligence community also spends substantial amounts on quantum technologies (principally in cryptography and communications), though the programs and amounts are not public. Future investments will begin with a strong base.

Quantum Technology: Materials and Manufacturing

Increased federal investment is essential in the following areas:

• Materials science for developing new materials like superconductors

• Specialized raw materials such as niobium, tantalum, phosphorus, and gallium arsenide; rare earth elements like neodymium and yttrium, which are also critical for quantum technologies

• Material purification and quality control processes to ensure materials meet stringent standards for quantum computing and sensing

• Fabrication technologies for quantum hardware and devices for computing, sensors, and communications, including nanofabrication requiring advanced manufacturing techniques such as molecular beam epitaxy, chemical vapor deposition, or laser ablation in highly controlled “clean” environments

• Manufacturing and supply chains for component materials like lasers, cryostats, and semiconductors for quantum devices

Without these federal investments, progress in quantum R&D in the United States would slow dramatically, though one of the goals for national policy should also be to build a strong commercial sector. Leading tech companies have made substantial investments in quantum technology, and there is a flourishing network of quantum start-ups focused on different approaches to quantum hardware as well as the needed software and algorithm development. The quantum market, like the markets of most start-up technologies, remains highly competitive, and as quantum technologies are still in the early stages of commercialization, the investment risks are substantial. This means that there are areas where federal spending can reduce investment risk and encourage innovation. Overall, federal policy should support private investment and remedy market failure while continuing to commit adequate funding to public research.

The amount of private sector investment in quantum technology has fluctuated. In 2019, investment was relatively low. There was a significant increase in 2020 fueled by growing commercial interest. Investment peaked in 2021, with several funding rounds for quantum start-ups. In 2022, investment remained high but showed signs of slowing, declining from roughly $2.3 billion to $1.3 billion in 2023 due to various factors, including interest rate changes and a shift in investor attention to AI.

Total private investment in quantum technology from 2019 to 2023 reached approximately $8 billion, though estimates vary. Although $8 billion sounds like a substantial amount, private sector investment in AI reached over $200 billion in 2024 alone. AI has immediate commercial applicability, whereas quantum technologies have longer timelines to full commercial adoption, making increased federal investment important to sustain the industry.

How much is enough? The recommendations in this report identify areas in R&D, manufacturing, and testing where private investment is currently inadequate because of the level of investment required and the potential risk. As with earlier technologies such as semiconductors, HPC, and even aircraft, government spending is necessary to kickstart the industry; in the case of quantum, it is critical to accelerate the pace of development and in building the quantum industrial base.

Case Study 2: Quantum as a Service and the Hybrid Computing Environment

Computers are tools that make people more productive, and quantum technology will create better tools. Quantum technologies, because of their close association with computing, could follow a similar path, with access to quantum computing services available on every internet-connected device. Cloud computing—the new face of computing, with computing resources that are accessed remotely—has led to computing as a service, including software as a service, infrastructure as a service, and now quantum as a service (QaaS).

Quantum computers are expensive to build and maintain. This may change as innovations lead to smaller, cheaper machines, but for now it is easier for many companies and institutions to access quantum resources as a service over the internet. Instead of buying quantum computers, companies and researchers can access quantum computing through the cloud, as they already do for many data and computational tasks in the conventional computing environment. Universities and some national programs, such as in Germany, already use QaaS for research. Today, QaaS offers the most likely path for greater commercial use of quantum computing. The QaaS market was valued at around $2 billion in 2021. This is a strong commercial market, and one way to expedite R&D is by expanding access to quantum resources and getting them into the hands of researchers. Some experts call for the NSF or DOE to expand access and offer quantum services to researchers, similar to how they offer HPC services now.

Quantum computers are expected to excel at certain types of problems, such as optimization, cryptography, and simulating quantum systems to provide insights into quantum physics. Many companies are exploring quantum computing’s potential and investing in R&D. Collaborations with quantum start-ups, research institutions, and QaaS providers can allow businesses to adopt and gain the benefits of quantum computing. Many researchers and companies have found that the most productive approach is to blend quantum and conventional computing resources—in other words, hybrid computing—letting each system work on the part of a problem where it has an advantage. Quantum computing may be years off, but the hybrid approach is already being explored.

In the twentieth century, federal investment created the computer technologies that gave U.S. companies a competitive advantage they would not otherwise have had. Businesses are starting to integrate quantum technology into their operations, and the number of companies offering quantum technologies and services continues to grow. Quantum computing will improve data analysis and the performance of AI and machine-learning algorithms. Over time, as in the case with classical computing, federal support could make up a smaller share of investment in quantum as the market and industry mature.

WHAT IS THE QUANTUM INDUSTRIAL BASE?

The quantum industrial base may be divided into segments. This report includes recommendations for each. The question is where to reinforce these segments through government action and where to rely on market forces. Building the industrial base needed for quantum leadership (the network of companies, research institutions, and government agencies driving the development of applications and commercial products) will require a policy that blends the traditional U.S. approach of using science to solve defense problems with the newer Silicon Valley approach, where venture capital and entrepreneurial firms develop products and markets. This has become one of the principal means for technological innovation and creating economic growth, making it a priority for quantum leadership.

Each segment requires a different mix of government action and market forces:

• Workforce: Building a highly skilled quantum workforce is critical but reflects broader challenges in U.S. STEM education and talent development. Immigration policies, STEM education initiatives, and reskilling programs can help address this shortfall.

• Research: Federal funding plays a pivotal role in advancing quantum research, which is still too risky and expensive for private industry to fully support. Programs through agencies like the NSF, DOE, and DOD can continue to provide foundational research support.

• Materials: Many quantum technologies depend on exotic materials that are costly or difficult to obtain. Addressing supply chain issues for these materials is essential not just for U.S. quantum competitiveness but for overall U.S. technological competitiveness.

• Fabrication: Developing fabrication infrastructure is vital for producing quantum devices at scale. This includes specialized quantum chips and components that require precision manufacturing capabilities far beyond traditional semiconductor fabrication and infrastructure software to increase the utility and performance of quantum hardware for a wide range of users.

• Software and Algorithms: Investments in software and algorithm development are necessary to unlock quantum computing’s potential. These efforts must focus on both developing quantum-specific tools and integrating quantum systems into hybrid environments with classical computers.

• Testing and Validation: As quantum systems move from research to commercialization, testing facilities and standards are essential for ensuring reliability and performance. Federal programs can help establish these facilities and set benchmarks.

• Classical Control Technologies for Quantum Systems: Quantum computers require advanced classical control systems. Advancing neutral atoms computing, for example, will require very high-speed cameras for fast readout and acousto-optical technologies for rapid atomic movement. The U.S. government can help develop these enabling technologies.

Expanding the quantum industrial base requires early investment. In the quantum sector, a combination of risk and limited demand inhibit early investment in the critical elements of the industrial base needed for future leadership. For comparison, spending on quantum products and services is less than $3 billion, whereas spending on AI is $200 billion and spending on semiconductors is $520 billion. Demand will strengthen over time as quantum technologies mature and commercially viable applications are created, with private investment following demand. Quantum technologies will create new tools that provide competitive advantage to the companies that use them, and sectors like pharmaceuticals, mineral and oil exploration, aerospace, automotive, and finance are adopting quantum sensing and computing. In the interim, federal investment is required.

Some segments—such as the workforce or the supply of necessary (and often exotic) materials needed for quantum production—reflect larger problems for national policy that are not unique to quantum technology. Quantum policy and investment are best seen as part of a larger approach to tech competitiveness. They can serve as a “poster child” for targeted government intervention at an early stage.

HIGH-PERFORMANCE PRECEDENTS

There is more to quantum technology than computing, but precedents for quantum policy may be drawn from decades of federal support for HPC. This support underpinned improved scientific R&D into new weapons. Once commercialized, HPC became an invaluable tool for business.

Like quantum technology policy, HPC policy is at the intersection of science, national security, and economic competitiveness. It began in the 1950s with U.S. investment in computers for nuclear weapons research at national laboratories. The 1960s saw the establishment of computing centers at national laboratories and major universities under DOE and NSF funding. The following decade saw the first coordinated national computing policy through programs like the NSF’s Office of Computing Activities. The United States introduced export controls on supercomputers to prevent the Soviet Union from acquiring advanced computing capabilities. In the 1980s, the United States established a special export control regime with Japan, the only other nation able to produce HPC at the time.

Over time, international competition spurred HPC investment, and economic competition drove spending. The United States created the 1983 Strategic Computing Initiative in response to Japan’s Fifth Generation Computer Project and increased federal funding for computing research. The U.S. response to Japan also led to further increases in U.S. HPC funding and the creation of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program. The NITRD program was launched by the High-Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 and was reauthorized by Congress in the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2017.

After 2010, the policy focus shifted to exceptionally powerful “exascale” computing initiatives, with the United States, China, the European Union, and Japan all announcing major programs. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the 2012 Advanced Computing Initiative (ACI) funded computing infrastructure. The 2015 National Strategic Computing Initiative established a coordinated federal strategy for HPC progress. There also has been increased attention on how quantum computing and AI fit with HPC and expand the scope of computing policy beyond supercomputing; the National Quantum Initiative Act (2018) and the American AI Initiative (2019), for example, contribute to these efforts to expand the scope of computing policy.

One lesson the United States can draw from the HPC experience is that progress and investment were driven initially by both security concerns and international competition before evolving into a commercial competition that drove improvement. Federal action for building and maintaining a leadership role for the United States provides important security and economic benefits, but there must be a transition to a greater private sector role and increased commercialization. The United Kingdom built the first supercomputer but kept it locked in a secret facility and classified the research; as a result, leadership in computing went elsewhere.

Federal funding for HPC was crucial at the onset and continued to be critical throughout a decades-long process of development and improvement. But the ability to commercialize HPC was an equally important driver as markets and applications matured. HPC policy is not a perfect precedent because quantum technologies have many other important applications, chiefly in sensing, but the principal lesson from HPC is that federal action for building and maintaining a leadership role for the United States in quantum can provide important security and economic benefits. It will also require more spending if the United States is to be secure.

CHINA AND QUANTUM COMPETITION

China is the primary strategic competitor of the United States and sees leadership in quantum technologies as part of this competition. China declared quantum technology a key priority in its 14th five-year plan (approved in 2021). Even before this, the government announced the creation of a National Laboratory for Quantum Science for R&D initiatives in 2017. China has been making significant investments in quantum. While the exact figure is in dispute given China’s penchant for misrepresentation, China says that it spends eight times more than the U.S. government on quantum research. China may even lead in a few areas, such as quantum communications. While the exact figures are subject to debate, given the opacity of Chinese government spending, and regardless of who is spending more, China has likely made a large financial commitment to quantum technologies, and it has clearly defined its national goals for quantum leadership in ways that drive investment.

China’s Lead: Quantum Communications

China has emerged as a global leader in quantum communications. In 2016, China launched the world’s first quantum communication satellite, Micius, which demonstrated secure quantum key distribution (QKD), a secure communication method, over long distances. This was a milestone in developing ultra-secure communication systems based on the principles of quantum mechanics, where information is transmitted in qubits, which are inherently more secure due to quantum entanglement. China has also built its own quantun encrypted network, connecting Beijing and Shanghai. It continues to deploy quantum communication infrastructure designed to secure sensitive communications. These successes are part of China’s broader effort to dominate the global quantum technology race, positioning itself as a leader in developing and applying quantum encryption for both civilian and military use.

One of the most complex challenges for U.S. policymakers involves reshaping international collaboration in quantum research. An example is that the researcher who now heads China’s successful quantum satellite program was a classmate of the researcher who heads the quantum program of one of the largest U.S. tech companies. Both were fellow students at a European University and now are leaders in the quantum community. For decades, Chinese students and scientists played an important role in global collaboration, but this collaboration now comes with risks that the United States and its allies find unacceptable. There is still a Chinese quantum research presence in graduate schools in the United States and Europe, and there are benefits to continued openness (certainly in basic research, a tenet of U.S. policy since the Reagan administration). To restate the basic premise of this report, the United States does better by going faster in technology development and commercialization than its primary competitors, pointing again to the need for robust federal support and a supportive regulatory and business environment.

China is developing quantum communications with projects like the Micius satellite program, initially undertaken in cooperation with an Austrian university. China launched Micius in 2016 and reported in 2017 that it had achieved the world’s first quantum-encrypted teleconference, held between China and Austria. China had security concerns with the satellite, but Chinese researchers announced in 2020 that they had resolved these problems, relying more on secure ground technology to communicate with Micius. Programs like Micius show China’s ability to combine domestic resources with international collaboration to achieve technological breakthroughs.

Managing technology transfer will be part of the challenge in structuring international cooperation. Trying to slow China in quantum technologies will be less effective than accelerating the United States’ own efforts in the area. That said, it is not in the United States’ interest to support or subsidize China’s quantum efforts, either directly or indirectly, through transfers from partners, such as in Europe.

While China’s government says it has invested more in quantum technologies, the United States has a much stronger overall position in terms of research talent and ability to innovate. It also has a strong private sector presence in quantum technologies that gives it an advantage that China’s state-directed economy finds difficult to match. This is, as in the case of other areas of tech competition with China, a contest between two different models for innovation and the role of government.

Although China is not the United States’ only competitor, it is the only competitor with hostile intent. The European Union and other European countries, like the United Kingdom, are also investing in quantum research. Likewise, Australia is a leader, as are Canada and Japan. One advantage for the United States is that it can more easily develop partnerships with these countries than China can, but partnerships do not happen automatically. This report recommends improving international cooperation using existing multilateral organizations, like NATO, the Quad, or AUKUS, and perhaps developing and strengthening new arrangements specifically for quantum cooperation.

Case Study 3: Post-Quantum Cryptography

Cryptography uses mathematical formulas to make data unreadable unless they are decoded. It is the backbone of online commerce and finance and has major applications in national security systems. In short, the internet depends on encryption. Currently, forcibly decrypting data can take centuries due to the immense computational demand and relative slow speed of conventional computers. But quantum computers, with their immensely greater speed, will be able to perform the calculations needed to rapidly decrypt data at will. While quantum decryption is not possible now, it is part of the strategic competition with China.

Some advanced U.S. adversaries, such as China, are likely collecting and storing encrypted data obtained through signals intelligence or over the internet for decryption later, when quantum computers are available. The United States probably does this as well. Although it is a highly debated topic, the best current estimate of when quantum decryption could become available is in the next 6 to 10 years. Without adequate preparation, quantum decryption will reshape the security environment.

A well-known story illustrates this risk. In 1941, the British, using a combination of traditional espionage, the most advanced computing capabilities of the time, and sheer human talent, read the encrypted messages of the Nazi German high command without the Germans knowing. Some estimates say this shortened World War II by two to three years. Covert decryption was also central to improving U.S. fortunes in the Pacific War. If China makes breakthroughs in quantum technologies that give it a similar advantage (and it is working hard to do so), it will not announce them, but the United States will face unexpected setbacks and surprises as a result. The damage will extend well beyond the military realm, as intellectual property, commercial information, and financial data will all be vulnerable. The risk to cryptography alone justifies spending on quantum technology.

Given the risks, NIST led a process to create post-quantum cryptography (PQC) and in August 2024 published standards for quantum-resistant cryptography. The transition to PQC will not be the first time encryption standards have changed to adjust to better computing. In the late 1990s, NIST developed a replacement standard called the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). Changing encryption standards is a lengthy process since new products and standards must be created and then installed across the economy to replace older encryption.

The implementation of PQC will likely be more complicated than the previous transition to AES. The transition to AES took several years but was accelerated by a 2002 requirement for mandatory use by all federal agencies. NIST predicts that without large-scale implementation planning, the PQC transition will take years, during which the United States may be vulnerable. The National Security Agency has recommended using NIST’s PQC algorithms as the best way to secure against the quantum decryption threat, and with the release of the NIST standards, a strong market for post-quantum communications is emerging.

NEXT STEPS

These above cases help make the case for why increased federal spending is essential for technological leadership. They point to why, without increased federal investment, quantum technologies will not be built at the pace or scale needed for national security or commercial advantage. Policymakers do not need to be experts in quantum mechanics to make informed strategic decisions.

The competition over quantum technology is not the first the United States has faced. One of the initial contests occurred after the Cold War launch of the Sputnik satellite, which energized the United States to fund its science and technology enterprise. The U.S. economy and military continue to reap the benefits of investments that began in the 1950s and those that followed them. In part, Sputnik motivated the United States to create its mix of strong research universities, flexible financial systems, competitive business focus on technology, and a fast-moving, risk-taking entrepreneurial culture. Other countries also have these strengths but not at the same scale or scope. The United States may not have something as dramatic as the Sputnik moment to energize investment this time, but with the right policies, quantum technology will be another U.S. success story.

Quantum technologies are best thought of as providing better tools for business and security. They create new tools that provide a competitive advantage to the companies that use them, and there is already widespread interest and exploration of both sensing and computing in sectors like pharmaceuticals, mineral and oil exploration, aerospace, automobiles, and finance. Quantum computing is an exciting technology with the potential to revolutionize industries and create new business opportunities. However, it also brings several challenges that need to be addressed.

Governments can shape innovation and markets by lowering costs, changing rules, and providing resources. The United States can use government policy and federal investment to accelerate the development and use of quantum technologies, which are necessary for technological leadership and national security. These actions span increased funding, strengthened collaboration with allies, education and workforce development, infrastructure improvements, and development of an innovation-friendly regulatory environment. Recommendations for quantum leadership are provided in the following section.

Just as the physics research of the twentieth century and the HPC investments of 60 years ago laid the foundation for today’s security and digital economy, quantum physics and the technologies that grow from it will shape the economy of the future, but this will not happen without supportive federal policies. While much progress in building quantum technologies has been made, more needs to be done. This report lays out what is required.

Recommendations

NATIONAL SECURITY

1. Establish a quantum sensing initiative, with an early focus on PNT.

The United States should mandate a comprehensive quantum sensing initiative to advance the development and deployment of quantum technologies for strategic applications. This will help pave the way for future applications for quantum sensors across government and industry.

• Develop quantum navigation technologies. The DOD, in coordination with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), should accelerate the development of quantum inertial and magnetic anomaly–based navigation technologies to enable reliable navigation for military and civilian aircraft and ships, even in GPS-denied environments. While current military initiatives emphasize sensor quality and miniaturization, expanded efforts are needed to address the cost and manufacturability challenges faced by the civilian aviation industry.

• Create high-resolution mapping programs. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) should establish a comprehensive program to produce high-resolution magnetic anomaly maps and improved gravity maps of the United States. These maps are critical for the effective use of quantum navigation and resource mapping technologies. Without authoritative and precise mapping, the potential performance gains from quantum magnetic anomaly and quantum inertial navigation systems will remain limited, affecting their value for both civil and military applications.

• Pursue international collaboration for global mapping. Recognizing that navigation and resource mapping extend beyond U.S. borders, the U.S. government should engage in partnerships with allied nations to develop and share high-resolution magnetic and gravity maps. Such international cooperation enhances the utility of quantum technologies and contributes to global interoperability and strategic collaboration.

2. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should increase efforts to accelerate the adoption of quantum-resistant encryption by federal agencies.

The OMB must not only direct the adoption of quantum-resistant encryption within government but also track compliance and progress. Transitioning to quantum-resistant encryption (also called post-quantum cryptography, or PQC) is essential to protect sensitive information from future quantum-based attacks. The OMB’s progress to date in directing agencies toward quantum transitions has been valuable, but follow-through is necessary to ensure agencies continue to prioritize encryption updates. The OMB can use its authority over budgets to make agency funding contingent on meeting defined benchmarks for the implementation of quantum-resistant encryption, such as requiring agencies to show progress in the completion of risk assessments, piloting quantum-resistant solutions, and fully implementing quantum-safe encryption standards. The OMB already requires federal agencies to report on their cybersecurity progress through the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA). This reporting could be expanded to include quantum-resistant encryption readiness.

3. The Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) should collaborate with sector-specific regulatory agencies to update cybersecurity regulations and set compliance deadlines for industries vulnerable to quantum threats, ensuring tailored solutions based on sector risks.

This could include new compliance deadlines for industries to adopt quantum-safe encryption and mandatory risk assessments for sectors that handle high volumes of sensitive data. Each industry has different requirements and risks, so tailored regulations are essential. A public process, led by the OMB and ONCD, should be developed to encourage private sector participation using financial incentives, such as tax credits, grants, and regulatory relief for companies that lead the way in adopting quantum-resistant technologies.

4. By 2030, acquisition regulations should be amended to require quantum-safe encryption for critical systems in both the public and private sectors.

Federal information processing standards (FIPS) govern federal information security practices and private sector contracts with federal agencies. In 2024, NIST created three FIPS for PQC, which the secretary of commerce has approved, designed to resist potential attacks by future quantum computers. By 2030, NIST should amend the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) to require quantum-resistant encryption for critical public and private systems. Incorporating quantum-resistant algorithms ensures that systems managing classified information, healthcare records, energy grids, financial systems, and other sensitive public data are protected against quantum decryption attacks. It will also mitigate risks related to “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks.

5. The United States should create programs to ensure a robust supply chain for the raw and processed materials necessary for quantum technology.

A secure supply chain promises independence from foreign adversaries, reducing reliance on materials that may be restricted by other countries, particularly China, which could use their control over critical resources for coercive purposes. Examples include helium-3 (used in cryogenic systems for cooling quantum computers and sensors), isotopically pure silicon (used in quantum processors for certain types of qubits, such as silicon-based spin qubits), lithium niobate (a widely used material for quantum photonics applications, such as modulators and waveguides in quantum communication systems), and nitrogen-vacancy diamonds (diamonds containing atomic-scale defects that can be manipulated for quantum sensing and quantum communication purposes). Ensuring access to these materials and the processes used to refine them will be of paramount importance in the coming years.

6. Congress should fund a DOD program to ensure a secure supply chain for critical materials crucial to producing quantum technologies.

The DOD should create forecasting systems to anticipate future needs based on expected advances in quantum technologies, allowing for proactive management of supply chains. The DOD’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) has already put out a notice of funding availability on a direct loan program supporting the purchase of manufacturing equipment. Quantum is one of the categories the OSC is investing in. The DOD, in collaboration with other agencies, could also establish strategic reserves of critical materials such as helium-3 and isotopically pure silicon to ensure the United States has secure access to materials even during global shortages.

7. Strengthen supply chain cooperation with allies and friendly nations that produce or refine critical materials.

This could be achieved by establishing cooperative agreements with countries like Australia, Canada, Japan, and the members of the European Union that are rich in natural resources or have advanced material refinement capabilities. The United States should pursue agreements with these countries to facilitate preferential access to materials.

Develop a common approach to export controls.

8. The United States and its allies must take a coordinated approach to export controls to limit leakage of U.S. and allied technology to adversarial nations.

Common export control frameworks among the United States’ European and Asian allies can mitigate national security risks without greatly hindering commercial and academic collaboration. By harmonizing export policies, allied countries can ensure the technologies are shared among trusted partners while keeping sensitive technologies out of adversaries’ hands. The AUKUS agreement’s Pillar 2 outlines the need to align the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom on export control processes for strategic technologies, including quantum. This should be expanded to include other allied nations, and the United States should create a Quantum Technology Export Control Working Group to align export control policies and use this group to update the Wassenaar Arrangement to include quantum technologies.

Expand cooperation with allies.

9. Congress should authorize the use of appropriated funds for joint programs with allied nations to expand reciprocal cross-border partnerships.

While the United States has made great strides in forging government-to-government relationships, signing 12 quantum cooperation agreements with allied nations, a significant gap remains in facilitating cross-border commercial and research partnerships. U.S. quantum companies still face challenges in securing R&D funding or commercial contracts in overseas markets, and foreign companies struggle with entering the U.S. market and accessing government funding.

Policies should emphasize commercialization and practical applications.

10. The United States should reduce regulatory impediments to private quantum investment.

The global quantum market is rapidly evolving, and mergers and acquisitions of quantum technology companies can strengthen expertise and drive commercialization. The Departments of Commerce and the Treasury should take a proactive approach and review existing regulations for export controls and foreign investment to streamline (consistent with national security concerns) approvals for friendly countries.

11. NIST should develop shared-use quantum testing and metrology facilities, enabling quantum companies and researchers to access essential equipment and advance prototype development.

The quantum industry is highly fragmented, with companies exploring diverse technical approaches. Each approach has unique testing and validation needs, but there are commonalities in the enabling technologies these require, such as cryogenics, radio frequency (RF) control electronics, and precision timing. Quantum technology companies often struggle to find commercial facilities with the capacity to test exotic materials, microelectronics, and other components. This is also true for quantum-adjacent companies, such as energy companies that wish to experiment with quantum computing but lack their own cryogenics facilities or other capabilities needed to validate that components work. Shared-use testing and metrology facilities allow quantum companies to access the expensive, specialized equipment they would otherwise struggle to acquire, enabling them to rapidly iterate on design and prototype new quantum technologies. Shared facilities should include:

• shared cryogenics facilities, such as vacuum chambers and other essential equipment to maintain ultra-low temperature environments;

• shared metrology and calibration tools, including tools for quantum state tomography, noise characterization tools, and frequency signal analyzers to validate control electronics, particularly those operating in the microwave and RF spectrum;

• control electronics and microwave test beds, including high-speed arbitrary waveform generators, microwave signal generators, and RF amplifiers designed to work in the gigahertz regime;

• cleanrooms for nanofabrication and material characterization, including those equipped with electron beam lithography, atomic layer deposition, and etching tools; and

• material characterization tools like scanning electron microscopes, atomic force microscopes, and X-ray diffraction systems.

In addition to national security applications, Congress should establish a quantum sensing initiative.

12. Quantum sensing technologies can be used for antisubmarine warfare and aircraft detection. In addition to national security applications, Congress should establish a quantum sensing initiative focused on sectors like medical devices and semiconductors.

Progress in quantum sensing applications will help position the United States as a global leader. As with other quantum efforts, NIST, DARPA, and the DOE should lead development.

These technologies, which could include low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetoencephalography, and magnetocardiography, promise significant improvements in diagnostic capabilities through enhanced sensitivity and noninvasive imaging techniques. Investing in quantum medical devices will improve health outcomes and maintain the United States’ position as a global leader in cutting-edge healthcare technology. Quantum sensing technology is also being developed for use in manufacturing, research, and security. It can be used in semiconductor manufacturing to detect defects at a nanoscale without significantly disrupting production.

Create a quantum grand challenge.

13. DARPA should initiate a grand challenge program to incentivize the development of utility-scale quantum computers, rewarding progress toward quantum advantage with milestone-based funding.

The competition should be modeled after the highly successful XPRIZE competition. It could include investment collaboration with the OSC. The original grand challenge cost around $50 million, with a $1 million prize. This commission estimates that a quantum challenge could cost over $2 billon. A quantum grand challenge would be more expensive, and DARPA may need to offer a substantial prize to incentivize researchers and companies. It might also need to fund associated quantum research efforts for participating teams. The R&D costs could be extensive, but a competition could be effective, as it rewards success and spurs private sector investment. Finding valuable applications for quantum computers requires time and great expense. This is too large a chasm to risk depending solely on private funding. Milestone payments from the challenge program could help bring the market forward to support private investment.

RESEARCH

There needs to be significant increases in current spending to accelerate R&D and guarantee technological advantage over foreign competitors.

14. Fund and expand DARPA benchmarking and quantum computing R&D programs.

DARPA’s benchmarking and quantum computing R&D programs target significant defense applications of quantum computing and fund technology development for private companies to advance those applications. These programs should be extended and given the funding needed to sustain them.

15. Fund ARPA-E, ARPA-I, and ARPA-H to support quantum application R&D.

Quantum computers are of little value without the algorithms and associated software. Progress in quantum algorithms is as critical as the hardware itself. Focusing on both algorithmic advancements and application benchmarking will help bridge the gap between theoretical quantum research and practical quantum applications.

Each field—energy (ARPA-E), health (ARPA-H), and infrastructure (ARPA-I)—stands to benefit from quantum computing but requires domain-specific algorithms and performance metrics to determine when and where quantum computers will provide a tangible advantage over classical systems. The NSF, DARPA, DOE, ARPA-E, ARPA-H, and ARPA-I should fund academic and industry researchers through grants, competitions, and collaborative agreements to ensure the United States has the algorithms and software needed for quantum computing’s commercialization.

Quantum research programs would help align work with pressing needs in energy, healthcare, and infrastructure. For example, ARPA-E can explore quantum applications for the energy grid. ARPA-H can use quantum computing to explore drug discovery or genomics. ARPA-E, ARPA-H, and ARPA-I could run programs modeled on the DARPA Quantum Benchmarking program to identify valuable applications in their areas, estimate the quantum computer performance needed to achieve advantage, and focus on developing algorithms that address key challenges in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, energy optimization, finance, and logistics.

As part of this effort, the NSF, DOE, and NIST, in partnership with industry and academia, should work to develop collaborative quantum benchmarks. The NSF and DOE should collaborate with industry to establish benchmarking standards for quantum algorithms, ensuring that results are reproducible and comparable across different quantum hardware. These standards would provide a road map to identify when a quantum advantage has been achieved in a particular application to help guide the investment of resources in the most promising quantum technologies.

16. The Departments of Commerce and Energy and the NSF should launch programs to make quantum computing resources available to a broader base of researchers.

Despite recent U.S. government efforts to provide researchers with access to quantum computing resources, the availability of quantum testbeds remains low, especially for researchers from industry and academia. Providing testbeds would allow for the steady advancement of quantum computing research, exploration, testing, education, and innovation. This would help subsidize private and public use-case development for quantum computers, the costs of which are often prohibitively expensive. Providing access to quantum resources could accelerate the development of applications. Subsidizing access to the latest generations of quantum computers would make it easier for private and public users to develop applications.

17. Congress should authorize the DOE to establish a well-funded program office to develop a leadership-class quantum computing facility and integrate quantum systems with HPC for scientific and industrial applications.

While quantum computing is still in a nascent stage, the integration of quantum computers with a large-scale HPC system can dramatically accelerate certain types of computational tasks and accelerate the commercialization of quantum technologies. Quantum/HPC integration allows the United States to adopt hybrid computing models that could significantly advance scientific research and industrial applications before fault-tolerant quantum computers are available.

The DOE has decades of experience managing large-scale scientific programs and HPC infrastructure. Its national labs have long been home to some of the world’s most powerful supercomputers, such as Summit and Frontier at the DOE’s Leadership Computing Facilities, which have been critical to scientific advancements, from physics and chemistry to biology and AI. This makes the DOE the logical choice for leading the integration of quantum computing capabilities with classical HPC. The DOE also has scientific applications where quantum computers will have meaningful impact. The DOE should have its own procurement program to acquire computers for its use in establishing a world-class quantum facility. This could enable the DOE to not only build the physical infrastructure for quantum computing but also invest in essential workforce development, software tools, and quantum/HPC integration frameworks.

WORKFORCE

18. Congress should fund the NSF to support quantum workforce development programs for bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD programs, addressing the growing demand for quantum technicians and engineers to build and maintain quantum systems.

The future of U.S. leadership in quantum technologies depends on having a highly skilled workforce capable of developing, operating, and maintaining these systems. While many quantum-related jobs require PhDs for research, demand is growing for technicians and engineers with specialized quantum skills at the bachelor’s or master’s levels. Doctoral-level experts will continue to be essential, but a robust quantum ecosystem requires practitioners. Investing in bachelor’s and master’s programs would create a pipeline of skilled individuals. Australia exemplifies this potential through the University of New South Wales, which has developed the world’s first quantum engineering program for undergraduates.

19. Congress should also appropriate additional funds for the NSF’s training programs, which provide grants to universities to support graduate-level training.

The NRT supports traineeships across many scientific disciplines, and quantum science should be made a higher priority. Specific tracks should be created within the NRT to train students in the practical skills required for quantum technology. The NSF should also emphasize industry partnerships, allowing students to collaborate with companies during their studies.

• Expanding the NSF Graduate Research Fellowships Program to include a focus on quantum technologies would help support master’s-level students who may not intend to pursue a PhD. This could incentivize more students to enter the field of quantum.

• The Department of Labor’s Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act programs could offer grants for workforce training in quantum technologies, specifically targeting apprenticeships, internships, and job-placement programs for workers at the bachelor’s and master’s levels.

• The NSF could fund a national quantum apprenticeship and fellowship program, allowing students at the bachelor’s and master’s levels to gain real-world experience in labs and companies working on quantum technologies. Funding could be provided through the NSF with matching contributions from industry partners. This would give students hands-on exposure to quantum equipment and system maintenance in practical settings.

20. Congress should fund the NSF to develop and distribute a comprehensive undergraduate quantum science curriculum, enabling broader access to quantum education and preparing students for roles in quantum technology industries.

Currently, most undergraduate physics, engineering, and computer science programs do not offer dedicated courses in quantum information science (QIS), the logic being that undergraduates need a foundation of classical and quantum physics before tackling QIS. Undergraduates are typically exposed to quantum mechanics in later stages of their degree program. As a result, undergraduates looking to enter the field have few options available other than entering through a PhD program. This lack of early exposure creates a barrier to students who might be interested in pursuing quantum computing, quantum communications, or quantum sensing careers but lack access to dedicated undergraduate programs.

The quantum technology supply chain requires not just research scientists but also a large pool of quantum technicians, engineers, and programmers with a strong understanding of QIS principles. As quantum technologies move toward commercialization, demand for mid-level professionals will increase. Undergraduate training can provide the foundation for students to enter these roles directly or to transition into master’s programs or industry apprenticeships. Having a QIS curriculum at the undergraduate level can help build the practical skills needed for jobs in quantum hardware development, quantum programming, and system integration.

The NSF already funds quantum research through programs such as the Quantum Leap Challenge Institutes (QLCI), and it could expand these efforts to include educational components focused on undergraduates. The NSF’s previous work in areas like cybersecurity and AI provides a model for how to structure a quantum science curriculum. Similar scholarship programs could be created for quantum science to encourage students to pursue QIS degrees.

21. Expand faculty training.

In addition to developing the curriculum, the NSF should fund faculty training programs to ensure professors are equipped to teach quantum science at the undergraduate level. Workshops, online training resources, and professional development programs could be created to ensure faculty are up to date with the latest advancements in QIS.

22. Congress should consider expanding visa programs to bring foreign quantum experts to the United States.

The demand for highly skilled quantum professionals already exceeds the current supply of graduates from U.S. universities. While domestic education programs are essential for building a long-term workforce, it will take years to train new quantum experts. There are not enough experts to fill the talent gap. Attracting quantum expertise is essential. Other nations, including Australia, Canada, China, and Germany, are aggressively recruiting international quantum talent to accelerate their own quantum programs and build a quantum workforce. Without visa programs that prioritize quantum expertise, the United States risks losing out to competing countries on top international talent.

• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of State should work with the DOE, NSF, and DOD to identify key areas of quantum expertise that require foreign talent to ensure competitiveness.

• Congress should expand existing visa programs to attract foreign quantum experts to the United States. Quantum is not the only field facing a talent shortage, but quantum expertise should be targeted specifically due to its geopolitical importance. This could include creating a quantum-specific visa program under the existing O-1 or H-1B visa programs for highly skilled quantum professionals, including researchers, postdoctoral scholars, engineers, and entrepreneurs working in quantum-related fields.

• The United States could increase the cap on H-1B visas, with specific allocations for quantum experts. Another option is expanding the O-1 visa, which is designed for individuals with extraordinary abilities in science, to explicitly include quantum expertise.

• Finally, many quantum-related fields already fall under the STEM Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which allows international students to work in the United States for an extended period after graduation. Expanding this to include quantum disciplines would provide additional opportunities for foreign graduates to remain in the United States.

Michael S. Rogers, USN ADM (Ret.), retired from the Navy in 2018 after rising to the rank of four-star admiral. He culminated his career with an over four-year stint serving simultaneously as commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency—creating the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)’s then newest large war-fighting organization and leading the U.S. government’s largest intelligence organization. In those roles he worked extensively with the leadership of the U.S. government, the DOD, and the U.S. intelligence community, as well as their international counterparts, in the conduct of cyber and intelligence activity across the globe.

William Zeng is a partner at Quantonation, an early stage venture capital firm investing in physics technology companies. He is also founder and president of the Unitary Foundation, an independent, non-profit research institute developing open quantum technology. His research focuses on quantum computer architecture, algorithms and software.

Jonah Force Hill is a non-resident senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He is currently head of U.S. Business Development and Government Affairs at Xanadu, a leading quantum computing hardware and software company. He also serves as the vice chair of the Quantum for National Security (Q4NS) Technical Advisory Committee of the QED-C and as a senior advisor at the Institute for Security and Technology (IST).

James Andrew Lewis is senior vice president and Pritzker chair at CSIS. Before joining CSIS, he was a diplomat and a member of the Senior Executive Service. Lewis has developed groundbreaking policies on cybersecurity, remote sensing, encryption, spectrum management, and high-tech exports to China, including 5G, software, and semiconductors.

Taylar Rajic is an associate fellow with the Strategic Technologies Program at CSIS. She provides research on a range of topics, including the role of technology in global security and conflict, encryption, and tech competition with China.