Insider Brief
- An opinion piece in The Economist argues that quantum computing is one of the clearest cases for targeted U.S. industrial policy because of its national-security implications and immature supply chain.
- The authors say the Trump administration’s quantum investments take an interesting path because they support multiple computing architectures rather than placing a single bet on one technical approach.
- The piece praises early action to reduce future supply-chain risks in quantum while warning that broader federal equity investments across technology sectors need clearer guiding principles.
An opinion piece in The Economist by argues that quantum computing may be one of the clearest cases for direct federal intervention in an emerging industry. At the same time, it warns that the Trump administration’s broader embrace of equity stakes and industrial investment still lacks clearly defined limits.
Joshua Zoffer, a former special assistant to the president for economic policy, and Chris Miller, author of “Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology“, write in their column that quantum computing differs fundamentally from more mature sectors such as drones, batteries or rare-earth processing. In those industries, the federal government can often stimulate domestic capacity by purchasing products, supporting allied suppliers or easing regulatory barriers. Quantum computing, by contrast, remains an industry in formation. There are few fully commercial products, no settled winning architecture and no mature supply chain that can be readily redirected toward national-security needs.
This means quantum is not primarily a research endeavor anymore, but a strategic industrial base that the U.S. government is attempting to shape before global dependencies become entrenched, according to Zoffer and Miller. Quantum computing is increasingly discussed alongside semiconductors, artificial intelligence, critical minerals and drones as a technology whose future commercial structure could carry national-security implications.
Equity Stakes
The article focuses on the Trump administration’s plan to invest $2 billion across nine quantum-computing companies in exchange for equity stakes, arguing that such an approach avoids placing a single government bet on one technical pathway. This is a shrewd way to place bets on quantum given the unsettled nature of the field. Superconducting circuits, trapped ions, neutral atoms, photonics and other approaches are all competing to demonstrate scalability toward useful, fault-tolerant machines. A diversified federal investment strategy could support progress across the sector without prematurely selecting a winner, Zoffer and Miller suggest.
Focusing on the manufacturing element of quantum, the authors indicate that the United States must not only design quantum computers but also build the hardware and supply chains required to support them. This aligns with concerns across the quantum sector, where specialized chips, cryogenic systems, lasers, control electronics, photonics components and fabrication capacity all present scaling challenges.
The authors also compare how quantum supply chains are forming, compared to the chains of other strategic technologies. In semiconductors, the United States remains heavily reliant on overseas advanced manufacturing. In batteries, drones and rare-earth processing, China has established dominant positions that are difficult and costly to counter.
Zoffer and Miller write: “The American government has an essential role to play in addressing supply-chain concentration, particularly when China uses its position for political leverage. China has repeatedly weaponised supply-chain chokepoints, most notably via a series of restrictions on critical minerals and magnets. Yet the past few years of efforts to recast supply chains show how hard and costly this is. Despite billions of dollars of government investment in chips and rare earths, these industries will take years to diversify.”
However, quantum offers a rare opportunity for Washington to act earlier, before supply chains are fully formed and dependencies solidify, the experts write.
The cybersecurity dimension may provide another facet to the national-security rationale. Large-scale quantum computers could eventually undermine widely used public-key encryption systems, while quantum technologies may also enable advances in sensing, navigation, communications and scientific computing. This dual-use potential strengthens the case for targeted industrial-policy intervention.
The Need for Clear Principles
Zoffer and Miller write that federal intervention should be guided by clear principles rather than applied unevenly across sectors.
The first principle they identify is that major government intervention should be justified by a clear national-security requirement or a severe economic vulnerability that markets are unlikely to solve on their own. In their view, quantum computing meets that test because of its cybersecurity implications.
The government also should generally not invest where it can simply buy. The authors write that quantum computing differs from mature markets because the products the government may eventually need do not yet fully exist. That makes early-stage intervention easier to justify than in sectors where procurement alone might be sufficient.
They also suggest that government investments should remain at arm’s length. Taxpayers should benefit if companies receiving public support succeed, but instruments such as warrants may avoid some of the complications and perceptions of political entanglement associated with direct equity stakes. A warrant is a financial instrument that gives the holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy a company’s stock later at a set price.
Ultimately, Zoffer and Miller write that that the administration’s quantum strategy shows the value of acting early in strategically important technologies, but they warn that broader federal investment decisions need clearer rules.
They write: “The Trump administration deserves credit for forward-looking investments that help protect the quantum industry from the supply-chain risks that have plagued other industries. But as it eyes equity stakes across America’s leading tech sectors, it needs to forge and abide by principles that clarify where government action is critically necessary, and where it isn’t.”
