How to Strengthen U.S. Quantum Leadership

Most quantum boardroom conversations end without an agenda. They end with a posture — "we're monitoring quantum developments," "we're taking it seriously". Neither statement produces a plan. The distinction matters because quantum creates three problem classes, each with a different urgency and a different cost of inaction. A generic posture misaddresses all three at once. The right response, for most leadership teams, has three parts. The first is to defend now. Post-quantum cryptography belongs on the enterprise risk agenda as a current priority. That means building visibility into cryptographic dependencies across the enterprise, identifying migration priorities, and mapping third-party exposure. This is the part of the quantum agenda that cannot wait. The second is to explore selectively. Most leadership teams do not need a wide portfolio of quantum pilots. They need a small number of focused efforts on high-value problems where the workload aligns with quantum's actual strengths — evaluated against the strongest available classical alternative. Each effort should be a targeted test: one specific problem, one clear classical benchmark, one honest evaluation. The third is to build options. For companies in simulation-relevant sectors — pharmaceuticals, advanced materials, energy — the right posture is modest investment in partnerships and early hardware collaborations. The goal is R&D workflows that are ready to integrate quantum subroutines when the technology matures. The companies that benefit most will not necessarily be those spending the most today. They will be the ones best positioned to move when the moment arrives. The most common failure on quantum is conflating the urgency of the three classes — treating all three as equally distant or equally immediate, when each has a different clock running. The organizations that get this right understand early which problem classes matter to their business, which ones to set aside, and what the distinction demands of them starting Monday morning. https://lnkd.in/gkymW7Xm

U.S. Quantum Leadership at Risk Without Rapid Workforce Mobilization Introduction The United States risks falling behind in the global quantum race unless it urgently scales its quantum workforce. Industry leaders warn that while investment and research momentum are strong, the lack of trained talent across science, engineering, and industrial trades could undermine America’s ability to commercialize quantum technologies and maintain economic and national security leadership . The Quantum Industry’s Momentum • Quantum computing promises dramatic advantages over classical computing for optimization, materials science, energy, and national security applications. • Major technology firms, startups, and governments are investing heavily, with quantum designated a strategic priority alongside artificial intelligence. • Breakthroughs continue, but large-scale commercialization remains several years away. A Growing Workforce Gap • The quantum sector is moving beyond pure research into early industrialization. • Demand is rising not only for PhD-level scientists, but for a much larger operational workforce. • Industry leaders estimate that roughly 80 percent of future quantum jobs will not require advanced degrees. • Tens of thousands of roles are expected in areas such as fabrication, assembly, electronics, refrigeration, facilities, packaging, maintenance, and field service. Why the Rocky Mountain Region Leads • Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico form the largest U.S. quantum ecosystem, anchored by decades of research at NIST. • The region hosts more than 3,000 quantum workers, far exceeding any other U.S. cluster. • Federal and state investment helped create dense networks of labs, startups, and fabrication capabilities. National Stakes and Urgency • Workforce shortages threaten U.S. competitiveness against global rivals. • Quantum computing is increasingly viewed as a national security issue, not just a commercial opportunity. • Delayed action could result in lost leadership, offshored manufacturing, and weakened economic influence. What Must Happen Next • Coordinated action is needed across government, industry, and academia. • Workforce development must include technical trades, not only elite researchers. • Organizations should prepare for quantum impacts on operations, AI convergence, and future cybersecurity risks tied to quantum-enabled code breaking. Why This Matters Quantum computing represents a foundational shift comparable to semiconductors or aviation. Without an aggressive, inclusive workforce strategy, the U.S. risks building breakthrough technology without the people needed to deploy it at scale. Acting now could secure long-term leadership, economic growth, and national resilience in one of the most consequential technologies of the century . I share daily insights with 35,000+ followers across defense, tech, and policy. If this topic resonates, I invite you to connect and continue the conversation. Keith King https://lnkd.in/gHPvUttw

In our latest War on the Rocks article Joshua Levine and I map the critical vulnerabilities threatening America's #quantum future—and they're more urgent than you might think. While Part 1 made the case for why we need American quantum #manufacturing for strategic advantage, Part 2 reveals the hidden dependencies that could derail that leadership: 🔹 Dilution refrigerators: A supply disruption would halt U.S. quantum development within months. Companies like Bluefors have scaled up manufacturing considerably in the last year and multisite operations offer a pathway to resilience. 🔹 Helium-3: This ultra-rare isotope is essential for cooling quantum systems. We need a clear plan to source it at scale. 🔹 Rare earth elements and critical minerals: Recent export controls from the PRC now impact photonic components, relevant across many quantum platforms. Driving domestic acquisition and refinement of rare earth elements has been a focus of the administration. 🔹 Lithium niobate (and other #photonic #materials): Production mostly controlled by China, with no American supplier with capacity for large-scale production. It’s not just about making the material but also the know-how of processing these materials. The ability to etch and process lithium niobate (and diamond), while maintaining performance, is key to incorporating them in quantum devices, as the teams at Lightsynq (now IonQ) and HyperLight have shown. 🔹 #Semiconductor fabrication: Multiple quantum platforms need specialized fabs that don't yet exist domestically. Companies like Qolab working with Applied Materials, are pushing for a 300mm wafer-scale facility that aggregates demand across quantum modalities. These aren't hypothetical risks. They determine whether we scale from tens of quantum systems per year to thousands—and whether deployment timelines compress from years to months. The gap between lab demonstrations and strategic advantage isn't just technical—it's industrial. It’s manufacturing. And the window for action is measured in quarters, not years. 📖 Read Part 2: https://lnkd.in/dvDyHKcT 📖 Part 1 (for context): https://lnkd.in/dhKCDQeB What #supply #chain vulnerabilities concern you most? Looking forward to the discussion! Foundation for American Innovation

I believe that the Government can be the Catalyst for Quantum Innovation The private sector excels at commercialization but often hesitates on high-risk, long-term investments without clear market signals. This is where government leadership becomes essential—creating the confidence needed for transformative technologies to flourish. Quantum technologies perfectly illustrate this dynamic. Recent research from UTD and Washington University shows how 2D quantum sensors could revolutionize measurement capabilities with room-temperature operation, higher precision, and lower costs than traditional platforms—potentially enabling microwave detection of 1mW signals from 800km away. Similarly, quantum light sources based on van der Waals materials promise efficient generation of entangled photon pairs critical for quantum communications infrastructure. Without government direction through research funding, procurement commitments, and articulation of national priorities, these technologies risk remaining trapped in the "valley of death" between laboratory discovery and commercial viability. The Department of Defense's interest in quantum sensing for detecting electromagnetic signatures and monitoring critical systems illustrates how public sector needs can drive innovations that eventually benefit the broader economy. This isn't about picking winners and losers—it's about creating conditions where foundational technologies can mature to the point where market forces take over. The quantum revolution depends on this public-private partnership.

#Quantum is now a strategic policy priority and countries are moving from vision to execution. Key takeaways from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Digital Economy Papers No. 379 (2025) on national quantum #strategies & #policy #instruments: ▪︎ Scale is significant: governments worldwide have committed an estimated USD 55.7B to quantum S&T since 2013; by Nov 2025, 18 OECD Members + the EU have formal strategies. ▪︎ Why governments invest: anticipated productivity and sector breakthroughs (sensing, computing, communications) + strategic #autonomy / #national #security, including digital security & dual-use concerns. ▪︎ Strategies help coordinate fragmented funding and increasingly use mission-oriented approaches to align programmes, end-users and deployment pathways. ▪︎ #Governance models vary widely: some strategies sit inside broader S&T agendas; others are stand-alone with dedicated bodies. In several cases, governance is placed at the **highest executive level. ▪︎ #KPIs are a differentiator: from hard tech metrics (e.g., qubit/performance targets) to ecosystem outcomes (workforce, start-ups, IP, market share, supply chain autonomy, international collaboration), with an emerging push to standardise KPIs. ▪︎ Five policy instruments underpin most “quantum policy mixes”: 1. Institutional funding for public research + infrastructures (labs, testbeds, quantum clouds) and skills 2. Project grants for public research and cross-disciplinary collaboration 3. Business R&D grants to de-risk commercialisation 4. Public #procurement to stimulate early demand and raise TRLs 5. #Equity financing to crowd-in capital for start-ups ▪︎ Policy landscape is broadening: the #OECD policy database tracks ~250 quantum policies across 40 countries + the EU. ▪︎ International dimension is changing: collaboration remains important, but cross-country co-authorship fell from ~33% to <30% (2019–2022); US–EU collaboration intensity declined ~15% (2018–2022) amid rising strategic/security constraints. ▪︎ Protection & #standards are rising together: more countries are introducing export controls on quantum-related tech/materials, while strategies emphasise participation in global standardisation (incl. post-quantum cryptography), with an open debate on how early to standardise. OECD (2025), “An overview of national strategies and policies for quantum technologies”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 379, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://lnkd.in/dbQC-xPS