Quantum Supply Chains Today

Over the past year, Washington signaled a transition from considering quantum technologies as an academic research question to a cornerstone technology needed to ensure our continued commercial and defense position across the globe. As we put it recently, this is “America’s Quantum Manufacturing Moment.”

Policymakers recognize that there are applications we can deploy today while we continue our pursuit to build a scientifically relevant, fault-tolerant quantum computer by 2028. To harness all benefits of quantum effectively, the June 2026 quantum executive order directs the U.S. government to update the National Quantum Strategy by December 2026.

But American quantum leadership will take more than a vision. Quantum technologies—just as with previous generations of computing, sensing, and networking platforms—demand new lines of components and inputs, some of which overlap with existing technology supply chains, but others that are truly novel. As we have written previously, advancements in quantum technologies are diffusing out of university labs, shifting the locus of innovation and future breakthroughs to private firms and factory floors. These fundamentals, paired with advancements in complementary technologies, create a unique opportunity for American firms to lead in the design, development, and commercialization of this sector.

Seizing this opportunity, however, means being clear-eyed about existing capabilities and efforts in industry and in government, and adopting strategies that maximize available resources and expertise.

To begin this process, the Foundation for American Innovation and Playground Global co-hosted a roundtable discussion with experts from industry, government, and civil society to develop a set of priorities and policy solutions to put U.S. firms in a position to shape and benefit from the establishment of these supply chains.

One theme was clear: the supply chains that will enable the first scientifically-relevant, fault tolerant quantum computer will not be the supply chains that ensure the long-term usefulness and commercialization of quantum technologies. America’s quantum leadership depends on our ability to build these supply chains in tandem.

Pressing Problems

Throughout the roundtable, participants identified four overarching problems that must be addressed by any new government policy or strategy related to quantum technologies.

1. Limited Access to Critical Inputs: While some of these components can map across modalities, participants noted that this is not uniformly the case. Attempting to create an all-encompassing “supply chain map” is likely to be under-inclusive. Inputs that were discussed include: cryogenics and refrigeration, Silicon-28, lasers, low-loss optical switching, photonics, and skilled labor.
2. Crowding-Out Effect of Super Intelligence (SI): Participants shared that current demand for SI infrastructure components have already captured a lion's share of the supply of inputs that are similarly coveted for quantum technologies. Photonic integrated circuits, low-loss switching, and high-quality fiber optics were flagged. It was further observed that while the present investment boom may create favorable conditions in the form of increased supply of inputs, quantum purchasers fear insufficient demand will cause adverse economic effects.
3. Information Silo’ing and Inefficiency: Participants highlighted a few areas where government decisions seemed to be made without having access to up-to-date information. Specifically, limited information sharing across agencies can lead to potentially duplicative or wasteful spending at the federal level, which could be compounded by uncoordinated efforts by state economic development entities. This gave the impression that policy actions were taken with lack of general coordination.
4. Funding Instability: Participants agreed that Congress’ inability to pass budgets under regular order and on-time has a chilling effect on companies that are interested in participating in federal programs or rely on grants disbursed by the federal government. This constraint limits available capital and makes it difficult to plan in a forward-looking manner. Unpredictable budget cycles also hamper the U.S. government’s ability to make strategic investments in quantum because projects are capital intensive and often multi-year.

The group coalesced around the idea that America’s leadership in quantum technologies will be determined by access and control over component-level design and manufacturing at scale, which will be driven by investment decisions over the next 2–5 years. This includes cryogenics and helium-3, lasers and photonics, control electronics, isotopes, and foundry access. Despite its criticality to quantum technology development, the enabling layer of quantum technologies is extremely vulnerable. Currently, it receives less than 12% of federal quantum funding and limited private capital, leading to foreign dependence and strained capacity to support growing quantum businesses.

Turning on a few machines in 2030 is interesting, but leadership depends on scaling existing capacity; creating new supplier capacity in the U.S. and, where relevant, with key, trusted allies, and identifying the investments necessary to enable continued American quantum research, development, and deployment.

Potential Solutions

To ensure U.S. supply chain security and redundancy into the 2040s efforts must be calibrated in harmony. This is particularly important on account of the technology’s relative infancy and ongoing intra-modality competition. Participants aligned around four actionable policy levers that should be explored by government stakeholders and private firms:

1. Advance Market Commitments (AMCs): AMCs can work at the system level and, importantly, at the component level: pooling demand across companies into an annual commitment sends a market signal that can further crowd-in private capital to support manufacturing of next-generation materials, as well as create stability in a vast and nascent market. AMCs should be used with a specific focus on near- to medium-term inputs, with production targets beginning within the next 2–4 years, and whenever possible, focused on components or inputs that can be used across multiple modalities. The most pressing inputs should be critical minerals such as Helium-3, Silicon-28, barium, ytterbium, erbium, and praseodymium, as well as investments into components such as fiber optic cabling, optics, and photonics.
2. Targeted Supply Chain Investment: As a complement to AMCs, offices with freedom to allocate capital to advance the national interest, particularly the CHIPS R&D Office, Office of Strategic Capital, Development Finance Corporation, authorities under the Defense Production Act, and where relevant, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, should prioritize large scale, complementary investments into manufacturing capacity. These investments should take into account existing technical roadmaps, industry analysis, synergies with past or planned investments coming from government budgets, and initial guidance from quantum supply chain mapping exercises happening within the Department of Commerce and Department of War, respectively. Investments should focus primarily on securing access to inputs that are today controlled by a foreign adversary or entity under the control of a foreign adversary, such as cryogenics. Additional focus should be paid to next-generation fabrication, packaging, and mineral processing that could be useful along a 7–10 year or longer time horizon, as well as to the algorithms that will ultimately make quantum computers useful.
3. QBI-Based Guidance to Agencies and Industry: The most complete dataset on supply chain constraints and opportunities is now held within DARPA’s Quantum Benchmarking Initiative (QBI) as a product of its review and evaluation of participating companies. Making such information available across agencies working on quantum supply chain efforts, as well as available to key industry partners, particularly capital allocators, can reduce information asymmetry and enable public and private sector actors to more quickly address capacity gaps.
4. Guidance in the National Quantum Strategy for Acquisition of Quantum Computing Systems: Demand signals from the federal government for multiple utility-scale quantum computing systems creates stability for supply chain manufacturing by providing further validation that the market for quantum systems will materialize. Current federal funding efforts to infuse capital into quantum computing have demonstrated focus on quantum as an identifiable, critical technology, along with initial commitments from agencies such as the Department of Energy and the Department of War, to purchase the initial utility-scale fault-tolerant quantum computer. Including initial guidance within the National Quantum Strategy is a near-term opportunity for the federal government to forecast this initial demand signal.

A reliable quantum supply chain must be designed to meet capability and capacity if America wishes to retain her innovative edge, economic competitiveness, and national resilience.

Next Steps

Washington is plotting a course, but the road ahead is long and winding. The Department of Commerce committed $2.013B, with equity stakes, to nine quantum firms and foundries, respectively, the National Institute of Standards and Technology launched a new center to develop and accelerate manufacturing of scalable, high-performance quantum components and systems, the Department of War is accelerating the development and deployment of quantum sensing for strategic operations, and the National Quantum Initiative is up for re-authorization.

However, there is much more to do to sustain our quantum advantage. Today, we have an opportunity to build a resilient quantum supply chain that is anchored by U.S. firms and facilities. There is no singular “quantum supply chain,” meaning capacity built today in America and with strategic allies can become an enduring advantage and avoid piece-meal efforts to rapidly reshore capacity like with semiconductors. The United States can lead the quantum industrial revolution if it identifies critical chokepoints and strategically invests in capacity.

With a 2028 deadline set, the next 18 months will fundamentally shape how U.S. corporations, researchers, and operators build and deploy quantum technologies. The federal government must therefore shape a cohesive effort to induce investment in chokepoints at the enabling layer and expand capacity.