US’s big bet on quantum computing may not be entirely legal

The U.S. government announced a $2 billion investment in nine quantum computing startups, with $100 million allocated to each firm in exchange for equity. The largest share, $1 billion, will fund Anderon, a new company co-founded by IBM and the government, which will serve as a foundry for quantum processing units. The funding comes from the CHIPS and Science Act, passed under the Biden administration, but Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) argues the money was intended for semiconductor research—not quantum computing equity deals. Lofgren, ranking member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, called the investment illegal, stating the funds were earmarked for microelectronics R&D. She emphasized that the allocation does not align with the act’s focus on public-private research partnerships, nor does it follow standard congressional approval processes. The largest funding recipient, IBM, raises additional concerns due to the involvement of Dario Gil, a former IBM executive now serving as Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy. Critics argue the funding structure bypasses congressional oversight, as the money was not specifically allocated for quantum computing. Lofgren also questioned whether the deals prioritize private sector interests over public research goals. Despite these concerns, the administration maintains the investments are necessary to advance U.S. leadership in quantum technology. The $2 billion allocation includes $100 million stakes in nine startups, with Anderon receiving the largest portion to develop quantum processing units. The company will operate as a foundry, supplying hardware to IBM and other firms. However, Lofgren’s objections highlight broader debates over how federal research funds should be directed. The controversy underscores tensions between rapid technological advancement and legislative oversight. While quantum computing holds promise, critics insist funding must adhere to congressional intent to avoid legal and ethical concerns.