Quantum's Pace and Global Controls
Quantum technologies are moving faster than export controls and regulations can keep pace. True or False? Let’s take a look.
Quantum technologies (computing, sensing, communications, cryptography) are indeed advancing at a breakneck pace driven by massive private investment, government funding (e.g., U.S. National Quantum Initiative), and iterative breakthroughs in qubits, error correction, and hybrid systems. Export controls and regulations, by design, move more deliberately due to bureaucratic processes, international coordination, legal review, and the need for performance-based thresholds that don’t immediately obsolete themselves.
Image source: Brian Lenahan/Midjourney
Quantum tech advances rapidly due to breakthroughs in qubits, error correction, and hybrid systems, while export controls (e.g., U.S. BIS rules, EU/UK alignments) move deliberately due to bureaucracy, international coordination, and the need for measurable thresholds that can quickly become outdated.
Strong evidence of regulatory lag: Innovation velocity outpaces rulemaking timelines; controls rely on specific performance parameters (qubit counts, gate fidelities) that labs routinely surpass, as seen in the 2024–2025 U.S./allied rules that took years to finalize and already require clarifications and updates.
Regulators are actively adapting: Recent actions show responsiveness—performance-based controls with license exceptions for allies, frequent interim rules, Entity List additions, and plurilateral coordination (U.S., EU, UK, etc.) aim to close the gap without fully halting open R&D or academic collaboration.
Key risks on both sides: If the gap persists, it creates national security vulnerabilities and regulatory arbitrage; if overstated, overly broad controls risk stifling innovation, causing brain drain, disrupting global supply chains, and weakening the collaborative edge that drives progress.
Bottom line: We see a real governance challenge in dual-use tech, but coordinated, flexible regulation is narrowing it—policymakers should focus on agile, tech-neutral frameworks and safeguards for open science rather than abandoning controls.
The gap isn’t insurmountable, however and recent regulatory actions show governments are actively trying to close that gap through frequent updates and allied coordination.
Technological velocity outstrips rulemaking timelines: Quantum progress isn’t linear—it’s punctuated by rapid improvements in hardware (qubit counts, gate fidelity), software (algorithms), and enabling components (cryogenic systems). Regulators rely on specific, measurable thresholds (e.g., qubit counts combined with error rates like C-NOT gates) to trigger controls. These can quickly become outdated as labs and companies push beyond them. Novel architectures or hybrid classical-quantum systems may evade or require constant revisions.
Regulatory inertia is structural: Export controls (via frameworks like the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, EU Dual-Use Regulation, or Wassenaar Arrangement) involve drafting, interagency review, public comment (often skipped via interim final rules), international alignment, and enforcement. Even “fast” actions—like the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) September 2024 Interim Final Rule adding quantum computers (ECCN 4A906), cryogenic components, and related tech—took years of multilateral talks to align on parameters. Full implementation included delayed compliance dates for allies (e.g., Nov. 2024 for some). Subsequent tweaks in 2025 (e.g., EU 500-series updates in Nov. 2025, UK alignments) show reactivity rather than anticipation.
Real-world examples of lag: Early warnings (pre-2024) noted quantum was “too young” for heavy controls. By 2024–2025, controls were imposed, but critics (including researchers) argued they were premature or overly broad, potentially disrupting open R&D, deemed exports to foreign talent in the U.S., and academic collaboration. China has responded by accelerating domestic supply chains, suggesting controls create short-term friction but don’t always halt long-term progress.
This mirrors patterns in other dual-use fields (like AI chips, semiconductors), where innovation ecosystems (academia + startups + hyperscalers) iterate faster than governments can legislate.
Counterpoints: Regulators are adapting faster than the statement implies
Proactive, performance-based, and plurilateral efforts: The 2024 U.S. rule (and parallel moves by EU/UK/Australia/Japan) introduced worldwide licensing for sensitive quantum items, with presumptions of denial to adversaries (Country Groups D:1/D:5) but license exceptions (e.g., Implemented Export Controls) for like-minded allies. This isn’t slow multilateralism—it’s targeted “minilateral” coordination to avoid a full Wassenaar lag. Carve-outs for deemed exports, general licenses, and recordkeeping aim to protect ongoing R&D without total disruption.
Frequent updates show responsiveness: BIS and allies have issued clarifications, Entity List additions targeting quantum-related Chinese entities, and expansions tied to AI/computing in 2025. Regulations aren’t static; they’re using interim rules and end-use/end-user controls to stay nimble.
Not all quantum tech is equal: Controls focus on high-risk dual-use items (e.g., advanced quantum computers or enabling hardware with military potential). Broad civilian applications (sensing in medicine, optimization) face lighter scrutiny, and open-source software/algorithms are harder to control anyway.
Broader implications and risks
The pace heightens national security vulnerabilities—adversaries could acquire or replicate capabilities via indirect routes, talent poaching, or reverse-engineering. It also risks “regulatory arbitrage,” where companies shift operations to less-controlled jurisdictions.
The challenge: Overly alarmist framing could justify excessive restrictions that backfire—stifling innovation, causing brain drain, fragmenting global supply chains, or weakening the very research edge (international collaboration) that drives progress. Some analysts warn controls on immature tech create uncertainty and slow the field overall.
The real tension: This is classic “governance lag” in emerging tech. Quantum’s dual-use nature (civilian benefits vs. military/encryption-breaking risks) makes perfect synchronization impossible. The situation is a genuine challenge but underplays how alliances and adaptive tools (thresholds + exceptions) are mitigating it.
Summary
Quantum is moving fast, and controls are playing catch-up in a cat-and-mouse dynamic. But it’s not hopeless; coordinated, iterative regulation is narrowing the gap without (yet) fully resolving it. Policymakers should prioritize flexible, tech-neutral frameworks, ongoing multilateral dialogue, and safeguards for open science to avoid the worst outcomes on either side. If anything, the need for even faster regulatory agility, not abandonment of controls.
Brian Lenahan is founder and chair of the Quantum Strategy Institute, author of seven Amazon published books on quantum technologies and artificial intelligence and a Substack Top 50 Rising in Technology. Brian’s focus on the practical side of technology ensures you will get the guidance and inspiration you need to gain value from quantum now and into the future. Brian does not purport to be an expert in each field or subfield for which he provides science communication.
Brian’s books are available on Amazon. Quantum Strategy for Business course is available on the QURECA platform.
Copyright © 2026 Aquitaine Innovation Advisors