Quantum information science, engineering, and technologies (QISET) is entering a new phase of rapid evolution from lab-based projects to real-world applications, with significant implications for federal and private sector strategies. According to experts at the Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP), a nonprofit and nonpartisan initiative aimed at strengthening America's long-term competitiveness in artificial intelligence, the shift from Quantum 1.0 to Quantum 2.0 is reshaping the geography of innovation. Quantum 1.0, which fostered the development of lasers and transistors, has given way to Quantum 2.0, centered on photonics, microelectronics, and specialized materials. This transition is not just technological but also economic and strategic, as states and regions compete to lead in a field with profound national security and commercial implications.
SCSP highlights the history, foundation, and future of place-based quantum innovation in a new limited newsletter, "Quantum States," which examines how different states and regions are leading the way. The analysis assessed states across a range of metrics, including cited quantum information science research, patents, the volume of both 'pure play' and quantum-enabling companies, the number of military research facilities, breadth of the full quantum stack (computing, sensing, and networking), and the number of quantum-related job openings. These metrics reveal that quantum leadership is not simply about hosting the most companies but requires a cohesive, strategic effort leveraging local strengths. As SCSP experts note, "Developing a robust ecosystem of quantum technologies is not a one-size-fits-all approach, in which local leadership is guaranteed by hosting the most companies within a region. Rather, it requires a cohesive, strategic effort leveraging strengths within that state."
Currently, California leads in most aspects of Quantum 2.0, including industrial capacity, talent pipelines, and market ecosystems. Other established hubs include New York, Illinois, Colorado, Maryland, and Massachusetts. However, several other states are poised to become players, including Texas, North Carolina, and Florida, given their high number of PhDs awarded and the presence of quantum research centers in many of their academic institutions. This geographic diversification matters because it signals a broadening base of innovation that could reduce regional disparities and enhance national resilience. The SCSP experts emphasize that "The most successful quantum states build strong synergies between pillars of a quantum ecosystem: academia, NIST, national labs, startups, and private industry." Ultimately, true quantum hubs emerge where industry, academia, and government actively connect.
The implications of this state-by-state race are significant. For federal policymakers, understanding which states are emerging as quantum leaders can inform funding priorities and infrastructure investments. For the private sector, it highlights where talent, research, and supply chains are coalescing, influencing decisions on where to locate facilities and partnerships. Moreover, as quantum technologies transition from lab to market, the ability to harness local synergies will determine which regions capture the economic and security benefits. The SCSP newsletter aims to provide ongoing analysis of these dynamics. For more information and future editions of the Quantum States newsletter, visit https://scsp.ai.
