Quantum Benchmark Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]
- Committees
- Armed Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to standardize and formalize the Department of Defense's approach to integrating advanced quantum computing technologies, ensuring rigorous evaluation before deployment while allowing for executive flexibility.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive policy for the development and acquisition of quantum computing systems within the Department of Defense. This policy must include a definition of such systems, a validation and verification process, and align with DARPA's Quantum Benchmarking Initiative. The bill also imposes a limitation requiring systems to undergo this process, with a waiver option for the Secretary of Defense, subject to congressional notification.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that establishing a clear policy and robust benchmarking process for quantum computing systems is crucial for national security. They contend it will prevent the acquisition of unproven or ineffective technologies, ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and maintain the DoD's technological edge by focusing on validated, high-performance quantum solutions. It provides necessary oversight in a rapidly evolving technological domain.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that mandating a rigid policy and validation process could stifle innovation and slow down the DoD's ability to rapidly adopt cutting-edge quantum technologies. They might contend that the rapidly evolving nature of quantum computing requires more flexibility, and that a formal policy could become outdated quickly, potentially hindering agile development and deployment in critical areas.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for detailed consideration of its implications.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of DoD Quantum Computing Policy
This provision mandates the Secretary of Defense to create a policy within 180 days to guide how the Department of Defense develops and buys quantum computing systems. The policy must define what a quantum computing system is, set up a process to check and confirm these systems work as intended before they are acquired, and ensure these efforts align with DARPA's existing Quantum Benchmarking Initiative (or any successor initiative).
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for bringing order and rigor to the DoD's engagement with quantum technology, ensuring that only effective and validated systems are pursued, thereby maximizing investment and strategic advantage.
Critics contend
Critics might express concern that establishing a rigid policy framework too early in the nascent field of quantum computing could inadvertently create bureaucratic hurdles that slow down innovation and adoption of rapidly evolving technologies.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for rigorous oversight and validation in critical defense technology against the desire for agility and rapid innovation in a fast-moving field.
Section 2(b)
Mandate for Validation and Waiver Authority
This section establishes that once the new policy is in place, no part of the Department of Defense can develop or buy a quantum computing system unless it has gone through the validation and verification process outlined in the policy. However, the Secretary of Defense can waive this requirement on a case-by-case basis for specific systems, but must inform congressional defense committees within 15 days with a written justification for each waiver.
Defines "congressional defense committees" by referencing section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code. This typically includes the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and the defense subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal definitions. It is not intended to be evasive.
Case for: Using existing statutory definitions streamlines legislation and ensures consistent application of terms across federal law, avoiding ambiguity or conflicting interpretations.
Case against: For a reader unfamiliar with Title 10, this requires an additional research step to fully understand which committees are being referred to, potentially obscuring the full scope of congressional oversight.
Estimated impact: Ensures that specific, established committees with oversight responsibilities for defense matters are the recipients of waiver notifications, maintaining established lines of communication and accountability.