The third U.S. presidential debate was when quantum computing, a highly specialized and nascent area of technology, was mentioned for the first time in such a forum. Vice President Kamala Harris brought up quantum technology in a heated exchange with former President Donald Trump, shifting the focus from typical campaign issues like immigration, health care, and the economy to the strategic importance of American semiconductor manufacturing and China’s rising dominance in the tech sector.
The introduction of science and technology policy into mainstream political discourse marks a significant shift in U.S. politics. Typically, these topics are relegated to the back burner, overshadowed by other pressing issues. But, in 2024, the public and policymakers alike are focusing on the increasingly critical role of science in shaping the nation’s future—from COVID-19 recovery and climate change to artificial intelligence and, now, quantum computing.
From the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 to the accelerating effects of climate change, science-related issues have gained unprecedented importance in the minds of voters and politicians. The development and deployment of vaccines underscored the importance of government-funded scientific research, and the public gained new appreciation for technological solutions to global crises.
Additionally, as technological advancements like artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, and quantum computing evolve, they are no longer abstract concepts but rather real-world tools with significant economic, social, and national security implications.
The federal government spends nearly $200 billion each year on scientific research and development (R&D). However, questions over how these funds should be allocated and the government’s role in advancing key technological fields remain contentious. The 2024 election has become a battleground for competing visions of America’s scientific future, with candidates starkly divided on how to ensure the U.S. remains globally competitive, particularly with the rise of China in the semiconductor industry.
Vice President Kamala Harris’s reference to quantum computing during the debate was emblematic of the growing recognition of science and technology as vital components of national security and economic policy. Quantum computing, an area of research that leverages the principles of quantum mechanics to perform complex calculations exponentially faster than classical computers, has become a key focus for countries around the world, including China.
“Quantum technology represents the future of not only computing, but also cybersecurity, medicine, and artificial intelligence. It is critical that the U.S. leads in this field, both in research and in its applications,” Harris said during the debate, while defending the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to funding advanced technologies.
Trump, meanwhile, pivoted the discussion toward manufacturing, particularly the U.S.’s diminished role in semiconductor production—a sector vital for producing the chips used in everything from smartphones to quantum computers. “China is eating our lunch when it comes to chipmaking,” Trump stated. “We need to bring back American manufacturing, especially when it comes to semiconductors. Under my administration, we cut regulations and brought jobs back, and we’ll do it again.”
This debate underscores a key tension: the intersection of scientific innovation and geopolitical strategy, particularly in light of China’s growing influence in the global tech market.
The sharp contrast in Trump and Harris’s positions on science and technology is rooted in their respective records and approaches to policy.
When Donald Trump took office in 2017, his administration made sweeping changes to long-standing U.S. policies related to scientific research. Trump’s first budget proposal signaled his intent to shift federal spending priorities. He proposed historic cuts across nearly every major science agency, including the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Climate-related programs were particularly targeted, with Trump questioning the scientific consensus on climate change and frequently dismissing environmental regulations as burdensome to businesses.
Trump’s fiscal strategy mirrored that of the Reagan era, prioritizing military spending. However, unlike Reagan, who maintained bipartisan support for basic scientific research, Trump sought to slash federal research funding across the board, including areas vital to the country’s innovation ecosystem, like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF).
Despite these proposals, Congress rejected most of Trump’s cuts, and federal R&D budgets grew during his presidency. This was particularly true in 2020 and 2021, when emergency spending on COVID-19 response drove historic investments in scientific research.
Nevertheless, Trump’s skepticism toward scientific expertise remained clear throughout his tenure. He delayed the appointment of a White House science advisor for over two years, marking the longest period in modern history that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was without a director. His administration pulled the U.S. out of international agreements, including the Paris climate accords and the World Health Organization, moves widely criticized by the scientific community.
In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration has placed science and technology at the center of its policy agenda, with Vice President Harris frequently championing initiatives related to AI, climate technology, and quantum science.
The administration leveraged its slim Democratic majority in Congress to pass three landmark bills that contain significant provisions for science and technology: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and the CHIPS and Science Act. Together, these bills provided billions of dollars for R&D, particularly in areas like clean energy, electric vehicle infrastructure, and American semiconductor manufacturing.
The CHIPS Act, in particular, set up programs within the NSF and the Department of Commerce to establish regional technology hubs and revitalize American manufacturing. One of its most ambitious goals was to double NSF’s budget from $9 billion to over $18 billion within five years. This push to revitalize U.S. R&D and infrastructure reflects the Biden-Harris administration’s view of science and technology as integral to both economic growth and national security.
However, despite this initial momentum, the administration’s more recent budget proposals have been less generous. With growing concerns over deficit spending and a Republican-controlled House, NSF’s budget saw an 8% decrease for fiscal year 2024—its largest cut in over three decades.
On technology policy, the Biden-Harris administration shares significant overlap with the Trump-era approach, particularly when it comes to China. Both administrations have pursued policies aimed at reducing China’s access to critical U.S. technology, particularly in the semiconductor sector.
Trump’s administration initiated the China Initiative, a program aimed at curbing intellectual property theft and securing U.S. technological superiority. Although the Biden-Harris administration ended the China Initiative in 2022, many of its goals remain in place. The decoupling of the U.S. and Chinese tech sectors, particularly in areas like semiconductor manufacturing and AI, has accelerated under both administrations.
Despite their differences, Trump and Harris both advocate for “innovation at home, decoupling abroad” as part of a broader strategy to maintain American leadership in emerging technology sectors. This bipartisan consensus reflects the growing geopolitical stakes of science and technology, with China representing the chief rival to U.S. global dominance.
One of the key differences between the two candidates lies in their treatment of scientific expertise within the executive branch. Under Trump, the role of the White House science advisor was diminished, with long delays in appointments and frequent clashes between scientific experts and the administration’s political agenda.
By contrast, the Biden-Harris administration has elevated the importance of science in decision-making. President Biden’s decision to appoint his science advisor, Arati Prabhakar, as a Cabinet member highlights this shift. The role of the OSTP has expanded under Biden, with the administration placing greater emphasis on scientific input in areas ranging from climate policy to pandemic preparedness.
The introduction of quantum computing into a presidential debate is indicative of a broader shift in American politics—one where science and technology are no longer fringe issues but central to the nation’s economic and geopolitical strategies. As voters weigh the platforms of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in the 2024 election, their contrasting views on R&D funding, climate science, and tech competition with China will be critical in shaping the country’s scientific future.
Ultimately, the debate underscores the importance of science and technology in securing America’s global leadership, economic growth, and national security in the 21st century. Whether the next president embraces this vision or reverts to an era of skepticism and cuts will shape the U.S. trajectory for decades to come.
