President Donald Trump’s June 22, 2026, executive orders on quantum computing should be understood for what they are: not a shiny technology announcement, not a photo-op for the federal innovation class, and not another soothing Washington press release telling us that “America remains competitive,” which is usually government-speak for “we found the cliff and are now forming a task force to admire it.” Executive Order 14413 directs the federal government to accelerate quantum innovation, commercialization, deployment, manufacturing, and national-security applications, while Executive Order 14412 warns that large-scale quantum computers in adversarial hands will threaten widely used cryptographic systems and enable hostile actors to collect encrypted American data now and decrypt it later. The White House’s companion post-quantum cryptography effort requires federal agencies to prioritize migration of vulnerable cryptographic systems with the objective of mitigating quantum risk by December 31, 2030.
That is the right level of urgency, because quantum computing is not merely faster computing, and artificial intelligence is not merely better software. AI is already becoming the decision layer of the digital world, shaping what people see, how companies operate, how banks assess risk, how governments investigate threats, how militaries plan, and how institutions increasingly outsource judgment to machines that speak with the confidence of a consultant who has never once been interrupted by reality. Quantum computing, once mature enough for practical cryptographic and scientific use, becomes an amplifier for problems that classical computers cannot solve at a useful scale. Put them together, AI as the mind and quantum as the accelerator, and the winner does not simply build a better tool, but actually builds the operating system for global power.
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has already noted that nations that integrate quantum with AI-driven research platforms will compound their advantages exponentially, and that the country achieving quantum supremacy in quantum computing and AI will gain disproportionate and likely enduring advantages in intelligence collection, encryption, precision targeting, materials science, energy, medicine, and the digital economy. The Commission also warned that whoever gets there first could lock in “irreversible strategic superiority,” especially because current global infrastructure remains exposed to attacks on public-key encryption.
That is why this is an all-or-nothing race. America is not competing against a friendly research consortium at a science fair where everyone claps politely and shares their grant proposals over room-temperature coffee. We are competing against the Chinese Communist Party, a regime that does not have our Constitution, our courts, our churches, our independent press, our civil society, our due process traditions, our free-speech protections, or our national gift for holding seven hearings before deciding whether a light switch is racist. China can centralize resources, compel cooperation, absorb civilian research into state priorities, hide its most sensitive work, and deploy technologies against its own people without any meaningful legal restraint from the governed. Human Rights Watch reports that under Xi Jinping, there is no independent civil society in China and no freedom of expression, association, assembly, or religion, while critics and human rights defenders are persecuted.
The technological edge is narrowing because China has made quantum a state priority and is building the infrastructure to match. CSIS reports that China’s superconducting, photonic, trapped-ion, and neutral-atom quantum computing efforts are moving from laboratory prototypes toward commercial use, with Chinese systems including Zuchongzhi, Origin Wukong, and Tianyan-504 supported by universities, research centers, state-linked firms, and companies such as China Telecom Quantum Group and Origin Quantum. The Special Competitive Studies Project has also noted that China has made quantum computing a strategic priority since the 14th Five-Year Plan, with government funding showing China’s strategic prioritization of quantum technology at a projected $15 billion compared to $4 billion in the United States.
This race is not morally neutral because the systems being built will inherit the values of the civilization that builds them. ASPI’s 2025 report on China’s AI control architecture found that the CCP is using large language models and other AI systems to automate censorship, enhance surveillance, preemptively suppress dissent, and embed AI throughout policing, courts, prisons, public-sentiment monitoring, and censorship markets. The report also found that Chinese tech companies including Tencent, Baidu, and ByteDance have developed advanced AI censorship platforms that make state-mandated censorship cheaper, faster, easier, and more efficient, which is exactly the sort of “innovation” that gets a standing ovation from tyrants and a LinkedIn post from someone in compliance.
If China reaches usable quantum dominance first and fuses it with frontier AI, it does not merely gain bragging rights. It gains the ability to crack secrets, harden its own command systems, accelerate weapons research, improve intelligence operations, dominate standards, manipulate global information flows, and export authoritarian infrastructure to nations that want the benefits of modern technology without the nuisance of human liberty. That is the technology to rule the world, not because it magically turns Beijing into a comic-book villain, but because information dominance, encryption dominance, economic dominance, military targeting, surveillance, and automated persuasion are the real levers of twenty-first-century empire.
America must win this race, but we must not win it by becoming the very China we’re trying to defeat. That is the central tension, and it cannot be dodged by chanting “innovation” until all moral concerns disappear. The Bible warns that “the prudent sees danger and hides himself,” which is another way of saying that wisdom sees the cliff before the impact report is peer reviewed. The danger is not AI itself, nor quantum computing itself. The danger is the merger of unlimited computation, centralized data, automated decision-making, and government power in a country whose constitutional order was designed to restrain precisely that sort of concentrated authority.
Even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has said enough in public to reveal the constitutional problem, even if he does not describe it that way. OpenAI’s own June 2026 statement says, “Entirely automating everything is not the future we want,” calling such a future unfulfilling and dangerous while insisting that human judgment must remain central. Yet Altman has also acknowledged that AI’s rise may require changes to the social contract, saying that “the whole structure of society itself will be up for some degree of debate and reconfiguration,” a phrase that should make every constitutionalist sit up straight and pay attention. At a Federal Reserve event in July 2025, Altman described young people who say they cannot make decisions without telling ChatGPT everything, warned against people collectively deciding to “live our lives the way that the AI tells us,” and raised the longer-term possibility of leaders following AI recommendations they cannot fully understand.
That is not a small admission. A constitutional republic requires accountable human judgment. It requires a citizen to know who accused him, what law he violated, what evidence is being used, what process he can invoke, what remedy he can seek, and which public official can be held responsible. Mass AI implementation, especially the version Silicon Valley keeps describing with the serene enthusiasm of men who think human nature is a software bug, moves the country in the opposite direction. It centralizes judgment, automates enforcement, hides reasoning inside proprietary models, reduces citizens to data profiles, and replaces personal accountability with institutional shrugging. “The model said so” is not due process.
The First Amendment is the first casualty because AI at scale governs speech at scale. The Bill of Rights protects civil liberties against the government, including speech, press, religion, assembly, due process, and other limitations on federal power. When government pressures platforms to suppress content, when agencies coordinate with technology companies to label viewpoints dangerous, when automated moderation buries dissent, when AI systems determine what political claims can be seen, shared, monetized, or discussed, the First Amendment becomes purely decorative. Murthy v. Missouri involved claims that federal officials pressured platforms to censor protected speech, and Moody v. NetChoice confirmed that social-media content moderation raises serious First Amendment questions because platforms filter, prioritize, and label user speech at massive scale.
The First Amendment also protects religious exercise, assembly, and petition, which are all vulnerable once AI-powered surveillance maps real-world communities. A government does not need to ban a church, protest group, parents’ organization, or political movement if it can monitor its members, track its donors, flag its leaders, throttle its messages, and quietly classify it as a risk category. China already shows the end of that road, and ASPI’s reporting on AI-enabled censorship, minority-language monitoring, smart courts, and predictive repression shows that authoritarian systems use AI to make human control more efficient. America should not pretend we can import the machinery of control, and no one in the government is going to try to weaponize it against the American people.
The Fourth Amendment is next because AI turns surveillance from an act into an environment. Facial recognition, license-plate readers, drones, biometric scans, smart devices, payment records, social-media histories, location data, and public cameras can be fused into a searchable profile of every American. The Government Accountability Office reported that seven federal law enforcement agencies in DHS and DOJ used facial recognition to support criminal investigations, that several lacked specific policies to protect civil rights and civil liberties, and that agencies conducted about 60,000 facial recognition searches before training requirements were in place. GAO also noted civil liberties concerns that overreliance on facial recognition could lead to wrongful arrests or chill First Amendment activity at events such as protests.
The Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment are already being pressed by automated decision-making because due process and equal protection cannot survive secret logic. If AI denies a benefit, flags a traveler, freezes a bank account, downgrades a credit score, recommends prosecution, influences sentencing, targets a neighborhood for policing, or identifies someone as a risk, that person has the right to challenge the decision through a transparent and accountable process. The American Bar Association has warned that AI in criminal justice raises due-process concerns, especially through bias in data-driven decision-making and errors from flawed surveillance technologies, while also noting that predictive policing, risk assessments, facial recognition, and mass surveillance create constitutional risks touching the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Equal Protection problem is not theoretical. The EEOC has stated that bias in employment arising from algorithms and AI falls squarely within its priority to address systemic discrimination, and that anti-discrimination laws still apply regardless of the form technology takes. If AI systems are trained on corrupted, incomplete, politically filtered, racially skewed, ideologically selected, or economically biased data, they will not be neutral. They will simply automate injustice at industrial speed, and then we’ll have to deal with the aftermath.
The Sixth Amendment is also on the line because criminal justice depends on confrontation, counsel, evidence, and public trial before human judgment. If AI-generated evidence, facial recognition matches, predictive policing leads, forensic conclusions, or risk scores enter the courtroom without meaningful transparency, the accused is no longer confronting a witness. He is confronting a vendor contract, a black box, a data set, and a prosecutor who may not understand the technology but assures the judge it is very advanced, which flies in the face of due process with a jury of peers. The ABA’s analysis notes that AI is already used in investigations and adjudication, including facial recognition, predictive policing, risk assessments, and case processing, while warning that unchecked use can erode constitutional safeguards.
Even the Second Amendment will be targeted once AI risk scoring becomes normalized. The right to keep and bear arms does not survive if government can use predictive analytics, mental-health inference, social-media analysis, purchase histories, biometric monitoring, and location data to decide who is “safe enough” to exercise it. That is not constitutional government. That is pre-crime judgments. The same logic that flags a person for travel, banking, employment, or policing will inevitably be used against every disfavored right once the machinery is accepted as legitimate.
The deeper danger is that all of these constitutional violations will be sold to the public as convenience. AI will make things easier. AI will reduce wait times. AI will lower costs. AI will detect fraud. AI will personalize education. AI will improve medicine. AI will keep you safe. Some of that is true, and the benefits are real, which is why the argument cannot be lazy or reactionary. The problem is that efficient government has never been the highest American value. Liberty is not efficient. Due process is not efficient. Free speech is not efficient. A jury is not efficient. Federalism is not efficient. The family is not efficient. The church is not efficient. Human dignity is not efficient. All of them slow down the machine, and that is precisely why they protect the human being from becoming fuel for it.
This is why America must pursue AI and quantum dominance with constitutional guardrails built in from the beginning. We need quantum investment, post-quantum cryptography, chip independence, energy abundance, data-center capacity, frontier AI development, defense modernization, and an industrial strategy that understands the CCP is not waiting for our comment period to close. NIST finalized its first three post-quantum encryption standards in 2024 and urged administrators to begin transitioning immediately because quantum computers could break current encryption that secures email, commerce, privacy, organizations, and nations. That urgency is real, and refusing to build would be national suicide.
Yet America must also establish bright constitutional lines: no government-directed speech suppression through AI moderation, no warrantless mass biometric surveillance, no black-box deprivation of liberty or property, no automated sentencing or risk scoring without full transparency and adversarial challenge, no AI censorship hidden behind platform policy, no digital identity system that becomes a prerequisite for speech or commerce, and no centralized algorithmic regime that reduces citizenship to compliance. We need human accountability at every pressure point, and not the fake kind where someone clicks “approve” after the machine has already made the decision and everyone pretends that counts as oversight.
But even constitutional guardrails written today cannot blind us to the deeper danger: the infrastructure itself is being installed. The cameras, models, databases, biometric systems, digital identity proposals, automated moderation tools, financial-monitoring systems, predictive policing platforms, and AI decision engines are all being laid into the foundation of public and private life. We may be told that every switch has a safety cover, every deployment has a policy, and every agency has oversight, but the architecture of control does not disappear because the people currently holding the keys promise to behave. Once the machinery exists, the only thing standing between a free people and automated coercion is the restraint of those in power, which is not exactly a doctrine our Founding Fathers trusted in. At any moment, under the right emergency, the right panic, the right election, the right public-health crisis, the right foreign threat, or the right “misinformation” campaign, those systems could be turned inward with a speed no court injunction could match. And once every citizen can be tracked, scored, silenced, debanked, denied access, or digitally isolated in real time, the haunting question becomes very simple: what, exactly, would we be able to do about it?
America’s founders did not design a country for efficient rulers. They designed a country for free people. That has always made us slower, noisier, messier, harder to govern, and wonderfully irritating to every expert who thinks mankind would be easier to manage if liberty would stop asking questions.
The AI-quantum race is not simply about who has the fastest processor or the cleverest model. It is about who governs the next era of human civilization. If China wins, the world bends toward surveillance, censorship, coercion, and state-controlled reality. If America wins without moral restraint, we preserve our power while losing our soul, which would be a very Silicon Valley way to call defeat a product-market fit.
The task before us is harder and higher. We must win the AI-quantum race, secure our nation, defend our Constitution, and remember that technology is a servant, not a sovereign. The machines may become brilliant, but they must never become king.
Editor's Note: It’s America’s 250th birthday! Help PJ Media celebrate the greatest nation in history by honoring its past, defending its present, and preserving its future with reporting you can trust.
Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code AMERICA250 to receive 74% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member