The United States is competing with China in the field of AI, and has made intensive efforts in related strategies. However, some American scholars are concerned that focusing too much on a single sector may lead to strategic weaknesses, potentially causing the United States to lose its overall technological dominance.
Bloomberg published a long analysis article on June 18th, stating that the United States is currently focusing heavily on artificial intelligence competition, attempting to win the AI race through data center construction, chip regulation, and lax regulations. However, this is not enough to win broader technological competitions. The author believes that what determines a nation's strength in the 21st century is not just AI, but also drones, biotechnology, quantum computing, critical minerals, semiconductors, and advanced manufacturing capabilities. The problem with the United States is not a lack of innovation, but rather a long-term neglect of industrialization and manufacturing capacity building, resulting in a situation where many technologies are "developed in the U.S. but applied overseas."
One of the authors, Simon Johnson, is a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and the winner of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics. He currently serves as the chair of the UK Government’s Artificial Intelligence Economy Research Institute. The other author, Elizabeth Reynolds, is a tenured professor in the Department of Architecture and Planning at MIT. She has previously served as a special assistant for manufacturing and economic development at the U.S. National Economic Council.
United States, Virginia: Amazon Data Center – Visual China
The two individuals mentioned in the text stated that Washington has already realized the importance of artificial intelligence, especially focusing on the "artificial intelligence competition" with China. The current strategy of the United States is roughly as follows: to loosen restrictions, build large-scale data centers, establish complex corporate cooperation mechanisms, and create a relaxed regulatory environment. At the same time, control measures will be introduced to restrict other countries from obtaining advanced chips and cutting-edge large models. However, if the goal of the United States is to win a comprehensive technological competition, these policies are just a small part of the overall strategy.
The article emphasizes that although artificial intelligence has the potential to become a disruptive technology, it is not the only technology track with strategic value.
Specifically, throughout the second half of the 20th century and into the early 21st century, the United States led global technological innovation for a long time. However, today China is directly challenging this leading position, having invested heavily in the development of an innovative system and industrial capacity over the past twenty years. According to research by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), twenty years ago, among 64 key technologies, the United States led China in 61 cases. Three years ago, among the 64 technologies identified by the institute, China had already surpassed the United States in 57 cases.
In other words, to win in today’s comprehensive technological competition, it is not enough to simply be ahead in the field of artificial intelligence alone.
To tackle this competitive challenge, the United States must increase investment, but it is necessary to do so thoughtfully: by leveraging its own unique resources and competitive advantages, rather than simply copying China's development model.
So, what technical fields should the United States focus on?
A new book published by the author presents a key conclusion: If the United States wants to maintain its global technological leadership, it must make breakthroughs in key minerals, semiconductors, biotechnology, quantum computing, drones, and advanced manufacturing fields that underpin all industries.
May 14, 2026, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 2026 Global Artificial Intelligence Terminal Exhibition. IC Photo
Furthermore, the article lists several key sectors, which not only clearly demonstrate the current decline in America's competitiveness but also indicate viable paths for restoring its competitive edge.
As a new core piece of equipment in modern warfare, the development of this industry reveals the same problem that has plagued American industrial development: invention is carried out domestically, while mass production occurs overseas. New research indicates that the majority of the key components for drones are developed and produced in the United States, Japan, and Europe. However, the stage of mass production is dominated by China, with 70% to 80% of drones worldwide being produced in China.
However, in the past two years, there has been a change in the competitive landscape in this field. The United States has a number of dynamic drone innovation companies, and it has also developed a local production industry ecosystem that combines public and private efforts. The Department of Defense leads the public sector, with private enterprises participating simultaneously.
To make breakthroughs on this track, the United States needs not only cutting-edge technology, but also large-scale financing, initial procurement customers, mature manufacturing capabilities, supporting industrial workers, and a diversified supply chain outside of China.
The other two major areas of research in the book—biomanufacturing and quantum computing—are both related to American national security and significant economic development opportunities. These two fields are at different stages of industry development, requiring differentiated focus for their growth.
The article states that in terms of innovation, the United States still remains a global leader. However, this is consistent with the difficulties faced by the drone industry: the US lacks the necessary mass production capacity and financing for industrialization. In the coming decade, the global biotech industry is expected to create a market value of over $4 trillion. The US should invest in building biomanufacturing ecosystems (such as continuous distributed production lines), leveraging its top-tier innovation capabilities to avoid repeating the same mistakes as the drone and semiconductor industries in terms of supply chain constraints.
The core goal of this field is to achieve ‘quantum advantage’, that is, quantum systems will surpass traditional computers in terms of computational performance on practical problems in reality.
The American quantum innovation ecosystem continues to expand, with private enterprises playing a key role in research and development, as well as startup investments. Mass production and scale-up are long-term challenges, while the current core challenge is maintaining stable funding for research and development. The United States has a sufficient supply of scientific researchers, laboratories, and startups. It urgently needs long-term stable government funding to promote breakthrough achievements in the field of science and engineering, preventing the “quantum winter” from setting in after private capital enthusiasm wanes, and missing out on development opportunities.
Source Image: Superconducting quantum processor "Zuchongzhi 3.2"
Finally, the underlying support for all key technology tracks depends on the industrial foundation of the United States.
The author believes that this does not mean restoring traditional factories that were relocated decades ago, but rather investing heavily in advanced manufacturing technologies. This involves using digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, sensors, robots, and 3D printing to reengineer the entire production system. Popularizing advanced manufacturing technologies can be said to be the most urgent task for the U.S. manufacturing industry.
Approximately 250,000 small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises across the United States are the cornerstone of China's industrial supply chain. Even if only 20% of these enterprises achieve technological upgrades, it will still involve the transformation of 50,000 enterprises.
Unlike China, the United States lacks a systematic mechanism to encourage tens of thousands of companies to invest in AI and robotics for efficiency and innovation. The United States urgently needs subsidies, tax incentives, government procurement programs, and other incentives to drive small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises to complete technological upgrades.
In the author's view, the United States has the ability to reshape its competitiveness in all of these core areas. However, this requires long-term investment and a broad strategic vision that covers the entire chain from basic research and development to downstream mass production. Investments in emerging industries can lead to significant technological breakthroughs, helping the United States to keep pace with China and even achieve partial overtaking. Policies such as scaled financing, ensuring market demand, and assisting companies in connecting with their first customers can accelerate the commercialization of innovative products. Once the manufacturing capacity that has been hollowed out due to outsourcing over the past few decades is rebuilt, it will not only support continuous innovation in products and processes but also build a more resilient local supply chain.
The author argues that the aforementioned comprehensive strategic plan does not mean the implementation of isolationism at all; in fact, the two are completely opposed.
The article states that for any emerging technology, scale effect is crucial: if American companies can access a larger global market, they can gain a key competitive advantage; if they can continuously attract top global talents, they can gain core advantages that China does not possess; and if they can engage in technical cooperation with trusted allies like NATO, they can form a powerful strategic synergy.
The author suggests that the most effective path to innovation in the United States is to leverage universities to foster scientific breakthroughs, then support startups with private capital, and commercialize new technologies. Key supporting measures include: training industrial workers at various skill levels, providing targeted support for regional characteristic industrial clusters, and connecting innovation research with mass production manufacturing. Additionally, it is important to ensure a balanced distribution of new product manufacturing capacity across the country, so that the benefits of economic development can be shared by everyone.
The author mentions thoughts on artificial intelligence at the end of the article: Some believe that humanity is on the verge of a new scientific revolution, with “artificial intelligence scientists” designing experiments, developing new drugs, and even founding entirely new businesses. While such ideas are indeed enticing, they can also lead to the development of a narrow view of America’s technological progress—judging overall scientific achievements solely based on AI capabilities.
Artificial intelligence will inevitably reshape the entire process of future technology research and development, as well as its implementation and application. However, technological progress never, and will never rely solely on a single technology. This is especially true for technologies like AI, which are highly versatile and strategic in nature.
The author states that while original innovation is important, the ultimate winner in the global technological competition of the 21st century will be the country that can quickly adopt new technologies and implement them efficiently. This requires the United States to establish a dynamic and well-connected innovation and manufacturing system, enabling the widespread adoption and large-scale application of all cutting-edge technologies, including artificial intelligence.
