Innovation alone does not guarantee leadership. In advanced computing and microelectronics, the rules that define how technologies connect, communicate, and scale are just as important as the breakthroughs themselves. Global standards shape markets, influence adoption, and determine who sets the terms of competition. If the United States does not lead in establishing standards, others will, potentially embedding values and practices that conflict with U.S. interests. Erik Hosler, a voice on the importance of technological governance, recognizes that standard-setting is as much a strategic tool as it is a technical one. His perspective underscores that innovation without alignment risks fragmentation and lost influence.
The stakes are particularly high for emerging domains. Open architectures and interoperability will determine how systems develop in areas such as AI, quantum computing, and next-generation networks. Standards not only ensure functionality but also drive trust among allies and industry partners. For the United States, leadership in standards is inseparable from leadership in technology itself.
Why Standards Matter
Standards create the common language that allows technologies to work together. Without them, devices, systems, and networks remain fragmented. For consumers, it can mean frustration and inefficiency. For governments and militaries, it can mean vulnerabilities and operational risks. In both cases, the absence of shared rules erodes trust and slows the adoption of new capabilities.
In semiconductors, standards determine design interfaces, packaging protocols, and security certifications. These decisions ripple across industries, shaping supply chains and long-term strategies. Nations that lead in setting standards gain a structural advantage that can endure for decades.
Historical Lessons
The history of technology shows the power of standards. The U.S. gained significant advantages from setting early rules for the internet, wireless communications, and software interoperability. These standards supported the growth of U.S. firms and reinforced U.S. values in global systems. They also created a foundation of trust that encouraged worldwide adoption of American technologies.
Today, rivals are seeking to replicate that influence. China has become active in international standards bodies, aiming to embed its approaches into global frameworks. If successful, it could tilt markets and governance structures in its favor, limiting U.S. influence. This competition highlights that standards are not neutral but carry the strategic priorities of those who shape them.
Standards in Emerging Domains
Emerging technologies present both challenges and opportunities for standards. In AI, questions about transparency, bias, and interoperability remain unresolved. Quantum computing lacks unified protocols for error correction or encryption. Advanced packaging requires agreement on interfaces for chiplets and 3D integration.
Setting standards early ensures that the rules reflect U.S. values of openness, trust, and collaboration. Failing to act leaves space for others to define rules that may prioritize control or closed ecosystems.
Expectations and Standards
Standards ultimately reflect what societies and industries expect from technology. Erik Hosler observes, “They only expect a certain experience with the rollout of a new technology.” His point highlights that end users care less about how systems function internally than about the consistency and reliability of their experience. Standards are the mechanism by which those expectations are codified and met.
This insight underscores the strategic importance of U.S. leadership. By shaping standards, the U.S. ensures that user expectations align with systems built on openness and trust rather than closed or adversarial frameworks.
Policy as a Driver of Standards
Governments can actively influence standards by supporting research, coordinating industry, and participating in international bodies. The CHIPS and Science Act, for example, provides resources for U.S. participation in standards-setting. Funding programs that emphasize interoperability and security also encourage alignment.
However, government action alone is not enough. Industry must also engage. Firms that dominate in design tools, foundry services, or packaging technologies have a direct stake in setting rules that support their products. Aligning government priorities with industry participation creates a unified front in international forums.
Coordination with Allies
Standards gain strength when adopted broadly. For the U.S., coordinating with allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Europe ensures that standards reflect shared values. Joint proposals, mutual recognition of certifications, and co-funding of standards initiatives strengthen the collective influence of allied nations.
Allied coordination also prevents fragmentation. Competing standards among partners dilute influence and create inefficiencies. By working together, allies can outcompete rivals who pursue closed or unilateral approaches.
Challenges in Standards Leadership
Leading in standards is not easy. It requires sustained participation in technical committees, investment in research, and the ability to anticipate future needs. Rivals may attempt to dominate by sending large delegations to international bodies or by subsidizing participation.
The U.S. must commit resources to ensure that its voice remains strong. Encouraging universities, labs, and private firms to engage in standards-setting provides both technical expertise and strategic weight. Without such efforts, rivals could gradually erode U.S. influence in critical forums.
Standards as Strategic Infrastructure
Standards should be viewed as a form of strategic infrastructure. Like roads or power grids, they provide the foundation upon which innovation and commerce depend. Once established, they shape entire industries for decades.
For the U.S., investing in standards is therefore not optional. It is a central part of the national strategy. By aligning technical excellence with governance leadership, the U.S. can ensure that its innovations translate into durable global influence.
Building Leadership Through Rules and Trust
The U.S. can set the rules for the next era of computing. By shaping standards for AI, quantum, and microelectronics, it can ensure that openness, interoperability, and trust remain at the core of global systems. Failure to do so would leave rivals free to embed their values and practices into the foundations of technology. Seizing this opportunity requires not only technical leadership but also sustained diplomatic and industry engagement.
The lesson is clear. Standards are not abstract technicalities. They are the rules of the road that determine who leads, who follows, and whose values are embedded in the systems that define the future. By prioritizing standards leadership, the U.S. can secure not only technological advantage but also strategic influence in a rapidly developing world. The choice is not whether standards will be written, but who will write them and whose vision they will serve.
