Is BIS Changing Direction? What That Means for the Rest of Us

In late May, reports emerged that the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) may be shifting its approach to export control coordination. According to senior U.S. lawmakers, BIS is considering if multilateral forums such as the Wassenaar Arrangement and the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council remain fit for purpose and serve the national security priorities of the United States.  

Image 1. Wassenaar Arrangement Logo

This potential change in direction, driven by a desire to act more quickly on national security priorities, could have important consequences for the future of export controls globally.

So what’s going on?

Some key U.S. politicians are concerned that the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the team responsible for U.S. export controls on dual-use tech, might be pulling back from its usual way of doing things. There are reports that BIS wants to expedite things and is looking to step away from traditional export control coordination international forums and increasingly move towards unilateral controls among like-mindeds, like we have seen with the recent Wassenaar Minus One quantum controls.

Let’s take a look at what’s already happening in the world of quantum export controls, because it’s a pretty clear example of where this might be heading.

Key Developments in Quantum Export Controls

1. Countries increasingly move towards unilateral controls : The U.S., UK, France, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain and Japan have all put in place export restrictions on quantum technologies. These usually focus on things like quantum computers over 34 qubits or with very low error rates. No one has really explained why those specific numbers were chosen, which has left scientists scratching their heads. But the message is clear, governments are worried about how this tech could be used.

2. A new U.S. framework: In September 2024, BIS rolled out a new export control framework for advanced technologies, including quantum. It includes global license requirements and a special license exception for countries that adopt similar rules. The specific rules fall under ECCNs like 4A906 and 4D906. This means the U.S. is encouraging other countries to match their controls instead of waiting for a global agreement.

3. “Wassenaar Minus One”: Frustrated by gridlock (notably due to Russia’s participation), a group of aligned countries has begun coordinating export controls outside the Wassenaar Arrangement. Dubbed the “Wassenaar Minus One” approach, this strategy allows responsive action while sidestepping consensus requirements, representing a fundamental shift in how export controls are evolving.

Image 2:Wassenaar Arrangement Map

What does this mean?

The shift towards independent or small-group action shows that governments want to move quickly to protect national security. But it also means export controls could begin to look very different from one country to another.

Why This Matters

Whether you're focused on quantum or any other dual-use tech, these changes reflect a broader shift in how the U.S. and its allies approach export control governance:

• Less reliance on consensus: Multilateral agreements have their strengths, but when urgency is needed, especially in fast-evolving sectors like AI or quantum, BIS and others are showing they’re willing to move first, and coordinate later.

  
  

• More agility, but more fragmentation: Acting quickly may help close security gaps, but it risks policy misalignment. Companies operating internationally could face conflicting rules or unclear compliance obligations across jurisdictions.

  
  

• Pressure on allied coordination: Bilateral and trilateral dialogues (like AUKUS) may stay on track, but if broader multilateral engagement slows or weakens, it could limit input and influence from partners not at the "inner table."

These differences could potentially have consequences:

• Complexity for industry: When countries act independently, it becomes harder for companies to keep up with who controls what. It’s especially tricky for businesses working across borders or in emerging tech areas like AI and quantum.

  
  

• Less collaboration: Export controls have always worked best when countries move together. The more fragmented things become, the more likely it is that bad actors find gaps in the system and that we miss out on beneficial opportunities to collaborate.

  
  

• Harder to keep balance: We all want to keep dangerous tech out of the wrong hands. But we also want to keep research, innovation and international partnerships moving. Finding that balance gets harder when countries act independently.

  
  

What should we do?

These changes are moving fast, but here are a few things we can keep doing:

• Keep an eye on BIS and others: Stay across new announcements, especially around dual-use or emerging tech. Small changes in one country can have a big impact.

  
  

• Stay connected: Whether you’re in industry or government, keep the conversation going. A heads-up can make a huge difference when new rules come in.

  
  

• Show what works: AUKUS and other initiatives have shown that deeper collaboration works. Sharing those wins can help keep momentum on smarter, more synergy for controls.

  
  

Final thoughts

The direction BIS takes next matters, not just for the U.S., but for all of us navigating complex, high-stakes tech environments. The evolution of export controls on quantum technology is a real-world example of how strategy, security, and innovation are becoming increasingly intertwined. Whether multilateral agreements changed or replaced, one thing is clear: a smarter, more connected approach will be critical to managing the next wave of dual-use challenges.

As always, ECAG is keeping watch and here to help make sense of it all.

Posted by the ECAG Team