President Trump was photographed in Washington, DC, on March 6. US military officials are working on a new defense system called “Golden Dome” to protect the country from long-range missile strikes. The White House has assured that no expenses will be spared to fulfill this top priority of President Trump, sources familiar with the matter revealed.
“Golden Dome” is the administration’s initiative to develop a missile defense system similar to Israel’s Iron Dome. While the specifics of the system are still undefined, military officials have been directed to include future funding for “Golden Dome” in upcoming budget estimates for 2026 to 2030.
The concept of “Golden Dome” is still in its early stages, with discussions being mostly conceptual at this point. Cost projections are challenging due to the lack of specifics, but it is anticipated that constructing and maintaining such a system would require billions of dollars.
President Trump has emphasized the need for a missile defense program comparable to Israel’s Iron Dome, despite the vast differences in scale and scope between the two systems. While Iron Dome protects specific areas in a small country like Israel, Trump envisions a space-based missile defense system capable of safeguarding the entire United States from advanced threats.
The challenges of scaling up such a system for the vast expanse of the US are significant, as pointed out by sources familiar with the project. Despite these challenges, work is ongoing to develop the next-generation missile defense shield as directed by the President’s executive order.
Pentagon officials are realigning the 2026 budget proposal to prioritize missile defense in line with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s directives. This shift represents a significant change in the military’s strategic goals as outlined in a recent memo obtained by CNN.
A thorough analysis is currently being conducted to review the budget for President Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome,” according to Morani. This standard practice is common for any new administration. However, the exact amount of funding the Pentagon will request for the Golden Dome in its budget proposal and the method for determining the necessary funding remains unclear. Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery suggests that developing a ballistic missile defense system could take 7-10 years, with limitations that may only protect critical federal buildings and major cities. The cost of achieving higher levels of protection is expected to increase significantly.
Creating a comprehensive system would involve various satellite systems for communication, missile detection, and interceptor launch, as explained by former Democratic congressman John Tierney, who conducted hearings on ballistic missile defense. Tierney emphasizes the need for responsible decision-making, highlighting the limitations of ground-based missile defenses in protecting larger areas.
Meanwhile, US arms manufacturers are showing interest in the project, with over 360 abstracts submitted to the Missile Defense Agency for planning and construction of the Golden Dome. Lockheed Martin, a major defense contractor, has launched a website showcasing its capabilities to support the initiative.
Despite the ambitious goals, challenges similar to those faced by the Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as “Star Wars,” in the 1980s persist. Laura Grego from the Union for Concerned Scientists points out that countering a sophisticated nuclear threat is technically and economically infeasible. The current ballistic missile defense system, primarily focused on countering threats from rogue states like North Korea or Iran, has shown limited success in tests, raising concerns about its effectiveness against major powers like Russia or China.
President Trump’s executive order calls for a more advanced space-based interceptor system capable of rapid response to missile launches. The proposal, however, poses significant technical and logistical challenges, according to experts from the American Physical Society. The feasibility of deploying thousands of interceptors in low-earth orbit to counter a single missile launch is a complex and costly endeavor.
Defending against ballistic missile threats has been a challenge for years. A single interceptor in orbit is rarely in the right position to intercept a missile launch quickly, necessitating a significantly larger number of interceptors for comprehensive coverage. According to a study by the APS, approximately 16,000 interceptors would be required to counter a rapid salvo of ten solid-propellant ICBMs like the Hwasong-18 from North Korea. However, a space-based missile defense system is susceptible to anti-satellite attacks from more cost-effective ground-based systems, as highlighted by Grego.
The vulnerability of such a system lies in its susceptibility to attacks, making it fragile and easily targeted. The financial disparity is evident, with the US expending significant amounts on interceptor missiles while adversaries use cheaper drones and missiles. This financial imbalance is exacerbated in space, rendering the cost-effectiveness of the system questionable.
Critics like Tierney have labeled the expenditure on such systems as wasteful and ineffective. The Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation executive director criticized the willingness to invest billions in systems that may not deliver the intended results.
As the US invests in defense technologies like the Golden Dome, experts warn that adversaries will likely enhance their ballistic missile capabilities to outpace American advancements. Given the lower cost of offensive ballistic missiles compared to the interceptors required to counter them, the financial viability of the system is brought into question.
Moreover, concerns are raised about how the introduction of Golden Dome could impact nuclear deterrence strategies. Disrupting the current stability provided by nuclear deterrence could potentially lead to a situation where adversaries perceive a reduced threat from a retaliatory nuclear attack. This could erode the credibility of US deterrence and raise doubts about its intentions in a crisis.
In conclusion, the strategic, technical, and economic feasibility of such defense systems are subject to scrutiny. Critics argue that the exorbitant costs and potential destabilization of nuclear deterrence outweigh the perceived benefits. To stay updated with more news and newsletters from CNN, you can sign up for an account on CNN.com.
