President Trump was photographed in Washington, DC on March 6. US military officials are working urgently to develop a 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 make this a top priority for President Trump. This initiative aims to create a missile defense system similar to Israel’s Iron Dome.
While the Pentagon is facing budget cuts, the Trump administration has directed military officials to ensure that funding for “Golden Dome” is accounted for in the budget estimates for 2026 to 2030. However, the system itself is still in the conceptual stage and lacks a concrete definition beyond its name. This uncertainty makes it challenging to project the future costs, but it is anticipated to require billions of dollars for construction and maintenance.
President Trump has emphasized the need for a missile defense program comparable to Israel’s Iron Dome, although the scale and capabilities of the two systems are vastly different. While the Iron Dome protects specific areas in a small country like Israel, President Trump envisions a space-based defense system that can safeguard the entire United States from advanced missile threats.
Despite the logistical challenges posed by the vastness of the US, efforts are underway to develop the “Golden Dome” defense system as per President Trump’s executive order. Pentagon officials are realigning the budget proposal to align with the priorities set by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, emphasizing the strengthening of missile defense for the US homeland. Work on this project is ongoing, with a focus on addressing supply chain challenges and collaborating with the industrial base to establish the “Golden Dome”.
“President Trump’s proposed ‘Golden Dome’ is currently undergoing a thorough reevaluation of the budget,” stated Morani. “This is a standard procedure for any new administration taking office.” However, it is unclear how much funding the Pentagon will request for the Golden Dome in its budget proposal, or how officials will determine the necessary amount.
Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery believes that developing a ballistic missile defense system could be achievable within 7-10 years, but with significant limitations, potentially only protecting critical federal buildings and major cities. Montgomery, the senior director of the Center On Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, emphasized that increasing the effectiveness of the system will come with a higher cost.
John Tierney, a former Democratic congressman with extensive experience in hearings on ballistic missile defense, explained that a comprehensive system would require various satellites for communication, missile detection, and interceptor launching. Tierney stressed that these types of systems are long-term projects and that existing defenses are necessary in the interim.
US arms manufacturers are already anticipating lucrative opportunities. The Missile Defense Agency organized an Industry Day to gather proposals from interested companies for the planning and construction of the Golden Dome. Lockheed Martin has even launched a dedicated website promoting its capabilities to bring the project to fruition.
Laura Grego, a Senior Research Director at the Union for Concerned Scientists, highlighted that the technical and economic challenges of defending against a sophisticated nuclear arsenal have been well-known for years. Despite America’s current ballistic missile defense system designed to counter limited threats from rogue states, it has shown inadequacies in testing.
President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s faced significant technical and economic obstacles before being abandoned. President Trump’s vision for a space-based defense system with interceptors in low-earth orbit would present immense logistical and financial hurdles, according to experts. The feasibility of such an ambitious project remains a subject of debate.”
Defenses have been a key focus for years. Having just one interceptor in orbit rarely aligns with the ideal position and timing to swiftly intercept a ballistic missile launch, necessitating a large number for adequate coverage. According to a recent study by the APS, approximately 16,000 interceptors would be necessary to counter a rapid salvo of ten solid-propellant ICBMs like the Hwasong-18 from North Korea.
However, even with such a constellation, a space-based missile defense system remains susceptible to anti-satellite attacks from more cost-effective ground-based systems. This inherent fragility is outlined by Grego, emphasizing the vulnerability of such a system to enemy assaults.
Recent incidents in the Red Sea saw the US deploying numerous high-cost interceptor missiles against Houthi drones and missiles that were significantly cheaper. This fiscal disparity escalates when the system operates in space, as pointed out by Tierney, who criticizes the excessive spending on a seemingly ineffective solution.
As the US invests in the Golden Dome project, experts suggest that adversaries will likely enhance their ballistic missile capabilities to outpace American defenses. Due to the disparity in costs between offensive ballistic missiles and interceptors, Tierney argues that the financial sustainability of such a defensive system is questionable.
Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding the potential impact of Golden Dome on nuclear deterrence stability. The US’s current deterrence strategy relies on the ability to retaliate after facing a nuclear attack, a concept jeopardized by a perceived reliable countermeasure against adversaries’ nuclear arsenals.
Tierney and other experts assert that strategically, technically, and economically, the proposed system lacks coherence and feasibility. The potential implications on global security and nuclear deterrence are significant, raising doubts about the wisdom of pursuing such an endeavor.
