US President Donald Trump is facing numerous technical and political obstacles in his ambitious plans for a nationwide missile defense system named “Golden Dome.” This initiative aims to create a comprehensive shield against a wide range of threats, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, hypersonic and cruise missiles, and drones. However, the timeline Trump has proposed—a completion within three years as he nears the end of his second term—appears increasingly unrealistic.
Four months after directing the Pentagon to develop options for Golden Dome, the administration has not released substantial details regarding its implementation. Analysts indicate that the primary hurdles include the system’s overall cost, re-establishing a robust defense industrial base, and garnering adequate political support. Melanie Marlowe, a senior associate in the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, emphasized that overcoming these challenges will require significant focus and prioritization from both the White House and Congress.
The funding required for such an expansive project is contentious. Trump announced an initial budget of $25 billion, projecting the total cost at approximately $175 billion. Experts, however, argue that this figure is likely an underestimation. Thomas Roberts, an assistant professor of international affairs and aerospace engineering, labeled the estimates as impractical without detailed plans outlining the system’s structure and capabilities.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) previously projected that the cost of space-based interceptors designed to counter a limited number of intercontinental ballistic missiles could range from $161 billion to $542 billion over a span of 20 years. The proposed Golden Dome system might necessitate a broader range of capabilities than those considered in previous studies, meaning that further analysis is needed to accurately assess the implications of recent advancements.
The name “Golden Dome” draws inspiration from Israel’s Iron Dome system, which specializes in intercepting short-range threats. However, the nature of the threats faced by the United States—including advances in missile technologies from China and Russia, and the escalation of drone warfare—significantly diverges from those addressed by Iron Dome.
Chad Ohlandt, a senior engineer at the RAND Corporation, noted that as missile threats evolve, determining the most cost-effective countermeasures becomes complex. He raised essential questions about the specific threats to be addressed, the capabilities of those threats, and the objects that need defending. The more ambitious the defense objectives, the higher the costs involved.
Experts also caution that there are multiple bureaucratic, political, and technological milestones that must be achieved for Golden Dome to be viable. Thomas Withington from the Royal United Services Institute highlighted the immense financial requirements, suggesting that the defense budget might struggle to accommodate an undertaking of this scale. Expressing skepticism about the project’s feasibility, Withington remarked, “I’m not holding my breath as to whether we will actually ever see this capability.”
