What is the $175 billion 'Golden Dome' missile shield for US that Trump has unveiled?

US President Trump has launched a space-based missile defence plan called the Golden Dome, promising protection against threats 'even from space'. With multi-layered interceptors and orbital lasers, this system could reshape global defence — but with a projected cost of a over $500 billion. Is this ambitious plan realistic? read more
US President Donald Trump makes an announcement regarding the Golden Dome missile defence shield next to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, May 20, 2025. Reuters
US President Donald Trump has formally unveiled the concept for what he calls the Golden Dome — a $175 billion sweeping missile defence programme unlike any the United States has attempted before.
The plan is centred on a multi-layered architecture designed to defend the US homeland from missile threats using both terrestrial and space-based technologies, including for the first time, space-borne weapons capable of intercepting missiles at various stages of flight.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump declared that he anticipates the system will become 'fully operational before the end of my term,' which ends in January 2029.
Highlighting the unprecedented scope of the initiative, he added that the Golden Dome will be able to stop missile threats 'even if they are launched from space.'
'Ronald Reagan wanted it many years ago, but they didn't have the technology,' Trump said, referencing the 1980s Strategic Defence Initiative, which nicknamed 'Star Wars' at the time.
His administration, however, now claims that the technological advancements necessary to make such a system viable are finally within reach.
What the Golden Dome will do
The Golden Dome is envisioned to operate across four major stages of missile flight: pre-launch, boost phase, midcourse and terminal descent.
The concept aims to neutralise threats at any point in their trajectory, which would offer a broad-spectrum shield against a variety of missile attacks, including advanced hypersonic systems being developed by China and Russia.
To lead this endeavour, Trump has appointed Gen. Michael Guetlein, currently the Vice Chief of Space Operations, to oversee the programme's implementation and development. A visual aid at the announcement depicted the continental United States painted in gold, symbolising the envisioned coverage of the system.
Components of the Golden Dome will be drawn from existing American missile defence assets, including Patriot missile batteries, THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence), Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence, and Ground-based Midcourse Defence (GMD). These systems have long formed the backbone of US defence against ballistic and cruise missile threats.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
However, the defining feature of the Golden Dome will be its space-based interceptors — a revolutionary development that would introduce new weapons into orbit. These could potentially include directed-energy systems like lasers, according to defence experts, capable of destroying missiles shortly after launch.
What the Golden Dome may really cost
The plan comes with an extraordinary price tag. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the space-based elements alone could require up to $542 billion over the next two decades.
The Trump administration is currently seeking an initial $25 billion allocation as part of a proposed tax break bill advancing through Congress.
A US official confirmed to AP that planners within the Pentagon have been evaluating three tiers of capability — medium, high, and 'extra high' — based on the scale of satellite and interceptor deployment.
These versions differ in how densely space-based sensors and interceptors would be distributed across orbital networks.
Yet, despite the Trump's assertion, the Golden Dome remains in early development stages. 'There is no money for the project yet, and Golden Dome overall is still in the conceptual stage,' Air Force Secretary Troy Meink has clarified in testimony before the Senate.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The US Department of Defence, along with US Northern Command, is still drafting the initial capabilities document, which will define the operational requirements that the new defence system must fulfill.
How Golden Dome compares to Israel's Iron Dome
While the name 'Golden Dome' may evoke comparisons to Israel's Iron Dome, a missile defence system designed to intercept short-range projectiles, experts say the similarities are superficial.
For one, the geographic scale is vastly different. 'The Golden Dome would have to cover a much larger area, for starters,' Wes Rumbaugh, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies told The Independent.
Unlike the Iron Dome, which specialises in protecting relatively small areas from rockets and artillery, the US system would have to address intercontinental and hypersonic threats over the vast continental territory.
The Golden Dome must also track and intercept a far broader array of missile types at greater distances and higher altitudes, including those launched from orbit. This adds several technical risks, particularly when it comes to placing laser-equipped satellites into space.
'You've got to be pretty confident you're going to get everything, or at least knock everything off course,' Michael O'Hanlon, Director of Research at the Brookings Institution's Foreign Policy Program, told The Independent.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
O'Hanlon pointed out that space-based lasers would require massive infrastructure — 'each one of your defensive space-based lasers being the equivalent of the Hubble telescope' — making the programme not only ambitious but enormously expensive.
What the Golden Dome means for geopolitics
In a joint statement earlier this month, China and Russia have described the Golden Dome concept as 'deeply destabilising in nature,' warning that it risks militarising outer space and escalating an arms race.
These nations already maintain anti-satellite capabilities, and the US has accused them of deploying offensive space systems that could disable American satellites.
In 2023, the US claimed that Russia was developing a nuclear-based orbital weapon designed to remain in space for long durations before emitting a disruptive burst capable of knocking out nearby satellites.
'These represent new and emerging requirements for missions that have never before been accomplished by military space organisations,' Gen. Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations, told Congress.
Despite these tensions, Trump noted that he had not yet spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin about the Golden Dome, saying, 'but at the right time, we will.'
For nearly two decades, US missile defence policy has been tailored to thwart limited missile attacks from states such as North Korea and Iran, rather than major nuclear powers like Russia and China.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
A shift to a more comprehensive defence posture, especially one that includes space-based weapons, could alter long-standing strategic balances.
According to O'Hanlon, attempting to neutralise an entire nuclear strike from Russia or China would ignite a new arms race and place further strain on defence budgets.
'Even if you just sized [the system] to today's Russian nuclear arsenal, and you wanted to build a multi-layer capability that Trump has talked about, that is already enormously expensive,' he told The Independent. He estimates the cost of a limited version of such a system could reach around $500 billion.
Furthermore, coordination challenges across military branches — including the Missile Defence Agency, Space Force, Army, Navy and Air Force — will be complex.
Questions remain about how the different arms of the US defence establishment will collaborate in managing and executing the Golden Dome's various components.
Nonetheless, some experts support the move toward a more robust missile shield. 'I think that there could be some benefits to even a limited, partially effective missile defence system,' O'Hanlon said, noting the continuing threat posed by rogue state actors and the need for preparedness against a limited nuclear strike.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
How the US currently defends itself
While the Golden Dome is in development, the US continues to rely on a network of advanced missile defence systems already in operation. Some of them include:
Patriot missile batteries – Designed to defend against tactical ballistic missiles, aircraft, and cruise missiles.
THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) – Intercepts threats in the upper atmosphere and just outside it.
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence – A sea-based system used on naval vessels and adapted for land use.
Ground-based Midcourse Defence (GMD) – Intercepts long-range missiles during their midcourse trajectory.
AVENGER – A mobile system using Stinger missiles to engage aircraft and cruise missiles.
Together, these systems form a layered defence against various types of missile attacks. However, the Golden Dome would represent a monumental leap in United States air defence.
With inputs from agencies

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hans India

11 minutes ago

• Hans India

American Strikes Hit Iranian Nuclear Sites, Extent of Damage Still Under Review

After the US military struck three Iranian sites, there were urgent questions raised Sunday about what remained of Iran nuclear program and its weakened military. After more than a month of US military strike on Iran, which have systematically destroyed the country's offensive missile capability and air defenses while damaging Iran's nuclear sites, the decision to involve the US directly was made. U.S. officials and Israeli officials said American stealth bombers with a 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb (13,600 kilograms) they can only carry offer the best chance to destroy heavily fortified Iranian nuclear sites buried deep underground. According to Rafael Grossi, the U.N.'s top nuclear functionary, it's simply not possible right now — indeed for the International Atomic Energy Agency — to determine what kind of damage may have passed below ground at Fordo." Donald Trump announced that the Israeli strikes on Iran had taken place. Iran's IRNA state-run news agency reported the attacks. Tehran has gestured through its Foreign Minister that a balance remains on the table. The B-2 stealth aircraft that destroyed Iran's Fordownuclear site included microwaves, bathrooms, and usually a refrigerator to store snacks. This was to make life easier for the pilots during their 37-hour journey from Missouri to Iran, then back to America. NY POST reports that the fleet of modern American bombers was launched from Whiteman Air Force Base, north of Kansas City, on Friday. The aircraft refueled multiple times during the 18-hour journey around the world. Donald Trump announced that the attacks had taken place. Iran's IRNA state-run news agency reported the attacks. Iran's Foreign Minister said that Iran reserves the right of retaliation. The B- 2 charge targeting Fordow came the most extended operation of its kind since the U.S. launched its first air strikes in Afghanistan after 9/11.

Time of India

15 minutes ago

• Time of India

Israel-Iran war: Congress slams Donald Trump for US strikes; urges Centre to show 'moral courage', break silence on 'Gaza genocide'

Donald Trump NEW DELHI: The Congress party on Monday criticised US President Donald Trump's decision to launch airstrikes on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, saying it goes against his own statements supporting continued talks with Iran. The party also criticised the Central government for not speaking out against the US bombing or Israel's actions. "President Trump's decision to unleash US air power on Iran makes a 'mockery' of his own calls for the continuation of talks with Iran," Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said in a post on X. He added, "The Indian National Congress reiterates the absolute essentiality of immediate diplomacy and dialogue with Iran. The Government of India must demonstrate greater moral courage than it has so far." — Jairam_Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) Ramesh said the Modi government "has unequivocally neither criticised nor condemned the US bombing and Israel's aggression, bombings and targeted assassinations." "It has also maintained a deafening silence on the genocide being perpetrated on the Palestinians in Gaza," he wrote on X. The statement comes after the US bombed three major nuclear sites in Iran — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — on Sunday, bringing itself directly into the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Husband Sold Son's Car After Bad Grades. Parents Turned Pale When He Did This As Revenge Beach Raider Undo Meanwhile, on Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that India is "deeply concerned" about the conflict between Iran and Israel and called for immediate de-escalation through "dialogue and diplomacy." The US strike on Iran's nuclear sites has raised concerns about a wider conflict in the Middle East. Before the US bombing, Congress parliamentary party chairperson Sonia Gandhi had also spoken on the issue. In an article titled "It is still not too late for India's voice to be heard," she criticised India's silence on the situation in Gaza and Iran, calling it "not just a loss of its voice, but also a surrender of values." In the same article, Gandhi criticised US President Trump for following what she described as a "destructive path" in West Asia, after having earlier spoken against America's long military involvement in the region.

First Post

16 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies