The Golden Dome Delusion

No team. No plan. Just a multi-billion dollar defense stunt.

Grab a coffee. Maybe two. This one’s going to take a minute.

There’s a lot to unpack in Trump’s latest big idea, the “Golden Dome.” It sounds like a theme park, but it’s actually a multibillion-dollar missile defense fantasy about as grounded in reality as a gold-plated blimp. If you’re wondering how we got here, what it costs, who’s cashing in, and why none of it makes sense…buckle up.

As part of his second-term agenda, Donald Trump has revived a vision for a U.S. version of Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system, rebranded as the "Golden Dome."

(They must have realized they can't call it the Iron Dome, probably because it's already in use by a country that actually needs it, Israel." 

First introduced in the Republican National Committee’s 2024 platform, it promised to “BUILD A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY—ALL MADE IN AMERICA.”

But for all its branding appeal, the proposal has gained little serious support from defense experts or lawmakers—and for good reason. It’s a flashy concept that fundamentally misaligns with America’s actual threat landscape, defense priorities, and fiscal reality.

Confession: I’m still a national security, strong military, and defense hawk. That part of me never left the GOP. I always say my values haven’t changed; theirs have. That’s precisely why I can’t take Trump’s Golden Dome seriously. During my tenure as Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor to then-Vice President Mike Pence, we assessed real threats daily. None of them would be stopped by a system like the Iron Dome because that’s not the nature of America's current threats.

The Iron Dome Works…for Israel

Israel’s Iron Dome, developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and operational since 2011, was built to intercept short-range rockets from nearby territories like Gaza. Here’s the thing—the Iron Dome was built because Israel needed to protect its people from nonstop rocket attacks. It has a 90% interception rate, per the Israeli Defense Forces. But it works because Israel is small—about the size of New Jersey—with adversaries often just miles away. Its radar and interceptors are optimized for low-altitude, close-range threats. There have been precisely ZERO rocket attacks against the U.S. homeland in modern history, and the last time someone turned an airplane into a missile, we launched wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. So, let’s be clear that for the U.S., this really isn’t about defense or deterrence. 

That scale is what makes Iron Dome feasible for Israel but wholly impractical for the U.S. According to an analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, each battery costs around $50 million, and every interceptor missile costs $40,000- $50,000. Imagine that cost multiplied across a country spanning 3.8 million square miles!

Meanwhile, we can't afford school lunches or to staff the Department of Veterans Affairs, but somehow, there’s room for Trump’s golf tab at $26 million and his Golden Dome. 

The “Golden Dome” Doesn’t Match America’s Threats

America faces long-range ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, cyberattacks, and asymmetric threats like drones—not the kind of crude rockets Iron Dome was built to intercept. That’s why the U.S. Army, after testing Iron Dome batteries in 2019, declined to deploy them broadly. A 2021 report from the Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense program found the system “cannot be integrated into the Army’s Integrated Battle Command System without significant modifications” and “does not meet all of the Army’s operational requirements.”

Lt. Gen. Daniel Karbler reinforced this in 2022 congressional testimony, stating that the Iron Dome "is not designed nor optimized for the kind of integrated air and missile defense mission required to protect the homeland." The Congressional Research Service and other experts have this conclusion.

Even the Pentagon isn’t entirely on board, concerned that this space-based missile shield could upend decades of arms control efforts and draw retaliatory escalation from nuclear adversaries. But hey, who needs treaties when you’ve got branding?

In an interview with NPR, physicist Laura Grego, intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) during their launch phase, the only viable moment for a space-based kill, is incredibly difficult, with just a few minutes to react. She estimates the U.S. would need up to 16,000 space-based interceptors to pull it off.

In the same NPR feature, Jeffrey Lewis, a missile expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, also noted the staggering upkeep: $4 to $5 billion a year just to maintain the satellite constellation as they degrade over time. That’s before you factor in new launches or system upgrades.

America already has a layered missile defense strategy: Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, and Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, designed to meet our national defense needs. A nationwide Iron Dome-style deployment could cost hundreds of billions and add little real value.

Trump Misreads Reagan’s Legacy–Bigly

Trump claims his Golden Dome is inspired by Ronald Reagan’s missile defense vision. However, Reagan’s 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), nicknamed “Star Wars,” was about intercepting Soviet nuclear missiles using advanced space-based technologies. It aimed to render nuclear weapons obsolete through bold deterrence.

That vision was never fully realized. The technology was too ambitious, and costs spiraled. But unlike Reagan, who understood the need for diplomacy and arms control alongside innovation, Trump seems intent on replicating the optics without the underlying strategic realism. While Reagan supported treaties like the INF Treaty of 1987, Trump has repeatedly undermined international arms agreements. Even Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, recently noted that Trump’s plan faces the same pitfalls that doomed SDI: technological overreach, astronomical costs, and questionable strategic value. Foreign policy experts warn that a nationwide missile shield risks destabilizing the strategic balance. Russia and China have condemned the proposal as violating space militarization norms—raising the stakes of global arms races.

Reagan understood the stakes. Trump’s plan is just theatrics.

Despite expert warnings, Trump’s proposal has gained traction. In February 2025, Republican Senators Dan Sullivan and Kevin Cramer introduced the Iron Dome Act, which would nearly double the Missile Defense Agency’s budget—from $10.4 billion to $19.5 billion in FY2026. Supporters say it counters Russia and China, but in reality, it’s a massive investment in outdated hardware while we underfund more adaptive, modern defense domains.

Is This the Best Investment for the United States?

In short, no. I completely understand that this is complicated for those who aren’t tracking the ins and outs of our defense capabilities, so let’s recap:

• Wrong Threat Match: We face long-range and cyber threats. Iron Dome wanna-be Golden Dome aims to intercept short-range missiles–irrelevant.

• Astronomical cost: $35–50 billion+ (excluding infrastructure, personnel, radar integration, reloading, and maintenance). SpaceX sources are saying they estimate the early design and engineering costs for their proposed satellites to be between $6 billion and $10 billion.

• Redundancy: We already have THAAD, Aegis, and other layers. Iron Dome doesn’t fill a gap.

• Expert Consensus: Dr. Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned Scientists put it: Missile defenses are not a viable path to ensuring the safety of the United States from nuclear weapons.

• Better Options Exist: Cyber resilience, public infrastructure, and advanced intelligence (AI) tools will actually keep us safe.

While the world is moving toward advanced, scalable, and cost-effective directed energy systems (DES), Trump's Golden Dome clings to Cold War-era technology.

These high-tech systems, including lasers and microwaves, offer scalable and cost-effective defenses against drone swarms and hypersonic threats.

Here’s a glimpse of what we’re already doing:

• The  Army's Directed Energy Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense (DE M-SHORAD) program is deploying 50-kilowatt lasers.

• The Navy is testing ship-mounted lasers against maritime threats (including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).

• The Air Force is developing airborne laser pods to neutralize missiles.

Budget Contradictions: Defense Theater vs. Real Security Needs

The Golden Dome proposal starkly contradicts Trump's second-term priorities. While the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) aggressively cuts federal spending across critical agencies, billions will apparently be simultaneously directed toward this questionable defense initiative.

Defense contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, and SpaceX are undoubtedly salivating at the prospect of Trump’s “Golden Dome,” a multi-billion-dollar windfall. It's a dream scenario for the defense industry: massive federal spending, minimal oversight, and endless opportunities for research and development contracts.

Take SpaceX, for example. In an unusual twist, the company has proposed the U.S. subscribe to the Golden Dome instead of owning it outright, placing core national defense in the hands of a private contractor. Imagine leasing your homeland security the way you pay for Netflix. 

But the real question isn't whether it can be built; it's whether it can be scaled across a nation as vast and complex as the United States. Every expert within the defense community that I've chatted with about this knows the answer: it can't. Senior officials are openly admitting internally that they don't understand how the Golden Dome would work, but they're charging forward anyway. 

No team. No strategy. No viable acquisition plan. Just a gold-plated defense fantasy endorsed by a man who once suggested nuking hurricanes. 

As they say in tech: you can have it fast, or you can have it right. The engineers who worked for me at the Defense Intelligence Agency said that to me all the time. In this case, they apparently want it fast, and they don’t care about the cost or whether it’s right.

Trump’s “Golden Dome” is a branding exercise, not a serious defense strategy. It’s expensive, ineffective, and misaligned with modern warfare. It borrows Reagan’s image but none of his strategic depth. We need real investments in cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, directed energy systems, and the intelligence community. The Iron Dome works for Israel because it fits their threat environment. The U.S. deserves systems tailored to ours.

Let’s stop mistaking political theatrics for national security. Signalgate, the Hegseth family chat, and the desktop install of the chat app where phones were not allowed (WHAT?!!) is more than enough. National security isn’t a tool of presidential spectacle. It’s a sacred duty. And no Golden Dome, real or imagined, should blind us to that.