Author: Konstantine Ioseliani, UGSPN Research Fellow
“Golden Dome” is an initiative of US President Donald Trump aimed at providing protection against modern types of missile threats. The project was initially known under the name “America’s Iron Dome” and was officially announced in January 2025, when an executive order was signed at the White House.
The Golden Dome is designed to prevent large-scale missile attacks on U.S. territory and to ensure integrated defense. According to the White House administration, the main goal of the project is to significantly enhance the country’s space defense capabilities against modern threats, including ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles. The initiative envisions detecting and neutralizing threats in their early stages. It is a multi-layered defense system that will neutralize enemy missiles, launch systems, and command points at every phase.
If implemented, this will be the first example of the United States deploying defensive weaponry in space. As for timing and funding, the president stated that the Golden Dome system should be fully operational before the end of his presidential term. It should also be noted that the actual cost of the project may exceed one trillion U.S. dollars.
The strategic goal of the project is to protect the country’s citizens and infrastructure, as well as to eliminate “catastrophically damaging” threats. The initiative envisions integrating existing defense systems. The U.S. Space Force and the Missile Defense Agency are participating in the process, jointly building a multi-layered architecture by combining legacy, current, and cutting-edge technological capabilities.
Regarding financial support, the Department of Defense plans to allocate 25 billion dollars at the initial stage, which will later be increased through additional tranches. By Trump’s decision, the project will be led by U.S. Space Force General Michael Guetlein, whom military analysts consider one of the most advanced professionals in space defense technologies.
This initiative is already attracting significant attention on the international political stage. The project is actively being discussed in partner countries, particularly in Canada, where political leaders view it positively. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney noted:
“The growing scale of missile threats will become even more evident in the coming decade, which is why it would be beneficial for Canada to gain an additional layer of security in cooperation with the United States.”
According to Carney, under NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), the U.S. and Canada already have joint air defense mechanisms, and the Golden Dome represents a logical and natural extension of this system.
According to U.S. President Donald Trump, Canada is considering an offer to become the 51st state of the United States in exchange for being protected by the Golden Dome missile defense system free of charge.
“I told Canada, which very much wants to be part of our fabulous Golden Dome System, that it will cost $61 Billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation, but will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State. They are considering the offer!”
From a geopolitical perspective, the project is being viewed as an attempt by the U.S. to strengthen its global strategic position. Analysts assess the initiative as a direct response to the development of ballistic and hypersonic weapons by Russia and China. A representative of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the project as alarming and called on the United States to halt its implementation, arguing that it violates global security standards and the principles of international stability.
Moscow has also made an official statement, according to which the Golden Dome may become grounds for the revision of international agreements on nuclear arms limitations. In Russia’s assessment, the implementation of the project requires a renewed discussion of long-term nuclear control mechanisms and the preservation of strategic balance.
International security experts emphasize that this initiative increases the imbalance between the Western bloc and its geopolitical rivals. According to their assessment, it may become a catalyst for the revision of military doctrines both among U.S. allies and its strategic adversaries. In this context, one of the key characteristics of the project is identified as the global expansion of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Despite the many positive aspects of the project, it is also a subject of wide debate, particularly due to concerns over costs and the realistic feasibility of its implementation. The project’s cost exceeds hundreds of billions of dollars. Analysts estimate that over a decade, its cost may surpass $500–800 billion. According to a report from the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, even under the most optimistic scenario over a 20-year period, expenses could reach $831 billion. Financial commitments of such scale raise questions about political will and corresponding support. Reportedly, funding for the first $25 billion tranche was carried out by the White House amid obstacles in Congress.
At the same time, there are discussions surrounding technical challenges that remain problematic for the full-scale realization of the project. Some analysts believe that creating and integrating such a system could take more than ten years. A particularly serious challenge is the effective deterrence of large nuclear arsenals. There are views suggesting that existing technologies cannot neutralize several thousand missile platforms—an objective seen as technically and economically unrealistic. The failure of the 1980s “Strategic Defense Initiative” launched by President Reagan, is frequently cited. That unsuccessful project aimed at neutralizing ballistic missiles through space-based technologies, yet it is clear that at the time, the idea was technologically unattainable. Some media and military analysts have expressed the opinion that the project does not meet current needs. In particular, they consider low-cost, technically simple unmanned systems (drones) as far more effective alternatives.
There are also significant risks in terms of program management. Specifically, SpaceX’s proposal is based on a “subscription” model, according to which the Pentagon would only pay for access to the technologies and would not own the systems themselves. This model clearly raises concerns that the government may lose strategic control over key components of missile defense.
According to critics, both the American public and Congress view the project skeptically due to rising costs and opaque decision-making processes. Another cited risk is that space-based infrastructure could lead to unpredictable complications. Critics argue that such a project could also spark new global disagreements and pave the way for a renewed arms race.
Critics further warn that the scale of the project may increase the risk of targeted attacks on civilian infrastructure. V. Samson, an American military expert, stated:
“I think it’s opening a Pandora’s box,” said Victoria Samson … referring to deploying missiles in space. “We haven’t truly thought about the long‑term consequences for doing so.”
According to Samson, the implementation of such a project is highly likely to encourage other states to develop their own defense systems or to create more advanced technologies. In his view, this process could “fundamentally alter the global military balance and increase strategic tensions on a worldwide scale.”
Conclusion
The Golden Dome emerges as one of the most ambitious and controversial initiatives in the modern global security system. It is viewed as a significant strategic investment aimed at reinforcing military-technological superiority, expanding U.S. global influence, and creating a systemic defensive architecture against ballistic threats. The project has already generated substantial international reaction: it has received support from partners such as Canada and France, while facing sharp criticism from geopolitical rivals Russia and China.
At the same time, this initiative raises complex questions across financial, technical, political, and legal dimensions. The project’s extraordinarily high costs, the challenges of technological implementation, and the risks of diminished state control create a multifaceted dilemma as to whether this system is truly justified in the context of current and future threats. The ongoing debate over the project clearly shows that the modernization of military policy is no longer a purely technical issue. It requires broad political consensus, public legitimacy, and international legal stability.
Therefore, the success of the Golden Dome will depend not only on technological progress, but also on how effectively the United States manages to implement the project with transparency, coordinate with its allies, and advocate for the initiative amid global challenges. Otherwise, it could become not a source of defense, but a trigger for escalation, a risk that remains high given the current geopolitical reality.
It should also be noted that sooner or later, the militarization of space will become an inevitable reality in the field of defense. The skepticism surrounding the Golden Dome is understandable, given the specific challenges and obstructive factors involved. However, we must remember that every project that has historically reshaped the international order was also met with significant skepticism and conflicting factors. For example, we can recall the conceptual opposition to the idea of creating NATO, which was initially contested in contrast to the Western European (military) alliance. The Golden Dome falls precisely into this category of projects and, if implemented, will undoubtedly lead to epochal transformations.
This article was translated from the original language with the assistance of AI tools and revised by the author