Many senators and state representatives were completely unaware of the “Golden Dome” missile defense project until Tuesday, when President Trump made the shocking announcement.
A number of senators informed HeadlinesForever Digital that they were unaware of the plan or had never been briefed on its expenses.
A blank check is something I cannot endorse. To be honest, I haven’t seen the expense statistics,” said Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana in an interview with HeadlinesForever Digital.
Two senior senators from the defense subcommittee of the senate—one a Democrat and one a Republican—asked, “what’s Golden Dome?” in reference to the project that Trump ordered in January.
With an ambitious timeframe and budget, Trump’s expansive plan—dubbed the American Iron Dome—is sure to make waves. He claims it could be constructed in three years, before the conclusion of his tenure, and has floated an estimated cost of $125 billion. A $25 billion first investment is part of a larger government spending proposal called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that is now making its way through Congress.
However, even among Republican supporters and defense experts, the price tag is expected to be far higher.
There is no way this project will cost $25 billion or $35 billion. Senator Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), who said earlier this month at a Washington Times military industry event that he intends to establish a Golden Dome Caucus, predicted that the project’s final price tag will be in the billions of dollars.
Extending Israel’s Iron Dome to defend the United States, according to Sheehy, is “a fundamentally different technological proposition.”
“The challenges don’t scale linearly with the size of Israel, which is the size of New Jersey,” according to him.
Some think that the independent Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of $500 billion is probably too low, although the project might still cost more than that.
The cost of the space-based interceptors element of the dome may range from $161 billion to $542 billion, according to CBO estimates. However, that cost did not include any interceptors stationed on the ground.
Gen. Chance Saltzman, head of space operations for the United States Force, stated, “I’ve been 34 years in this business, and I’ve never seen an early estimate that was too high.” “We don’t always understand the full level of complexity until you’re actually in execution, doing the detailed planning.”
Despite the enormous cost, several Republican senators believe the possible advantages are worth it.
“It might very well prevent a war,” stated Senator Mike Rounds (R-30) of North Dakota. “When we talk about spending billions on defense, that is small compared to one single major war – not only in trillions of dollars, but in bloodshed.”
After a missile is fired at the United States, the Golden Dome system will try to spot it, and orbiting systems will use lasers or kinetic interceptors to kill it while it’s in its “boost” phase. In any other case, systems on the ground might be used to divert its course.
Some pointed to conflicting defensive objectives.
Alabama Republican Tommy Tuberville warned that the process would be lengthy and expensive. We are currently undergoing a shift to new forms of warfare, which includes renovating our missile silos. If we’re going to do [Golden Dome], we’re going to do it well.
The plan’s backers say that the cost of missile defense has dropped significantly due to technical advancements, which might cause a shift in long-held strategic assumptions.
Defense analyst Chuck DeVore of the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a former official in Reagan’s administration has stated that the classic reasoning—that offensive missiles are always cheaper to produce than defenses—may not be valid anymore.
“That calculation is changing now,” stated DeVore. It could be more cost-effective to defend against nuclear missiles using low-cost orbit launches and affordable electronics than to develop them. Here we are at a genuinely revolutionary crossroads, if that’s correct.
Additionally, DeVore cautioned that resistance from defense establishment traditionalists is possible.
“You’re going to see people defending the status quo,” according to him. “They’ll say we need that money for more conventional defense – more divisions, more jet fighters, maybe another aircraft carrier.”
There should be a missile defense system for the country, according to DeVore.
“The ability to truly defend the homeland and save American lives is better than mutual assured destruction – especially in an age of nuclear proliferation where we can’t always be sure where the threat is coming from.”
Republican Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma acknowledged the project’s significance but said he was unaware of its scope, budget, or requirements.
“I think it’s the most important thing we could do to keep our homeland safe.”