Musk's SpaceX frontrunner to build Trump's ‘Golden Dome' missile defense system: report
The Brief
Reuters reports SpaceX is leading a bid to build satellite tracking layers for Trump's missile defense system.
The Golden Dome system would use satellites and space-based interceptors to neutralize missiles seconds after launch.
Lawmakers and experts have raised ethical, strategic, and logistical concerns about the scale and cost of the project.
WASHINGTON - A new report from Reuters finds that Elon Musk's SpaceX, along with partners Palantir and Anduril, is among the leading contenders to help build part of President Donald Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense shield.
According to Reuters, the companies have pitched a proposal to deploy hundreds of satellites that would detect and track missile threats from space. The bid is reportedly being reviewed by top Pentagon and White House officials and could shape a key part of the multilayered system envisioned by the administration.
The backstory
In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order directing the military to develop a plan for what would become the "Golden Dome"—a space-based missile defense system capable of destroying missiles within seconds of launch.
According to previous reporting by the Associated Press, the project was initially referred to as "Iron Dome" but was renamed in February. Israel is known for its Iron Dome system, which intercepts short-range rockets and artillery from the ground. Trump's Golden Dome draws inspiration from the name but envisions a far more ambitious goal: deploying interceptors in space to neutralize long-range missile threats. If completed, it would mark the first time the U.S. places missile interceptors in orbit.
At the Space Symposium in Colorado earlier this month, U.S. Space Command said it had finalized options for the system and submitted them to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. General Stephen Whiting, the head of Space Command, said, "We need orbital interceptors. We call these weapons, and we need them to deter a space conflict."
Trump's 2026 defense budget proposal is expected to near $1 trillion, with Golden Dome projected to absorb a significant portion of that funding.
What we know
According to Reuters, SpaceX has proposed building the "custody layer" of the system—a constellation of 400 to 1,000 satellites that would detect missiles and track their trajectory. Two sources familiar with the proposal told Reuters that the early design and engineering costs are estimated between $6 billion and $10 billion.
The satellites would not be weaponized, sources said. A separate fleet of about 200 armed satellites is being considered for the intercept role, but that part of the system would be handled by other contractors.
The other side
Reuters reports that SpaceX has proposed delivering its portion of the system under a "subscription model", meaning the government would pay for access but wouldn't own the technology.
While such an arrangement wouldn't violate Pentagon rules, it has sparked internal concerns. Some officials worry it could leave the government reliant on private infrastructure with limited control over pricing and updates, according to two sources cited by Reuters.
What they're saying
"When the richest man in the world can become a Special Government Employee and exert influence over the flow of billions of dollars of taxpayer money in government contracts to his companies, that's a serious problem," U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) told Reuters.
Shaheen, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has introduced legislation to block companies owned by special government employees from receiving federal contracts.
U.S. Rep. Donald Beyer (D-VA) also raised alarms, telling Reuters that "any contracts awarded to him, or his companies, are suspicious," citing Musk's access to non-public information.
What we don't know
While Reuters reports that the SpaceX-led proposal has drawn significant interest, the selection process is still in early stages and may change as the Pentagon finalizes requirements.
More than 180 companies have submitted bids to work on the Golden Dome system, according to the AP, including legacy defense firms like Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and RTX.
Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth has asked Pentagon leadership to accelerate deployment timelines, and Space Command is reportedly working to match system requirements with commercially available tech.
The Source
This report is based on an exclusive investigation by Reuters, which spoke with six unnamed sources familiar with internal discussions between the Trump administration, the Pentagon, and leading defense contractors. Additional context is drawn from previous Associated Press reporting on the origins and strategic goals of the Golden Dome program. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores War Powers Win: 'National Security Moves Fast'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran—just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while Republican Rand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." Why It Matters The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response—an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks to the media, Friday, June 27, 2025, in the briefing room of the White House in Washington. Jacquelyn Martin/AP What To Know The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act—the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions—from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria—have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days—with a 30-day withdrawal period—unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." What People Are Saying Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." What Happens Next Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla Is Set To Report Deliveries Wednesday. Here's What To Expect.
Tesla is expected to report second-quarter deliveries data Wednesday, with analysts anticipating another year-over-year decline. Demand has slowed this year amid pushback against CEO Elon Musk's involvement with the Trump administration. Some analysts have said the second quarter could be a low point for Tesla's deliveries before improving later in the (TSLA) is widely expected to report quarterly delivery numbers on Wednesday morning, with analysts anticipating another double-digit decline year-over-year. The company is projected to post deliveries of just under 400,000 vehicles for the second quarter, according to estimates compiled by Visible Alpha. That would be down 10% from the same time a year ago, when Tesla reported north of 440,000 deliveries, while production is forecast to increase to about 434,200 vehicles from 410,831 in the year-ago quarter. Demand for Tesla's vehicles has taken a hit this year in key markets like the U.S. and Europe amid a political backlash against CEO Elon Musk's involvement with the Trump administration. The company's first-quarter deliveries fell well below estimates. The latest deliveries data also comes days after the departure of Omead Afshar, who oversaw Tesla's sales and manufacturing in North America and Europe, and became the latest in a string of executive departures, Bloomberg reported. Analysts from Deepwater Asset Management said in a recent report that they expect the second quarter could be the low point for Tesla's delivery numbers, with a recovery likely in the second half of the year, citing improving brand perception among other things. Analysts from RBC Capital Markets on Thursday forecast about 366,000 deliveries, below the Street consensus, suggesting demand could be delayed with some consumers waiting for the more affordable model Musk has said would launch in the first half of this year. Baird analysts, who said the more affordable model may be delayed, told clients Wednesday that "while deliveries still remain an important piece of the fundamentals, we note that the recent launch of robotaxi and excitement regarding this opportunity will likely take precedence in the near term." Tesla's stock has divided analysts tracked by Visible Alpha, with 10 "buy" ratings compared to four "hold," and four "sell" ratings. Their price targets range from $160 to $500, with an average near $306, below the stock's recent levels. The shares have lost about a fifth of their value in 2025 so far, at just over $323 as of Friday's close. Read the original article on Investopedia Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Even as markets rally, Trump's policymaking causes market angst
By Suzanne McGee (Reuters) -As Wall Street puts April's tariff shakeout in the rearview mirror and indexes set record highs, investors remain wary of U.S. President Donald Trump's rapid-fire, sometimes chaotic policymaking process and see the rally as fragile. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq composite index advanced past their previous highs into uncharted territory on Friday. Yet traders and investors remain wary of what may lie ahead. Trump's April 2 reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners roiled global financial markets and put the S&P 500 on the threshold of a bear market designation when it ended down 19% from its February 19 record-high close. This week's leg up came after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Iran brought an end to a 12-day air battle that had sparked a jump in crude prices and raised worries of higher inflation. But a relief rally started after Trump responded to the initial tariff panic that gripped financial markets by backing away from his most draconian plans. JP Morgan Chase, in the midyear outlook published on Wednesday by its global research team, said the environment was characterized by "extreme policy uncertainty." "Nobody wants to end a week with a risk-on tilt to their portfolios," said Art Hogan, market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "Everyone is aware that just as the market feels more certain and confident, a single wildcard policy announcement could change everything," even if it does not ignite a firestorm of the kind seen in April. Part of this wariness from institutional investors may be due to the magnitude of the 6% S&P 500 rally that followed Trump's re-election last November and culminated in the last new high posted by the index in February, said Joseph Quinlan, market strategist at Bank of America. "We were out ahead of our skis," Quinlan said. A focus on deregulation, tax cuts and corporate deals brought out the "animal spirits," he said. Then came the tariff battles. Quinlan remains upbeat on the outlook for U.S. stocks and optimistic that a new global trade system could lead to U.S. companies opening new markets and posting higher revenues and profits. But he said he is still cautious. "There will still be spikes of volatility around policy unknowns." Overall, measures of market volatility are now well below where they stood at the height of the tariff turmoil in April, with the CBOE VIX index now at 16.3, down from a 52.3 peak on April 8. UNSTABLE MARKETS "Our clients seem to have become somewhat desensitized to the headlines, but it's still an unhealthy market, with everyone aware that trading could happen based on the whims behind a bunch of" social media posts, said Jeff O'Connor, head of market structure, Americas, at Liquidnet, an institutional trading platform. Trading in the options market shows little sign of the kind of euphoria that characterized stock market rallies of the recent past. "On the institutional front, we do see a lot of hesitation in chasing the market rally," Stefano Pascale, head of U.S. equity derivatives research at Barclays, said. Unlike past episodes of sharp market selloffs, institutional investors have largely stayed away from employing bullish call options to chase the market higher, Pascale said, referring to plain options that confer the right to buy at a specified future price and date. Bid/ask spreads on many stocks are well above levels O'Connor witnessed in late 2024, while market depth - a measure of the size and number of potential orders - remains at the lowest levels he can recall in the last 20 years. "The best way to describe the markets in the last couple of months, even as they have recovered, is to say they are unstable," said Liz Ann Sonders, market strategist at Charles Schwab. She said she is concerned that the market may be reaching "another point of complacency" akin to that seen in March. "There's a possibility that we'll be primed for another downside move," Sonders addded. Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital in Washington, said he came up with the term "Snapchat presidency" to describe the whiplash effect on markets of the president's constantly changing policies on markets. "He feels more like a day trader than a long-term institutional investor," Spindel said, alluding to Trump's policy flip-flops. "One minute he's not going to negotiate, and the next he negotiates." To be sure, traders seem to view those rapid shifts in course as a positive in the current rally, signaling Trump's willingness to heed market signals. "For now, at least, stocks are willing to overlook the risks that go along with this style and lack of consistent policies, and give the administration a break as being 'market friendly'," said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at Interactive Brokers. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
