Opinion - The actual cost of a US ‘Golden Dome' could be staggering
All these systems either already exist or are in later stages of development; no new development would be involved.
Responding to Rasch's cost estimate, Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) extrapolated the $8 billion figure to account for the 779 cities in the U.S. that are equal to or greater than Guam's population. According to his calculation, a Golden Dome over all of America would total $6.2 trillion.
And King's figure was a bit too low; applying the same methodology results in a total cost of $6.4 trillion.
Whether that $6 trillion figure is even remotely accurate is far from clear. Extrapolating the cost of defending Guam to the continental U.S., but calculating not on the basis of the number of cities to be defended but rather on the island's area in square miles relative to the mainland, yields a ratio of 14.86, which results in the far lower cost of $119 billion.
Golden Dome will not replicate the system currently planned for Guam by 2031. President Trump's Jan. 27 executive order calls not only for current capabilities to be upgraded over time but also emphasizes the central role of space-based assets.
Among the elements of the executive order relating to space are 'acceleration of the deployment of the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor layer; development and deployment of proliferated space-based interceptors capable of boost-phase intercept; development and deployment of a custody layer of the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture; and development and deployment of capabilities to defeat missile attacks prior to launch and in the boost phase.'
These are all new capabilities that have yet to be developed. If the cost of President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, which provided the inspiration for Golden Dome, is any indicator, the sums to be expended on Trump's proposal will certainly exceed $119 billion.
In the 25 years after Reagan first announced his plan for a missile shield over America — which critics derisively labeled 'Star Wars' — the U.S. spent $120 billion ($235 billion in 2025 dollars) on the program. Since then, it has spent billions more on the program's offshoots, such as the missile defense system at Fort Greely, Alaska. None of these expenditures resulted in an operational space-based missile defense system.
In late April, the House Armed Services committee included $24.7 billion in the $150 billion reconciliation package for fiscal year 2025. Even if annual costs for this program were to remain fixed at that level, a 25-year program, similar to that of the Strategic Defense Initiative, would total nearly $620 billion.
The House figure is only a small down payment, however. The program will certainly call for far greater funding as it develops over time. It might well reach the total cost of $2.5 trillion that some analysts have estimated.
Golden Dome will also generate opportunity costs in terms of other defense programs being either underfunded or entirely terminated unless the defense budget can sustain major annual growth rates over a period of two decades or more. That projection flies in the face of historic defense budget growth, which has varied sharply over time and with successive administrations, and has suffered from unanticipated inflation and cost growth.
In the event that budgets do not show significant annual growth, the impact on other defense programs could be severe. In that regard, it is noteworthy that without the one-year $150 billion reconciliation package — which has yet to pass Congress — the next budget actually shows a slight decline in real terms. That does not bode well for other programs that would compete with Golden Dome for defense funds.
The Strategic Defense Initiative experiment included plans for space-based capabilities that took a variety of forms — none of which ever materialized. Technology certainly is far more advanced today than when Reagan launched his initiative, but the viability of a space-based missile defense system has yet to be proven.
Given its immense costs, and its effect on available funding for other defense programs, Golden Dome for America will call for cautious, careful and consistent congressional oversight and scrutiny for many years to come.
Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump announces 90-day negotiating period with Mexico as 25% tariff rates stay in place
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States will enter a 90-day negotiating period with Mexico over trade as 25% tariff rates stay in place, President Donald Trump said Thursday. Trump, posting on his Truth Social platform, said a phone conversation he had with Mexican leader Claudia Sheinbaum was 'very successful in that, more and more, we are getting to know and understand each other.' The Republican president said that goods from Mexico imported into the U.S. would continue to face a 25% tariff that he has ostensibly linked to fentanyl trafficking. He said that autos would face a 25% tariff, while copper, aluminum and steel would be taxed at 50%. He said that Mexico would end its 'Non Tariff Trade Barriers,' but he didn't provide specifics. Trump had threatened tariffs of 30% on goods from Mexico in a July letter, something that Sheinbaum said Mexico gets to stave off for the next three months. 'We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow and we got 90 days to build a long-term agreement through dialogue,' Sheinbaum wrote on X. Some goods continue to be protected from the tariffs by the 2020 U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement, or USMCA, which Trump negotiated during his first term. But Trump appeared to have soured on that deal, which is up for renegotiation next year. One of his first significant moves as president was to tariff goods from both Mexico and Canada earlier this year. Census Bureau figures show that the U.S. ran a $171.5 billion trade imbalance with Mexico last year. That means the U.S. bought more goods from Mexico than it sold to the country. The imbalance with Mexico has grown in the aftermath of the USMCA as it was only $63.3 billion in 2016, the year before Trump started his first term in office.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate panel advances funding bill with $1 billion for Ukraine
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday advanced legislation that provides approximately $1 billion in security assistance for Ukraine. The funding was included in the fiscal year 2026 Defense appropriations legislation and was pushed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). The bill advanced in the committee by a vote of 26 to three. It includes $800 million in security assistance for Ukraine and $225 million in security assistance for Baltic countries. Coons earlier told reporters that the funding for the Baltics — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — is likely to go towards those countries' support for Ukraine, saying the total for Kyiv can be viewed as $1 billion. 'The secretary of the Army rightly calls Ukraine the Silicon Valley of warfare. The navy considers the maritime fight between Russia and Ukraine as the Black Sea battle lab, and recognizes the need for rapid innovation,' McConnell said at the committee's meeting on Thursday. 'But abandoning the foremost experts in drone warfare would be strategic self-harm, shutting off engagement with Ukraine would undermine our military's efforts to prepare for the modern battlefield. Like our friends on the Armed Services Committee we are restoring funding for the USAI and other security assistance programs that make America safer.' The funds for Ukraine proved non-controversial in Thursday's committee meeting, where partisan debates focused on things like Trump's acceptance of a luxury plane from Qatar and requested funds to retrofit it as Air Force One. There's a bipartisan majority supporting Ukraine in the Congress, even if Trump and the MAGA movement argue against the U.S. sending military assistance to other nations. 'I think there's broad enthusiasm for bringing this war to a just conclusion, but also broad awareness that that means, not peace at any price, by strengthening Ukraine so that it is able to defend itself against what will almost certainly be either continued or renewed attacks by Russia,' Coons told reporters in a briefing on Wednesday. The Senate bill will put the $800 million into the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which funds sending direct military assistance to Ukraine, provides other support systems and training programs. The fund, established in 2016, typically receives $300 million per year from Congress. Coons said it was important to increase the funding in the face of Trump's efforts to completely end U.S. funding for military support to Ukraine. But the $1 billion appears to be a drop in the bucket to the more than $60 billion Congress approved in an April 2024 in a supplemental military assistance package, and as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued an urgent appeal for air defense missiles and long-range munitions that the U.S. is the foremost supplier. 'Last night, Russia launched another massive attack on Kyiv: hundreds of Shahed drones and missiles. Air defense shot down many, but not all,' Zelensky said in a speech Thursday, marking 50 years of the Helsinki Final Act, which established the OSCE, a forum between western Europe and former Soviet Union countries. 'President Trump is truly interested in ending the war. We must do everything we can to make sure the U.S. and Europe act together – for security.' Trump has spoken out against the U.S. sending weapons to Ukraine at the expense of the American taxpayer and did not request funding for Ukraine in his 2026 budget. A House version of the Defense appropriations bill had no money for Ukraine. But Trump has not completely halted U.S. weapons deliveries sent with funds approved during the Biden administration. He's also provided a quick green light for Ukrainian purchases of military equipment from U.S. companies. He has also increasingly shown frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin as the obstacle to a ceasefire and set a deadline of Aug. 8 for Moscow to halt the fighting or face financial penalties. Earlier this month, Trump announced a deal where NATO would purchase U.S. weapons to send to Ukraine, a workaround from direct American support for Kyiv. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the funding.
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Next stop, White House? Anticipation builds for Kamala Harris, other eager Dems
Like the party they hope to lead, the jumbled field of Democratic presidential hopefuls lacks a consistent philosophy or plan for victory - yet. She'll have plenty of company. Former Vice President Kamala Harris closed the door on a campaign for California governor next year, keeping open the door for a White House bid in 2028. Three years out, the presidential contest is rapidly becoming a full employment project for ambitious Democrats. Already in the mix of The Hopefuls and the Often-Mentioneds are governors and senators, rising stars and the once-were-rising stars. There are both Democratic Socialists and centrists, those who vow to battle President Donald Trump at every turn and those who counsel accommodation when it's possible. The Democratic contenders and maybe-contenders form a disparate group that lacks a consistent political philosophy or a clear plan for victory, in a party that could be described the same way. That's no coincidence. One shapes the other. A compelling candidate who emerges at the top in town-hall forums, debates and primaries will define the Democratic Party. And a consensus on where the Democrats stand will affect which candidate is seen as compelling. But not yet. The Republican Party could be clearly defined and immediately identified by the official, glowering portrait of Donald Trump. But without a president, or a presidential nominee, or even a frontrunner − or, for that matter, a speaker of the House or majority leader of the Senate − both the Democratic Party and its White House race is at the moment a wilderness. Albeit a crowded wilderness. There was a sign of the battles ahead on the Senate floor Tuesday night. When Nevada Democratic Catherine Cortez Masto sought to move a bipartisan package funding police departments, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker accused his fellow Democrats of "complicity" with Trump. "I say we stand, I say we right, I say we reject this," he declared. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar − who, like Booker, ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 −rose to object that perhaps he should have shown up in the Judiciary Committee when the bills were being considered instead of waiting for the bigger stage of the Senate floor. How to spot a presidential candidate To identify prospects who would like to be president, or at least to be considered for the job, the key often isn't to listen to what they say. The default stance is that they love their current job in the Senate or the statehouse and are committed to it. Instead, watch what they do. Gathering chits by campaigning for fellow Democrats in 2025 and 2026? Check. Launching a "listening tour" to hear from voters in South Carolina? Check. Railing on Trump and his policies? Check. Dropping by New Hampshire on summer vacation? Check. Writing a book on policy prescriptions laced with personal anecdotes? Check. By the way, Harris announced she wasn't running for governor on July 30, Wednesday. On Thursday morning, Simon and Schuster announced she had written a memoir, titled "107 Days," chronicling her the whirlwind presidential campaign last year. More: Kamala Harris explores 'drama of running for president' in new book on 2024 bid The publication date is Sept. 23, less than a year since that Election Day. In another time, or maybe another political party, Harris would be viewed as the early frontrunner. She is credited with running a credible campaign under difficult circumstances, carrying 48.32% of the popular vote, compared to 49.80% for Trump. The Electoral College count was more lopsided, at 312-226. But she lost, and Democrats in the past have demonstrated little loyalty to losers. The last Democratic nominee who lost one presidential race and was nominated for another was Adlai Stevenson, in 1956, who lost to Dwight Eisenhower again. That was eight years before Harris was born. For the record, Republicans seem to be more forgiving. Trump, for one, was nominated in 2024 and won after losing to Biden in 2020. Richard Nixon was nominated in 1968 and won after losing to John F. Kennedy in 1960. In what may have been an object lesson for Harris, Nixon chose to run for California governor two years after that loss, in 1962, only to lose to Democratic incumbent Pat Brown and declare he was through with politics altogether. "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more," he famously, and prematurely, announced. Dealing with the legacy of Biden Harris would face another challenge: The continuing debate over Biden. The former president's decision to seek a second term, only to belatedly withdraw amid questions about his mental acuity, has contributed to the Democrats' current nadir. She was his vice president and defender. Now the Democratic field is wide open with the possibility to numbers could rival the 30-something record set in 2020, when a comprehensive alphabetical list included six names before you finished with the "Bs": Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Biden, Booker, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and South Bend (Ind.) Mayor Pete Buttigieg. More: Tarnished legacy? How Biden's age and refusal to pass torch earlier hang over his exit For 2028, a non-comprehensive list of those who have signaled interest in the presidential race would start with Biden administration veterans Harris and Buttigieg. Governors Gavin Newsom of California, J.D. Pritzker of Illinois, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Wes Moore of Maryland. Senators Booker and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, House members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ro Khanna of California. Whoever prevails faces an uphill job ahead. In a new Wall Street Journal poll, only 33% of Americans had a favorable view of the Democratic Party; 63% had an unfavorable one. That's a three-decade low.
