Trump rolls out Golden Dome missile defense project and appoints leader
Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that his administration will move forward with developing the so-called 'Golden Dome' missile defense system that he envisions will protect the United States from possible foreign strikes using ground and space-based weapons.
Flanked by the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, in the Oval Office, Trump also said that he wanted the project to be operational before he left office. He added that Republicans had agreed to allocate $25bn in initial funding and Canada had expressed an interest in taking part.
'Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world, and even if they are launched from space,' Trump said, 'forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland.'
Related: US army parade could cost up to $45m and involve 6,600 soldiers
What exactly the Golden Dome will look like remains unclear. Trump has not yet decided which of three options proposed by the defense department he wants to pursue. Pentagon officials recently drafted three proposals – small, medium and large – for Trump to consider.
The proposals all broadly combine ground-based missile interceptors currently used by the US military with more ambitious and hi-tech systems to build a space-based defense program.
The option that Trump chooses will determine its timeline and cost. The $25bn coming from Republicans' budget bill is only set to cover initial development costs. The final price tag could exceed $540bn over the next two decades, according to the congressional budget office.
Trump said on Tuesday evening that he had settled on 'architecture' for the project and suggested the total cost of putting it into service would reach $175bn, but gave no specifics. Gen Michael Guetlein of the US Space Force will oversee implementation of the project, Trump said.
The selection of Guetlein, the vice-chief of space operations, means the elevation of a four-star general widely seen at the Pentagon to be competent and deeply experienced in missile defense systems and procurement.
The project is expected to end up largely as a partnership with major defense contractors, including Elon Musk's SpaceX, given it has the capacity to manufacture rockets to launch military payloads into orbit and satellites that can deliver next-generation surveillance and targeting tools.
It will also rely on companies that manufacture ordnance currently used by the US military. The project's baseline capabilities are set to depend on existing systems including the Thaad and Aegis Ashore systems made by Lockheed Martin and Patriot surface-to-air missiles made by Raytheon.
Golden Dome came into existence because Trump believes that the US should have a missile defense program to track and kill missiles headed towards domestic US targets, possibly sent by China, Russia, North Korea or other strategic foreign adversaries, similar to Israel's 'Iron Dome' program.
Shortly after he took office again in January, Trump signed an executive order directing the Pentagon to develop proposals for a 'next-generation missile defense shield' in order to upgrade the US's missile defense capabilities, which he noted had not materially changed in 40 years.
The order came as the defense department has become more concerned about the threat of long-range strikes from strategic adversaries. Last week, the Defense Intelligence Agency released an assessment that said China has about 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles, Russia has 350 and North Korea has a handful.
Initially, the White House had named the options for a space-based missile defense system 'Moonshot Plus' and 'Moonshot Plus Plus'. They were later renamed by Hegseth to be called silver, gold and platinum-dome options based on the three tiers, two former Pentagon officials said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
16 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A federal judge delivered a beatdown to the Trump administration, in support of WilmerHale. Here's how.
Welch would be pleased to see the beatdown that Judge Richard Leon delivered against the administration last week — and not just because Leon ruled in favor of Welch's old firm. Welch would also appreciate the emphatic tone of Leon's message, with more than 20 exclamation points across a 73-page order. Advertisement It's and its roughly 2,400 employees that hangs in the balance. The fundamentals of the country's entire legal system could be at risk. In recent months, President Trump issued several executive orders threatening prominent law firms because of their work on behalf of immigrants and elections reform, or for hiring a lawyer or two deemed an enemy by the president, among other supposed sins. In Trump's threats Advertisement Nine Big Law firms quickly caved, settling with Trump and agreeing to provide legal services to causes blessed by the president, worth around $1 billion in total. Dozens more have stayed quiet, on the sidelines. But four firms in Trump's crosshairs chose to fight. And it has not gone well for the president. With Leon's vigorous torpedoing of Trump's executive order against WilmerHale on the books, the administration's record is now 0-3 against Big Law in the courts — with the fate of Here are a few things to know about Judge Leon. He often wears a bow tie, a sartorial choice much less common now than in Welch's day. Leon is a Natick native, went to college appointed him to the bench. He has a bit of a reputation for He did not disappoint, on any of these counts, with his May 27 decision. Right at the outset, Leon explained why he was striking down the entirety of Trump's WilmerHale order as unconstitutional. 'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases,' Leon wrote. 'Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!' Advertisement On the administration's assertion that WilmerHale's financial injuries are speculative in nature, Leon said: 'Please — that dog won't hunt!" On whether Trump's order improperly infringes on WilmerHale's freedom of speech: 'The Order goes on to impose a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct!' And on whether the order violates the rights of WilmerHale clients to pick their counsel: 'The intended and actual effect of the Order's sanctions is to drive away clients from WilmerHale!' Then there was the tasty footnote on page 14, in which Leon describes Trump's March 27 executive order against WilmerHale as akin to a gumbo, in which all the ingredients should be considered together as one dish. 'As explained in this Memorandum Opinion,' Leon concludes, 'this gumbo gives the court heartburn.' Tell us how you really feel, Judge Leon! Both sides were far more subdued when asked for comment. After all, Leon's decision could still be appealed. WilmerHale offered a brief statement, sans exclamation points, saying the decision 'strongly affirms our foundational constitutional rights and those of our clients. We remain proud to defend our firm, our people, and our clients.' Meanwhile, Trump is a fan of explanation points, judging by his social media posts. But White House spokesman Harrison Fields opted against using one. Instead, he focused on one aspect of the case involving Trump's attempt to revoke WilmerHale's security clearances: 'The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President. Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority.' Advertisement As president of the Mass. Bar Association, Victoria Santoro has been rallying the state's law groups to protest Trump's executive-order barrage. She notes that judges of all political backgrounds and jurisdictions have blocked a wide range of Trump's executive orders, not just those involving the legal profession. To Santoro, the trend speaks to Trump's excessive and unconstitutional use of EOs. But will law firms feel safe from future Trump attacks, free to take on clients and causes unpopular with the president, or a lawyer with ties to his enemies? Maybe not. Boston College law professor Cheryl Bratt calls Leon's decision necessary, but she's not sure if it's sufficient. Translation: It will probably take more than one judge's opinion, or even three, to give law firms the comfort to know they won't end up on Trump's hit list. The reluctance is understandable. The harm is real: Some clients were already starting to reconsider WilmerHale, for example, and two of its lawyers had their security clearances suspended. Bratt incorporated the Trump vs. Big Law saga into her classes this spring; one way to talk about the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution is to show how they can get threatened in real time. As a WilmerHale alum, Bratt paid particular attention. The legacy of Joseph Welch looms large there; she was told about Welch's stand against McCarthyism during her employee orientation, and the firm's website recounts that history with pride. WilmerHale's current fight, led by Advertisement As granddaughter Nancy Welch watches the WilmerHale-Trump fight play out from her Maryland home, she is reminded of a lesson that Welch passed along to her family: He saw the rule of law, delivered fairly and without favor, as the single most powerful antidote to fear. It was a fearful time in the 1950s for the country, she said in an email, like it is right now. It's a safe bet Joseph Welch would be proud to read Leon's decision — and so, one imagines, would the Founding Fathers! Jon Chesto can be reached at
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Musk says he doesn't ‘wanna take responsibility' for all Trump actions
Tech billionaire Elon Musk, whose time as a special government employee came to an end on Friday, said in a Sunday interview that he doesn't want to 'take responsibility' for all actions of the Trump administration. In an interview on CBS News 'Sunday Morning,' Musk said he disagrees with some moves President Trump has made, though he hesitated to discuss them in more detail, saying that might create 'a bone of contention.' 'It's not like I agree with everything the administration does,' Musk said in the interview. 'I mean, I agree with much of what the administration does, but we have differences of opinion. You know, there are things that I don't entirely agree with.' 'But it's difficult for me to bring that up in an interview because then it creates a bone of contention,' Musk continued. 'So then, I'm a little stuck in a bind, where I'm like, 'Well, I don't wanna, you know, speak up against the administration, but I also don't wanna take responsibility for everything this administration's doing,'' he added. Musk made sweeping changes through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) over the last few months. He has said he will continue to advise the president when asked, even though his official role as senior adviser to the president has come to an end. In the interview, Musk stood by the work of DOGE and his efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce and cut what he deemed wasteful or unnecessary government spending. But he said DOGE 'became the whipping boy for everything,' which Musk described as 'a bit unfair.' 'So if there was some cut, real or imagined, everyone would blame DOGE,' Musk said. 'I've had people think that, like, somehow DOGE is gonna stop them from getting their Social Security check, which is completely untrue.'
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Main Street deserves access to private markets
On the campaign trail, President Trump promised to revive the American economy and deliver greater opportunity for working families: to create 'a middle class that is once again the envy of the entire world.' Making that pledge a reality starts with tax cuts and deregulation but doesn't end there. It will require policymakers to reconsider who has access to wealth-building opportunities. Unfortunately, far too many Americans lack the tools available to the wealthy. More Americans deserve the opportunity to invest in private markets, and that's something Trump's administration can provide. The Securities and Exchange Commission has a unique opportunity to help level the playing field. It has been more than 30 years since the agency reviewed the regulatory framework for retail funds created by the Investment Company Act of 1940. By modernizing these outdated rules and expanding access to private markets, the Securities and Exchange Commission can help put Main Street investors back on equal footing with Wall Street and big corporations. Over the last decade, private markets have exploded, growing to around $25 trillion since 2012. Big institutions like pension funds, endowments and hedge funds have long used these investments to earn higher returns than what's available in the stock market. But for everyday Americans? This opportunity to invest is largely off limits. Outdated regulations are primarily to blame. They assume retail investors can't handle the risks of private markets. In reality, institutional fund managers already invest responsibly in private markets on behalf of workers like teachers and police officers. Like any investment, private markets require proper safeguards. But with the right protections in place, there's no reason similar access couldn't be extended to individual investors. This is where the Securities and Exchange Commission can step in. Consider the current restriction that prevents closed-end funds from allocating more than 15 percent of their assets to private funds. This artificial cap locks Main Street investors out of opportunities their pension funds already enjoy. Removing or relaxing this limit — while maintaining proper oversight — would be a good first step toward giving Main Street access to wealth-building opportunities readily available to Wall Street. Closed-end funds are uniquely positioned for private investments, but because closed-end funds often trade a discount to their net asset value, short term arbitrageurs often seek to 'open' fund to capture the spread between traded value and asset value. Such activists seek to profit at the expense of long-term investors. It would help to design governance structures and legal frameworks that ensure the stability funds need to focus on long-term value. This is not to suggest we shouldn't have responsive governance and transparency for all investors, but we should encourage and enable long-term thinking and investing. These common-sense reforms are necessary to remove the barriers that have left the middle class locked out of a key financial tool. We should update old rules to reflect today's economy and empower more Americans to build wealth in the same way institutions and the wealthy already do. If the Trump administration wants not only to support but also to build up the middle class, the solution goes beyond creating good jobs and stimulating economic growth. It will also involve expanding access to the financial opportunities that create long-term wealth. It's time to finally level the playing field and make private markets available to everyone. Vikram Mansharamani, chairman and CEO of Goodwell Foods, is a former lecturer at Harvard and Yale and has served on the boards of closed-end funds, publicly-traded companies, and start-up technology firms.
