Golden Dome missile defense program won't be operational by end of Trump's term
Donald Trump's so-called Golden Dome missile defense program – which will feature space-based weapons to intercept strikes against the US – is not expected to be ready before the end of his term, despite his prediction that it would be completed within the next three years.
In the Oval Office last week, when he announced that the US space force would oversee the project under Gen Michael Guetlein, the president said he was confident that it would be 'fully operational' before he left office.
But the implementation plan for the Golden Dome produced by the Pentagon, as described by two people familiar with the matter, envisions having the defense weapons being ready only for a demonstration and under perfect conditions by the end of 2028.
Related: White House stunned as Hegseth inquiry brings up illegal wiretap claims
The Golden Dome program is effectively becoming operational in phases as opposed to it coming online all at once. Initially, the Pentagon is set to focus on integrating data systems before developing space-based weapons later, the people said.
What might be possible in 18 months is for the US to have the foundations of a fully operational Golden Dome, with a military network of satellites and space-based communication systems that could track hundreds of inbound missiles towards the US.
There would be no capability to take out the missiles using space-based weapons at that stage. The US has roughly 40 Patriot defense batteries in Alaska and California that could be used to kill potential intercontinental ballistic missiles.
By the end of Trump's term, instead, the Pentagon could have the network of space-based sensors and communications, and attempt to integrate it with untested space-based weapons to shoot them down.
The space-based network is likely to rely heavily on Elon Musk's SpaceX, which has been developing a next-generation tracking system known as the 'aerial moving target identifier'. The defense department acquired the first prototypes last year during the Biden administration.
But the flagship concept for Golden Dome, to identify and kill ballistic missiles in the first 30 seconds to two minutes of launch when their heat signature is greatest – known as 'boost phase' – is not expected to be ready.
That technology remains in development and it may not be feasible for years for a counter-missile launched from space to cut through Earth's atmosphere with enough force to eliminate a ballistic missile, the people said.
The defense department already struggles with ground-based interceptors, which have been in development since the 1980s to take out missiles in their so-called 'glide phase', but still have only a roughly 20% success rate.
A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement that the defense department 'will not publicly disclose specific technical details regarding the capabilities or acquisition strategies of certain advanced systems'.
The Trump administration has said Golden Dome could cost in the region of $175bn, a figure derived from what the Pentagon allocated for the project, according to two people familiar with the matter: $17.6bn for 2026, roughly $50bn for 2027 and approximately $100bn for 2028.
The final cost could be higher but Pentagon officials have said privately it depends on how ambitious Trump orders Golden Dome to be.
If Trump wants the ability to protect against 100 ballistic missiles, for instance, it could necessitate Golden Dome having several thousands of satellites that will naturally de-orbit every few years and need to be replaced, one of the people said.
Trump said in a Truth Social post on Tuesday that Canada could participate in Golden Dome, but that it would have to pay $61bn or become the 51st US state to get it for free. It was not clear how Trump reached that figure.
The idea of having Canada be a part of the program was discussed at the Pentagon when Trump first ordered Golden Dome months ago, one of the people said, but it was more about Canada contributing its satellite and radar data into Golden Dome.
Initially, the White House's national security council called the program 'Moonshot', the people said. The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, thought it was a terrible name and came up with three tiers for a possible missile shield system: silver, gold and platinum. The only tier costed out was gold.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
9 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump appears to undercut US proposal to Iran, declaring he won't allow any uranium enrichment
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to undercut a proposal that was offered by his special envoy to Iran, saying he will insist that Tehran fully dismantle its nuclear enrichment program as part of any deal to ease crushing sanctions. Trump and Steve Witkoff, who is leading the negotiations for the U.S., have repeatedly offered inconsistent public messages about whether Iran would be allowed to retain the capacity to enrich uranium to lower levels for civilian purposes. The Trump administration maintains that it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. The negotiations have been framed by Trump as both countries' best chance to avoid direct military conflict over Iran's nuclear program. Tehran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, has insisted that it will not agree to any deal that fully scraps its enrichment program. 'Under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!' Trump wrote on social media. The White House didn't elaborate on the post. Trump's post comes after media reports that Witkoff's latest proposal to Tehran would allow Iran to retain low levels of enrichment for civilian uses like nuclear medicine and commercial power if it agrees to shut down its heavily protected underground sites for a period of time. The U.S. and Iran have engaged in several rounds of direct nuclear talks for the first time in years. Senior officials — including Witkoff and Trump himself — have said within the last few weeks that Iran would not be able to keep enriching uranium at any level. The proposal, reported by Axios and confirmed by two U.S. officials, called for the creation of a regional consortium to handle uranium enrichment for civilian uses — a plan first studied more than a decade ago in negotiations that led to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Trump was sharply critical of that agreement — which also allowed set limits on uranium enrichment but permitted Iran to maintain such a capacity — and withdrew the U.S. from it in 2017 during his first term. The officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations. The International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran has further increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels since its last update in February, according to a confidential report released by the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Saturday. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but Iranian officials have increasingly suggested that Tehran could pursue an atomic bomb. 'President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement before Trump's post. 'Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it's in their best interest to accept it. Out of respect for the ongoing deal, the Administration will not comment on details of the proposal to the media.' The proposal that Trump appeared to undercut on Monday evening included significant concessions by the administration certain to anger Israel along with pro-Israel lawmakers in the United States. Several of the main points were essentially the same or very similar to conditions outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal. Early iterations of that agreement negotiated by the Obama administration also suggested the possibility of a regional consortium that would put Iranian uranium enrichment above a certain level under the control of Iran and its neighbors. The idea was scrapped, however, because of Gulf Arab nations' objections and Iranian suspicions of the ultimate aims of the consortium. People who were involved in the 18-month negotiations for the 2015 deal reacted immediately to reports that the Trump administration might allow Iran to continue with an enrichment program at any level, particularly after senior officials repeatedly said Iran would not be able to retain such programs. 'This proposal poses a moment of truth for critics of previous Iran nuclear negotiations/agreements (and) those who have called for a no-enrichment, full-dismantlement deal,' Dan Shapiro, Obama's former ambassador to Israel, wrote on X. 'Will they hold Trump to the same standard?'
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal officials identify two 'sanctuary cities' in NH
A federal Department of Homeland Security report identified the city of Lebanon and adjacent town of Hanover as the only communities in New Hampshire it identifies as being 'sanctuary' communities for immigrants in the country illegally. The report comes less than two weeks after Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed two bills (SB 62 and HB 511) to outlaw sanctuary city policies in the state and to block local officials from preventing police departments or county jail administrations from reaching cooperative agreements with federal immigration authorities. DHS officials said its report complies with President Donald Trump's executive order titled, 'Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.' The report listed the 35 states and the District of Columbia where at least one community had an ordinance blocking or altering cooperation with federal officials about suspected, illegal immigrants. Maine and New Hampshire are the only states in New England not identified as sanctuary states. In Maine, the sanctuary status exists in two counties and the city of Portland, according to the report. A federal court order created the sanctuary treatment in Rhode Island while officials in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont adopted their own language, DHS officials said. The Franconia Board of Selectmen earlier last month endorsed a sanctuary community ordinance. Ayotte said the bills she signed would nullify that town's actions. Legislative critics charged the legislation would worsen the relationship local law enforcement has with legal immigration advocates in their hometowns and was an unfunded mandate as it could impose unreimbursed costs on communities. The new laws the governor signed take effect Jan. 1 except for one anti-sanctuary city provision that would apply starting in late July. Legislative leaders sent out letters last Friday thanking the sheriffs in Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties for signing so-called Section 287G agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Two other counties, six towns and New Hampshire State Police have applied for their own agreements. klandrigan@
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
The Trump administration is fighting to pause a second court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping and so-called reciprocal tariffs, the signature economic policy of his second term. The administration's new appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes less than a week after a very similar court challenge played out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. At issue in both cases is Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify Trump's use of the emergency law to invoke widespread tariffs was struck down unanimously last week by the three-judge CIT panel, which said the statute does not give Trump "unbounded" power to implement tariffs. However, the decision was almost immediately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing Trump's tariffs to continue. But in a lesser-discussed ruling on the very same day, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, determined that Trump's tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App Since the case before him had more limited reach than the case heard by the CIT – plaintiffs in the suit focused on harm to two small businesses, versus harm from the broader tariff plan – it went almost unnoticed in news headlines. But that changed on Monday. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – a Washington-based but still separate court than the Federal Court of Appeals – to immediately stay the judge's ruling. They argued in their appeal that the judge's ruling against Trump's use of IEEPA undercuts his ability to use tariffs as a "credible threat" in trade talks, at a time when such negotiations "currently stand at a delicate juncture." "By holding the tariffs invalid, the district court's ruling usurps the President's authority and threatens to disrupt sensitive, ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner by undercutting the premise of those negotiations – that the tariffs are a credible threat," Trump lawyers said in the filing. Economists also seemed to share this view that the steep tariffs were more a negotiating tactic than an espousal of actual policy, which they noted in a series of interviews last week with Fox News Digital. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this was the framework previously laid out by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." What comes next in the case remains to be seen. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs echoed that view in an interview with Fox News. But it's unclear if the Supreme Court would choose to take up the case, which comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain. In the 20 weeks since the start of his second White House term, lawyers for the Trump administration have filed 18 emergency appeals to the high court, indicating both the pace and breadth of the tense court article source: Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
