Trump's Golden Dome Defense System Looks For Alternative To Musk's SpaceX
The Trump administration is expanding its search for partners to build the Golden Dome missile defense system, courting Amazon.com's Project Kuiper and big defense contractors as tensions with Elon Musk threaten SpaceX's dominance in the program, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
The shift marks a strategic pivot away from reliance on Musk's SpaceX, whose Starlink and Starshield satellite networks have become central to US military communications.
It comes amid a deteriorating relationship between Trump and Musk, which culminated in a public falling-out on June 5. Even before the spat, officials at the Pentagon and White House had begun exploring alternatives to SpaceX, wary of over-reliance on a single partner for huge portions of the ambitious, $175 billion space-based defense shield, two of the sources said.
Musk and SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment. After Reuters reported initially that SpaceX was a frontrunner to build parts of Golden Dome, Musk said on X that the company had "not tried to bid for any contract in this regard. Our strong preference would be to stay focused on taking humanity to Mars."
Due to its size, track record of launching more than 9,000 of its own Starlink satellites, and experience in government procurement, SpaceX still has the inside track to assist with major portions of the Golden Dome, especially launch contracts, sources say.
Project Kuiper, which has launched just 78 of a planned constellation of 3,000 low-earth orbit satellites, has been approached by the Pentagon to join the effort, signaling the administration's openness to integrating commercial tech firms into national defense infrastructure and going beyond traditional defense players.
Jeff Bezos, Amazon's executive chairman, told Reuters in January that Kuiper would be "primarily commercial," but acknowledged "there will be defense uses for these [low-earth orbit] constellations, no doubt."
A spokesperson for Project Kuiper declined to comment for this story. The Pentagon declined to comment. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Golden Dome's ambitions mirror those of Israel's Iron Dome - a homeland missile defense shield - but a larger, more complex layered defense system requires a vast network of orbiting satellites covering more territory.
In the search for more vendors for the satellite layers of Golden Dome, "Kuiper is a big one," a US official said.
While SpaceX remains a frontrunner due to its unmatched launch capabilities, its share of the program could shrink, two of the people said. Officials have reached out to new entrants like rocket companies Stoke Space and Rocket Lab are gaining traction and will be able to bid on individual launches as the program matures, according to the US official.
Later in the development of Golden Dome "each individual launch is going to get bid, and we have to actually give bids to other people," besides SpaceX, the official said.
Need For Satellites
There is an urgent need for more satellite production. Last year Congress gave Space Force a $13 billion mandate - up from $900 million - to buy satellite-based communication services in what was widely seen as one of many efforts to stimulate private sector satellite production.
Amazon's Project Kuiper, a $10 billion initiative led by former Starlink managers dismissed by Musk for slow progress, Reuters has reported, has lagged behind SpaceX in deployment. But its potential defense applications - such as communications that could aid missile tracking - have drawn renewed interest as the administration prepares to allocate the first $25 billion tranche of funding authorized under Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill.
Traditional defense giants Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and L3Harris are also in talks to support Golden Dome. L3Harris CFO Kenneth Bedingfield told Reuters in an interview the company has seen a surge in interest in its missile warning and tracking technologies, which are expected to play a key role in the system.
Northrop, meanwhile, is pursuing several efforts including a space-based interceptor, a component that would enable missile strikes from orbit, Robert Flemming, the head of the company's space business, told Reuters in an interview.
"Lockheed Martin is ready to support Golden Dome for America as a proven mission partner," Robert Lightfoot, president of Lockheed Martin Space, said in a statement.
Golden Dome's initial outreach this spring invited smaller, newer Silicon Valley firms seen as nimbler, more sophisticated and potentially less expensive alternatives to the big defense firms to the table - but that was before the Musk-Trump feud upended that calculus.
Several with close ties to Trump aside from SpaceX, including Palantir and Anduril - were considered early frontrunners to win big pieces of the $175 billion project.
But the Musk-Trump feud has reshaped the competitive landscape. Musk recently launched the "America Party," a tech-centric, centrist political movement aimed at defeating Republicans who backed Trump's tax-and-spend agenda.
Rapid Timeframe
Trump launched the Golden Dome initiative just a week into his second term, pushing for rapid deployment. Space Force General Michael Guetlein, confirmed by the Senate on July 17, is set to lead the program with sweeping authority.
Under a previously unreported directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Guetlein has 30 days from confirmation to build a team, 60 days to deliver an initial system design, and 120 days to present a full implementation plan, including satellite and ground station details, two people briefed on the memo said.
The inclusion of commercial platforms like Kuiper raises security concerns. Its satellites would need to be hardened against cyberattacks and electronic warfare, a challenge that has plagued even SpaceX's Starlink network. In May 2024, Elon Musk said SpaceX was spending "significant resources combating Russian jamming efforts. This is a tough problem."
Beyond the technical and political challenges, Golden Dome could reshape global security dynamics. A fully operational space-based missile shield may prompt adversaries to develop new offensive capabilities or accelerate the militarization of space.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Columbia's $200M deal with Trump administration sets a precedent for other universities to bend to the government's will
How does this deal address antisemitism? The Trump administration has cited antisemitism against students and faculty on campuses to justify its broad incursion into the business of universities around the country. Antisemitism is a real and legitimate concern in US society and higher education, including at Columbia. But the federal complaint the administration made against Columbia was not actually about antisemitism. The administration made a formal accusation of antisemitism at Columbia in May of this year but suspended grants to the university in March. The federal government had initially acknowledged that cutting federal research grants did nothing to address the climate for Jewish students on campus, for example. When the federal government investigates civil rights violations, it usually conducts site visits and does very thorough investigations. We never saw such a government report about antisemitism at Columbia or other universities. The settlement that Columbia has entered into with the administration also doesn't do much about antisemitism. The agreement includes Columbia redefining antisemitism with a broader definition that is also used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition now includes 'a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews' – a description that is also used by the US State Department and several European governments but some critics say conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism. Instead, the agreement primarily has to do with faculty hiring and admissions decisions. The federal government alleges that Columbia is discriminating against white and Asian applicants, and that this will allow the government to ensure that everybody who is admitted is considered only on the basis of merit. The administration could argue that changing hiring practices to get faculty who are less hostile to Jewish students could change the campus climate, but the agreement doesn't really identify ways in which the university contributed to or ignored antisemitic conduct. Is this a new issue? There has been a long-running issue that conservatives and members of the Trump administration – dating back to his first term – have with higher education. The Trump administration and other conservatives have said for years that higher education is too liberal. The protests were the flash point that put Columbia in the administration's crosshairs, as well as claims that Columbia was creating a hostile environment for Jewish students. The administration's complaints aren't limited to Columbia. Harvard is in a protracted conflict with the administration, and the administration has launched investigations into dozens of other schools around the country. These universities are butting heads with the administration over the same grievance that higher education is too liberal. There are also specific claims about antisemitism on university campuses and the privileges given to nonwhite students in admissions or campus life. While the administration has a common set of complaints about a range of universities, there is a mix of schools that the administration is taking issue with. Some of them, such as Harvard, are very high profile. The Department of Justice forced out the president at the University of Virginia in January 2025 on the grounds that he had not done enough to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the public university. The University of Virginia may have been a target for the administration because a Republican governor appointed most members of its governance board and agreed with Trump's complaints.
The Print
9 minutes ago
- The Print
India uses BRICS to push reforms—not to challenge the US
These nations are now challenging the hegemony of the West. Calls for de-dollarisation—reducing reliance on the US dollar in trade and finance— are becoming prominent, posing a threat to America's financial and geopolitical dominance. It gives China and Russia (and India too) a louder voice on the world stage. It fuels global economic realignment away from the dollar and Western institutions, pointing to a multipolar world order—something that US President Donald Trump doesn't support. Although forming groups of countries to promote cooperation is common globally, BRICS is more than a conventional grouping. It is a group of countries challenging the clout of the developed powers, particularly the US and European nations. In 2010, the first five members—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—constituted 18 per cent of the global GDP. Their collective share has risen to 26.5 percent in 2025. The latest edition of the BRICS Summit was significant because all 10 member countries participated. It included Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the UAE, which attended as member states for the first time at the 2024 summit in Russia, and Indonesia, which joined in early 2025 as the first Southeast Asian country in the bloc. With its expansion, the group is now known as BRICS Plus—a term first used at the 2024 summit. Trump's worries with BRICS The recent expansion of BRICS, with five new members joining, has increased the worries of the West, particularly the US. And without mincing words, Trump has started expressing his unhappiness over the developments happening in BRICS. Here are the key reasons why Trump opposes BRICS: The primary reason is that both the original members (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and new entrants like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Iran, and Ethiopia are openly discussing reducing reliance on the US dollar in trade and finance. Trump's long-standing 'America First' stance makes any move away from the dollar a direct challenge to U.S. economic influence and its ability to enforce sanctions. The second point that irks Trump is BRICS' geopolitical opposition to the West. BRICS increasingly positions itself as a counterweight to Western institutions like the G7, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. The deepening ties between China and Russia within BRICS are seen as part of a broader anti-Western alignment. Third, Trump has consistently taken a hardline stance on China, through trade wars, tariffs, tech and investment restrictions, etc. BRICS giving China a leadership platform to challenge the US on the global stage agitates him. He views BRICS as a vehicle for China's global expansion under the guise of multipolarity. Fourth, the inclusion of Saudi Arabia and Iran gives BRICS influence over global energy markets. There is growing potential for oil trade to be conducted in non-dollar currencies (e.g., yuan or BRICS currency), which would weaken the petrodollar system—a critical pillar of US global economic power. Fifth, Trump perceives BRICS expansion as a sign that the 'Global South' is drifting away from Western influence, forming its own independent bloc. This runs contrary to Trump's vision of negotiating 'from strength,' where US dominance is unquestioned. Sixth, Trump views global influence in zero-sum terms. Any rise of a non-Western grouping that excludes the US is seen as a personal and national affront. BRICS summits that propose alternative visions for world order without US involvement are perceived as a threat to 'American prestige'—something Trump values highly. He has threatened to impose higher tariffs on countries siding with the BRICS. He has already announced the imposition of 50 per cent tariffs on Brazil. Also read: BRICS nations resist 'anti-American' label after Trump tariff threat India's pragmatic approach Although India is a member of BRICS, its approach is more nuanced, balanced, and pragmatic compared to other members. India's stance is shaped by its national interests, strategic autonomy, and growing global ambitions. While it has been trying to promote its economic interests by promoting international trade and settlements in rupee—thereby reducing dependence on dollar—India is not anti-dollar. It supports a broader effort to diversify the global financial system, reduce dependency on a single currency, and promote a multipolar world order. India has initiated bilateral trade in rupees with countries such as Russia, the UAE, Sri Lanka, and Mauritius to reduce its forex outflows. So far, more than 20 countries have opened Vostro accounts to facilitate trade settlement in domestic currencies. India backs BRICS to create alternative payment mechanisms, like using local currencies or discussions around a potential BRICS currency, but remains cautious about their practicality. India understands the dominance of the dollar in global trade and finance and has not called for its outright replacement (or de-dollarisation). Instead, it favors the coexistence of multiple reserve currencies (like the euro, the yuan, and the rupee). India does not see BRICS as an anti-US bloc. It views the grouping as a platform for reforming global institutions, not for confrontation. India supports a world with multiple power centres, where the voices of emerging economies are better represented. India has been pleading for long to bring reforms in institutions like the United Nations, IMF, and World Bank, which it believes are West-dominated and don't reflect current global realities. In this context, under India's G20 presidency, an expert group was formed to prepare a report on reforms for global financial institutions. This group was co-convened by economists Larry Summers and NK Singh. Their report focused on strengthening Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs). Guided by its own objectives, India uses BRICS to promote cooperation in technology, finance, infrastructure, and sustainable development. If the US is irked by Chinese dominance in BRICS, India too remains wary of China's influence in the bloc and rejects any behaviour that undermines its sovereignty or aligns too closely with Chinese interests. At the global level, India's balanced approach is to serve its national objectives and achieve its goals of protecting its national sovereignty. By promoting international settlements in Indian currency, reducing dependence on dollars, it's also trying to stop the de-weaponisation of dollars. India is promoting self-reliance through 'Aatmanirbhar Bharat', and discourages efforts of others (both the West and China) to weaponise global value chains. By promoting digital rupee payments, India is also trying to de-weaponise payment systems. These efforts protect our own national interest by not allowing others to dominate India. In the past, India has been able to demonstrate its clout by purchasing oil from Russia and Iran, promoting digital payments and pushing for reforms in global institutions at international fora. It's interesting that the US has not objected to these moves—perhaps looking at India as a force to balance the dominance of other countries, including China. Ashwani Mahajan is a professor at PGDAV College, University of Delhi. He tweets @ashwani_mahajan. Views are personal. (Edited by Ratan Priya)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
India-Australia FTA likely in 'very near future', says Australian Trade Min
Australia and India are likely to expand their free trade agreement (FTA) very soon, Bloomberg quoted Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell as saying. Speaking at the Lowy Institute in Sydney on Friday, Farrell said that the two countries were close to finalising the updated trade deal earlier this year. However, Australia's general election in May caused a delay in the negotiations. 'If the election had been a week or so later, we might have finalised the agreement,' Farrell said. He also hinted that India's trade minister is currently busy negotiating tariff exemptions with the Trump administration in the US. 'I think we will get another agreement with India in the very near future,' he added, as quoted by Bloomberg. The initial FTA between Australia and India was signed in April 2022. It removed tariffs on many goods and services traded between the two nations. In 2023, total trade between the two countries was valued at nearly A$50 billion (around $32.9 billion), according to the Australian government. Agriculture products still pending Despite the earlier agreement, several key Australian agricultural products such as chickpeas, dairy, and wheat were excluded. Farrell explained that political challenges required the trade pact with India to be finalised in phases. 'Bits and pieces' of the full agreement would be signed gradually, he said. Farrell also addressed recent comments linking Australia's decision to lift restrictions on US beef imports with US President Donald Trump. The Australian government announced this move a day before Farrell's speech, and Trump had welcomed the decision on his social media platform TruthSocial. However, Farrell clarified that the decision was based on science, not politics. 'We haven't done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement, we think they should do that anyway,' he said, as quoted by Bloomberg. When asked whether this move would make it easier to strike a trade deal with the US under Trump, Farrell responded that it was still uncertain. India, UK seal landmark free trade agreement On Thursday, India and the United Kingdom officially signed a major free trade agreement. The deal was signed during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to the UK and is expected to boost trade between the two nations by $34 billion annually. Under the agreement, India will reduce tariffs on several British goods. For example, whisky tariffs will drop from 150 per cent to 40 per cent over ten years. Import duties on British cars will fall to 10 per cent from more than 100 per cent, under a quota system. India will also lower duties on gin, cosmetics, and medical devices. In return, the UK will allow zero-duty access for 99 per cent of Indian goods such as textiles, leather, marine products, gems, jewellery, toys, and sports equipment. Additionally, Indian companies will be able to bid for public contracts in UK sectors like healthcare, energy, and transport.
