Trump's 'Golden Dome' Won't Work—but It'll Make Elon Musk Richer
Elon Musk, after months omnipresent in the White House, was nowhere near the Oval Office on May 20 when Donald Trump announced his new 'Golden Dome' space weapons system. He didn't have to be. He had already maneuvered his companies to benefit substantially from the $25 billion Trump said he would spend immediately and the hundreds of billions in federal contracts the new effort will spawn.
Though Musk has largely disappeared from Washington and Trump's media feeds, his influence lives on. Earlier this month, the acting inspector general at the Department of Defense got a letter asking for a probe into Musk's lobbying on Golden Dome from 42 congressional Democrats, including the late Representative Gerry Connolly in one of his last acts as the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The members believe that Musk's 'formal or informal participation in any process to award a government contract raises serious conflict of interest concerns, including the possibility that SpaceX is a top contender for the Golden Dome contract because of Mr. Musk's position in the government.'
This, they said, 'raises concerns about whether defense contracts to build a Golden Dome are an effective way to protect Americans or are meant to enrich Mr. Musk and other elites.'
Their fears are well grounded. Though the 60-year pursuit of an effective national missile defense system began with an ideological desire to replace arms-control agreements with a military shield, for decades, the primary driver has been the pursuit of lucrative contracts.
Musk understands that there is a lot of money to be made in missile defense. The program has grown from a relatively modest $3 billion a year, back when Ronald Reagan first started talking it up during the 1980s, to over $30 billion a year for 'missile defense and defeat programs' today. Since the development of the first interceptors in 1962, the government has spent more than $531 billion on 'multiple ineffective missile defense schemes,' according to Stephen Schwartz, a nuclear budget analyst. Over $453 billion of that was spent in failed efforts launched by Reagan in 1983 to fulfill his fantasy of a shield that could 'protect us from ballistic missiles just as a roof protects a family from rain.'
All we have to show for the effort is 44 ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California that are so flawed that the Pentagon last year awarded Lockheed Martin an $18 billion contract to build a brand-new replacement system. While missile defenses against short-range rockets, like those Hamas fired into Israel, can be effective, no country has built a system that can reliably shoot down nuclear missiles that travel thousands of miles at many times the speed of sound.
Trump claims that Reagan 'didn't have the technology,' but now we have 'super technology' that will provide 'close to 100 percent protection' against 'hypersonic missiles, ballistic missiles, and advanced cruise missiles; all of them will be knocked out of the air.' Even better, said Trump, the whole thing will only cost $175 billion and be 'fully operational before the end of my term.'
This is all nonsense, of course. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a Golden Dome system would cost as much as $831 billion over two decades. Scientists warn that even if all the complex technology and computer software works flawlessly, an adversary could defeat the defenses by simply launching a salvo of missiles that would overwhelm the system and deploying basic countermeasures that could spoof the sensors.
Whether the systems works or not doesn't matter for the contractors who get rich on contracts to design, develop, and deploy these weapons. That may be why Musk has partnered with two other companies owned by Trump supporters, software maker Palantir and drone builder Anduril, to help design and build the system. Musk's company estimates that the initial design contracts alone could be worth between $6 billion and 10 billion, according to Reuters.
Think of it as a 'pump and dump' scam, where investors buy a cheap stock, inflate its value with hype and exaggerated expectations, then get rich by selling the stock at the inflated levels. Here, contractors and their government supporters take an old, devalued concept, pump up its value with exaggerated promises of instant success, secure big, multiyear contracts to build it, then get even more contracts for more systems when the ones they built don't work.
SpaceX is lobbying the Pentagon to win the contract for the 'custody layer' of the proposed system. That would involve launching thousands of satellites into orbit to detect missile attacks. It might also include hundreds or thousands of satellites that would attempt to intercept these missiles as they rise through the atmosphere. Reuters reported that one of the sources familiar with the talks described them as 'a departure from the usual acquisition process. There's an attitude that the national security and defense community has to be sensitive and deferential to Elon Musk because of his role in the government.'
Trump's call for the accelerated deployment of the system also benefits SpaceX, which is the world's leader in space launches. This rapid schedule 'could advantage Mr. Musk's companies and could result in a faulty end product,' warn the congressional Democrats in their letter, 'that wastes billions of dollars and leaves our country with a false sense of security.'
There are also reports that SpaceX is pushing for a 'subscription model' for Golden Dome, similar to Musk's Starlink system. Musk would own the satellites and lease them to the government, ensuring lucrative payments for years to come. 'A subscription model would also give Mr. Musk unacceptable ongoing leverage over United States national security. Mr. Musk could, as he allegedly did in Ukraine, determine when to provide the U.S. government with access to Golden Dome satellite systems,' say the Democrats.
Musk's activities may violate government ethic rules against using a public office for private gain and criminal prohibitions against participating in government decisions in which he has a financial interest, the Democrats assert in their letter. So far, there is no move in the administration to block Musk's activities.
National missile defense is the longest-running scam in the history of the Department of Defense. Musk didn't invent it, but he's about to get a whole lot richer by perpetuating it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
For these Trump voters, a rubber-stamp Congress is a key demand
Advertisement And they reserved their purest aversion for Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the solidly conservative former longtime party leader, whom they described alternately as an 'obstructionist' to Trump's agenda, a 'snake in the grass,' and a 'bowl of Jell-O' with no spine. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Their perspectives offered a striking contrast to the reception that many Republican lawmakers have confronted at raucous town halls throughout the country in recent months. The lawmakers have been grilled and booed by constituents at these events for supporting Trump's policies on tariffs, immigration and, most recently, the domestic policy bill that the GOP pushed through the House in May. And they help explain why most Republican lawmakers have put aside any reservations they may have on key issues and backed the president -- because a critical portion of their party's base is still demanding that they do so. Advertisement 'For loyal Trump voters, they're loving what they see as him 'doing something' and don't want congressional Republicans getting in the way of his agenda,' said Sarah Longwell, the anti-Trump Republican strategist who conducted the focus groups. 'And members of Congress have gotten that message loud and clear.' These voters represent only a piece of the electorate that Republicans must court in the run-up to midterm congressional elections in which their governing trifecta is on the line. Since Trump took office, GOP lawmakers have struggled to defend his executive actions and his efforts to dismantle the federal bureaucracy and unilaterally defund government programs, and to explain to their constituents why they are not doing more to challenge him. In Nebraska this past week, Representative Mike Flood faced an angry crowd grilling him on the Medicaid and food assistance cuts included in the domestic policy bill. And he admitted he had been unaware that the measure included a provision to limit the power of federal judges to hold people, including Trump administration officials, in contempt for disobeying court orders. But Longwell's sessions, videos of which were shared with The New York Times, were a reminder that there is still a powerful pull for Republicans to swallow whatever disagreements they may have with Trump and bow to what he wants. Since the beginning of this Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson, whose too-slim majority in the House leaves him little latitude to maneuver, has positioned himself less as the leader of the legislative branch and more as a junior partner to Trump. That stance is exactly what these voters, whom Longwell identified only by their first names and last initials to protect their privacy, said they liked about him. Advertisement Arthur M., a voter from Arizona, described Johnson as 'loyal,' adding, 'I'm not saying they should never have any other ideas of their own, but they certainly shouldn't have someone dissenting if you're trying to put an agenda through -- and that's what the Congress is.' Jeff B., a voter from Georgia, said Johnson always appeared to be 'in over his head.' But he did not see that as a negative. 'He's not the kind of guy like Mitch McConnell, who was pulling all the strings,' he said. 'He's struggling, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be. He looks like he's in over his head, and I think that's the way it's supposed to be.' The voters who participated in the focus groups, which were conducted May 16 and 19, had uniformly negative views of those House Republicans they viewed as 'rabble-rousers,' which they defined as anyone expressing an opinion that was not in sync with the White House. Jane H., a voter from Indiana, criticized her Congress member, Representative Victoria Spartz, an unpredictable lawmaker who often sides with the hard right, for being 'out of line' when she makes noises about opposing Trump's agenda. Gilbert W. from North Carolina held a similar view of Murkowski, who has routinely broken with her party to criticize Trump. 'Murkowski -- this woman's never found anything on the Republican side she really goes for,' he said, calling her a 'troublemaker.' In contrast, Allen K. from Arizona praised his Congress member, Representative Juan Ciscomani, for never making any waves. Advertisement 'Whatever Trump does, he'll say,' he said of Ciscomani, describing that as a positive. As for Senator John Thune, the new majority leader from South Dakota, he earned kudos mostly for not being McConnell. 'He's pressing Trump's agenda, it seems like,' Gilbert W. said. 'What else can you ask for?' Jane H., a three-time Trump voter, said, 'What I want to see is someone who will work hard and effectively to advance a conservative agenda, and to work closely with the White House to advance at this time Donald Trump's agenda. It's what the American people want, so that's what John Thune should be doing.' Many of the participants in the focus groups had only vague impressions of their own representatives, a reminder that to many voters, Congress remains a faceless institution of 535 mostly anonymous lawmakers about whom they don't have particularly strong feelings. That could help explain why most appeared to judge their elected officials almost exclusively according to how deferential they were to Trump, about whom they expressed potent -- and extremely positive -- sentiments. Asked for his opinions on Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Steve C., a voter from Michigan, said, 'I don't have an opinion on anyone specifically.' This article originally appeared in
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump to meet with Germany's Merz in Washington next week
President Trump is set to meet with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz next week in Washington, marking the first in-person meeting between the two leaders. Merz, the leader of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who was elected as Germany's leader in early March, is expected to visit Trump at the White House on Thursday, June 5, Germany government spokesperson Stefan Kornelius said Saturday in a press release. The discussions between the two countries' leaders will focus on bilateral relations between the two, along with discussions around the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, developments in the Middle East and trade policy, according to Kornelius. A White House official confirmed the meeting details to The Hill on Saturday. Merz, similar to Trump, has been pushing for a ceasefire deal in the more than three-year-long war between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had a meeting with Merz on Wednesday in Berlin. There, Merz said that Germany will bolster its backing of Ukraine as part of a more than $5.5 billion agreement, including sending over more military equipment and increasing weapons manufacturing in Kyiv. Germany's chancellor has clashed with members of Trump's administration over the country's government marking the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party as an 'extremist' political entity. 'Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition. That's not democracy—it's tyranny in disguise,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote earlier this month on social media platform X. 'What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD—which took second in the recent election — but rather the establishment's deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes.' Vice President Vance piled on, accusing the government of trying to 'destroy' AfD, which also considers tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk a strong supporter. Merz has pushed back on Trump administration's officials meddling in Germany's domestic politics. 'We have largely stayed out of the American election campaign in recent years, and that includes me personally,' Merz said in an interview with Axel Springer Global Reporters Network that was published on May 7. He added that he told U.S. officials that 'we have not taken sides with either candidate. And I ask you to accept that in return.'
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Tariffs Face Threat at Supreme Court — Over Rulings That Blocked Biden
(Bloomberg) -- A legal argument that the US Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Where the Wild Children's Museums Are During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the 'major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The US Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having 'staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. 'If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. 'We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the US since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the US's average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the US and other major global economies. Presidential Exception The administration contends the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs – policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. 'No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may 'regulate' the 'importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together 'provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. Ideological Split So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. 'We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the 'major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. 'The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. 'When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. 'The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. 'It's left its options completely open.' --With assistance from Shawn Donnan. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce How Coach Handbags Became a Gen Z Status Symbol Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? AI Is Helping Executives Tackle the Dreaded Post-Vacation Inbox ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
