In the world of defense spending, it’s easy to get lost in promises of impenetrable shields and technological marvels. The Trump administration’s proposal for the Golden Dome missile defense shield, which was sold as a means to protect the U.S. from a range of aerial threats, sounded almost too good to be true. But, as we start to unpack the costs and promises, a glaring gap emerges between ambition and reality. Can this ambitious, multi-layered system really live up to its promises? And, more importantly, how much will it cost?
The Golden Dome proposal is nothing short of audacious. First conceptualized as a shield against the growing arsenal of global missile threats, the plan aims to protect the U.S. from ballistic, hypersonic, cruise missiles, and even small drones. This anti-missile shield is supposed to cost only $175 billion, according to a May 2025 White House briefing by President Trump. But is that realistic?
Not really.
The Reality Below the Dome
A study released by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) sheds light on the staggering costs involved. The research illustrates the massive gap between the funding proposed and the full realization of Golden Dome’s capabilities. Todd Harrison, the lead researcher, warns that the promised $175 billion might only cover the first three years of the project — and that’s a bare-bones version.
As Harrison puts it, “The capabilities this level of funding can buy fall far short of what the president promised, creating a multi-trillion-dollar gap between rhetoric and reality.” To make the system truly effective, Harrison’s team calculated that it would take a jaw-dropping $3.6 trillion over 20 years—almost triple the cost of the F-35 fighter jet program, the most expensive military program in history. That’s about 100 times more than the WWII Manhattan Project that led to the first atomic bomb, Ars Technica reports.
The Gargantuan Costs of the Gold Dome
Golden Dome’s architecture includes layers of defense: ground-based interceptors, space-based interceptors, and a variety of airborne and sea-based sensors. The various layers aim to counter everything from small, low-flying drones to high-speed intercontinental ballistic missiles.
At the heart of the project is the promise of space-based interceptors — something that has never been done before. To build a defense system capable of intercepting missiles in space, the Pentagon would need to launch thousands of interceptors into orbit. The price tag for this alone is staggering, with some estimates suggesting that between $161 billion to $542 billion would be needed just to deploy up to 2,000 interceptors over the next 20 years .
But space-based interceptors are only part of the equation. The costs of additional radars, missile warning satellites, and interceptor batteries add up quickly. For example, a modest missile defense setup designed to protect major U.S. population centers and military bases would still require nearly $471 billion over the next 20 years.
Harrison’s research also highlights the trade-offs involved. If the U.S. opts for a more restrained, cost-effective system, it would focus primarily on defending against smaller threats — drones and cruise missiles. In contrast, a fully robust Golden Dome, which includes defenses against all known threats, would require an astronomical budget of $3.6 trillion.
Tension Over Budgets
The Golden Dome represents an enormous commitment of resources, and many are questioning whether it is even feasible. The study from AEI notes that even the most advanced systems in Golden Dome would struggle to meet the promises made by the Trump administration. “A system that protects against the full range of aerial threats posed by peer and near-peer adversaries could cost $3.6 trillion,” Harrison explains. “Even then, it would fall short of the ‘100 percent’ effectiveness claimed.”
Moreover, the U.S. is already facing rising tensions over defense spending. Many critics argue that funds could be better allocated elsewhere. The cost of Golden Dome doesn’t just impact the Pentagon’s budget. With such a massive undertaking, the entire economy could face consequences in terms of borrowing and higher taxes.
As lawmakers consider whether the project is worth the staggering price tag, they must grapple with the trade-offs between national security and the economic and political consequences of such a commitment. “How much is enough?” Harrison asks. No defense system can provide total protection. The real question, he suggests, is how much risk policymakers are willing to accept in balancing defense spending with other national priorities.
Concerns about Scale and Strategy
Supporters of Golden Dome argue that advances in space-based technologies — like satellite constellations and commercial space launches — have made this project more feasible than it would have been in the Reagan era, when something like this was first proposed. Today’s lower costs for satellite launches and advances in sensor technologies could potentially make space-based defense systems more viable.
However, the reality of deploying and maintaining these systems is far from certain. The high costs of space-based interceptors and the sheer scale required to make them effective remain formidable challenges. Space-based defenses would need to track missiles as they enter the atmosphere and intercept them before they can reach their target.
The AEI’s research also highlights lesser talked about strategic implications. The project could potentially spark a new arms race, pushing other countries to enhance their own missile capabilities. Most likely, countries like Russia and China would deploy (more) missiles and nuclear weapons in space.
The Bottom Line: What Does It Mean for the U.S.?
As the research shows, there’s a yawning gap between the administration’s goals and what can be achieved within the proposed budget. The system’s complexity only adds to the uncertainty about its feasibility. In the end, as much as Golden Dome promises to shield the U.S. from aerial threats, the debate centers not on technical feasibility, but on whether America can — or should — shoulder the financial burden required for its development.
With this in mind, the real question is whether the U.S. can balance its ambitions with the reality of cost, technology, and global politics. Golden Dome may very well remain a costly fantasy — one that could have profound economic and strategic consequences for the nation.
