The Pentagon is asking taxpayers to take an enormous bet on Golden Dome. This week’s Senate hearing offered little reassurance that the payoff will match the price.
Golden Dome Director Gen. Michael Guetlein has put the cost of Golden Dome at roughly $185 billion over the next decade. That number alone would be an immense burden on taxpayers. But at Tuesday’s hearing before the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reiterated its estimate that a national missile defense system consistent with the goals laid out for Golden Dome could cost about $1.2 trillion over 20 years. Other outside estimates run higher still: the American Enterprise Institute put the cost of a “robust architecture” at $3.6 trillion over two decades.
CBO noted in its written testimony that the dramatic difference between its estimate and the Pentagon’s $185 billion figure suggests Golden Dome will either be significantly more limited than originally envisioned, rely on substantial funding from other Pentagon accounts, or both. That second possibility is important for taxpayers. If other Pentagon accounts are paying part of the bill for Golden Dome, the program’s sticker price would not reflect its true cost.
Even the system CBO estimated at $1.2 trillion would have significant limits. The most expensive element, a constellation of space-based interceptors designed to destroy missiles shortly after launch, would require about 7,800 satellites just to engage 10 intercontinental ballistic missiles. And “engage” does not mean “defeat.” In its testimony, CBO emphasized that no missile defense works perfectly every time. Such a trillion-dollar system could still be overwhelmed by a large-scale attack from Russia or China, which possess hundreds of ICBMs.
The space-based interceptor layer alone would cost taxpayers about $743 billion over two decades. CBO’s testimony put the lifespan of those interceptors at about five years, meaning roughly 1,600 replacements would be needed every year to maintain the system. Taxpayers would keep paying for replacements for as long as that layer remained in operation. Yet the Pentagon is moving forward before the program’s full costs are clear. On September 14, Air Force Secretary Troy Meink announced that space-based interceptors for Golden Dome are now “flight ready,” even though the program’s architecture has not been made public or even shared with CBO.
The hearing also brought into focus how much protection the program would actually provide. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) asked witness David Trachtenberg whether every American could be protected by Golden Dome. Trachtenberg, a former deputy under secretary of defense who supports the program, said no. King followed with a revealing question: “Who decides who is protected and who isn’t?”
Another witness who supports Golden Dome, Thomas Karako of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was even more explicit in his written testimony: “Perfect or geographically comprehensive defense is impossible.” In response to Sen. King, he proposed that the Pentagon could rank assets by their national security importance. He appeared to go so far as to suggest Guam would be more important to defend than Los Angeles. These limitations stand in stark contrast to the original executive order for Golden Dome, which called for a system capable of defending “citizens and critical infrastructure against any foreign aerial attack on the Homeland.”
And Golden Dome is not competing for taxpayer dollars in a vacuum. Every dollar spent on large-scale projects like Golden Dome is a dollar that cannot be spent addressing other pressing defense needs. As we recently flagged, the U.S. Navy has a serious shipyard capacity issue, and the Iran War is depleting the DoD’s munitions supply faster than it can replace them.
During his questioning at this week’s hearing, Sen. King warned, “The most serious national security threat facing this country today is the $40 trillion debt.” The country can’t afford to add to that debt with weapons systems that don’t work or underdeliver.
After this week’s hearing, the central taxpayer question remains unanswered: How much protection will Golden Dome actually provide, and is that protection worth its extraordinary cost given competing defense priorities and the nation’s $40 trillion debt?
