Lawmaker: Trump’s Golden Dome Plan Could Have Dangerous Consequences

The proposed Golden Dome missile defense system raises profound questions about national security strategy and fiscal responsibility. Representative Scott DesJarlais has questioned whether U.S. missile defense should continue focusing on threats from rogue states and accidental launches rather than explicitly countering missiles from major powers like China or Russia. He described the longstanding policy of Mutually Assured Destruction as “outdated,” signaling a significant shift in defense philosophy.

Despite several proposed amendments failing in committee, one successfully advanced that would bar the Pentagon from developing a privatized or subscription-based missile defense capability. This measure insists that any such system must be owned and operated by the U.S. military. The broader National Defense Authorization Act moved forward with overwhelming support, though it still requires reconciliation with the Senate version before reaching the president’s desk.

Cost projections for the Golden Dome program vary dramatically, with initial estimates around $175 billion over three years and long-term forecasts soaring as high as $542 billion across two decades. A major complicating factor is the absence of a finalized architectural plan. The envisioned system includes a sprawling network of space-based sensors and interceptors, augmented by sea- and ground-based assets, all integrated through a yet-to-be-developed command and control framework.

Critical technical and strategic details remain unresolved. Will interceptors use kinetic impactors or directed-energy weapons? How many will be needed? What specific threats will they address? These unanswered questions have not prevented funding approval, with congressional Republicans allocating $25 billion to initiate the program under the Trump-endorsed legislative package.

Representative Seth Moulton, a former Marine officer with a background in physics and public policy, has emerged as a vocal skeptic. He argues that the initiative lacks a coherent strategic foundation and could dangerously undermine global stability. By eroding adversaries’ confidence in mutual deterrence, Moulton warns, the system might inadvertently increase the likelihood of nuclear escalation.

In a recent interview, Moulton emphasized that the decision to engage an intercontinental ballistic missile must remain a governmental responsibility, not delegated to private contractors. He expressed concern over rumors that the administration considered a subscription-based model involving aerospace and defense firms.

Moulton also critiqued the administration’s failure to articulate a clear rationale for Golden Dome, suggesting the effort may be driven more by political symbolism than strategic necessity. He noted that even potential advantages, such as advances in directed-energy technology, have not been seriously evaluated or presented as part of a credible defense proposal.

The conversation extended to broader space security concerns, including the development of counter-space capabilities by the U.S. and its adversaries. While acknowledging the regrettable militarization of space, Moulton stressed the need for preparedness in a landscape where international agreements are increasingly ignored.

Amid rapid developments in military space operations, from acquisition reforms to engagement protocols, Moulton insists that the potential dangers of the Golden Dome initiative demand urgent and transparent debate. Without a clear strategic vision, he cautions, the program risks being not just wasteful, but perilously destabilizing.

(Source: Ars Technica)