Eurasia Press & News
US President Donald Trump unveiled his long-promised missile defense shield initiative in early 2025, codifying what was then known as the “Iron Dome for America” through an executive order shortly after returning to office. The initiative, which Trump repeatedly touted during his campaign, represents a bold and controversial shift in American national security policy.
At a press conference at the White House last week, flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Gen. Michael A. Guetlein, the US Space Force’s vice chair of space operations and the newly appointed head of the project, Trump described the initiative — now branded as “Golden Dome” — as a major leap forward in American missile defense and a historic breakthrough in space-based deterrence.
Trump framed it as the completion of President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, which was introduced more than 40 years ago. Whereas Reagan’s vision in the 1980s was aspirational — described at the time as a long-term research and development program — Trump’s is the real deal because the technology now exists to realize that vision. The president noted that space-based sensors and interceptors will be deployed and operational before the end of his term in 2029.
The president said the Golden Dome would serve as an integrated defense shield against “any and all missile threats,” promising protection from projectiles launched from across the globe — or from space itself. The objective, as Hegseth said, is to “rebuild our military capability and reestablish deterrence.” The architecture will incorporate land, sea, air and space-based platforms, and Canada will be part of it. As Politico noted, Trump’s reliance on Canada is crucial, especially to track and neutralize potential missile launches from Russia or China.
But as bold as the announcement was, it immediately drew fierce criticism from scientists, arms control advocates and US rivals, as did the Strategic Defense Initiative under Reagan. While the Trump administration heralded the initiative as a technological breakthrough and a national security imperative, its critics warned of potentially devastating implications: an escalation of great power competition, the erosion of global arms control frameworks and an arms race in space.
The central legal question is whether the Golden Dome violates the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the foundational international agreement governing space activities. This treaty explicitly prohibits the placement of “nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction” in orbit or on celestial bodies. However, the treaty does not ban conventional weapons — an omission that arms control experts now regard as a critical loophole.
China’s Foreign Ministry voiced its “grave concern” over the Golden Dome, accusing Washington of undermining the principle of peaceful use of space enshrined in the Outer Space Treaty. A spokesperson warned that the initiative could “heighten the risk of turning space into a war zone and creating a space arms race, shaking the foundations of the international arms control system.”
Russia’s response was more measured, reflecting the delicate timing of US-Russia negotiations over the war in Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov suggested the project might provide an opening for renewed strategic arms talks. “The very course of events requires the resumption of contacts on issues of strategic stability,” he said.
At the UN, recent efforts to forestall an arms race in space have faltered. In the fall of 2024, a draft resolution introduced at the UN Security Council by the US and Japan — to ban nuclear and mass destructive weapons in space — was blocked by Russia and China. Ironically, both powers argued that the resolution did not go far enough, as it excluded conventional weapons.
Though Trump did not explicitly mention China or Russia during his Golden Dome announcement, the initiative is widely viewed as targeting these two adversaries. With tensions with Beijing rising over Taiwan and Moscow’s global influence diminished by war and sanctions, Washington appears to be recalibrating its defense posture with China as the primary long-term competitor.
Nonetheless, Russia remains a concern. Despite its weakened geopolitical position, it maintains a powerful nuclear arsenal and significant space capabilities. As one arms control expert put it, “Russia may be the junior partner in the threat equation, but it’s still a partner.”
While the Trump administration insists that the Golden Dome is purely defensive, opponents say the deployment of space-based interceptors effectively weaponizes space, destabilizes deterrence and encourages adversaries to develop or deploy similar capabilities. The Arms Control Association has condemned the plan as a costly “strategic blunder,” calling it “deeply flawed, technically complex and counterproductive.” The group urged the administration to negotiate a follow-on agreement with Russia to maintain New START limits until a broader treaty can be secured.
The initiative has stirred controversy in Congress. Democrats have slammed the project as wasteful and misaligned with national priorities. With $25 billion allocated in the 2025 budget and estimates ranging from $161 billion to more than $540 billion over two decades (according to the Congressional Budget Office), critics are questioning the cost-benefit ratio.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, backed by 42 Democratic lawmakers, called for an investigation into the defense contracts awarded for the project. Accusations of profiteering have surfaced, particularly involving Elon Musk and his company SpaceX and its investors.
Some defense analysts argue that the declining cost of space launches has made space-based defense more feasible than in the Reagan era. Others, including scientists from the American Physical Society, argue that, even with modern technology, the fundamental challenge remains: hitting a fast-moving missile with another object in space is akin to “hitting a bullet with a bullet.” Victoria Samson of the Secure World Foundation acknowledged technological advances but noted, “the laws of physics have not changed.”
The Golden Dome arrives at a moment of deep uncertainty in global arms control. The Cold War-era architecture painstakingly built over decades has all but crumbled. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is gone, as is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The last remaining agreement — New START — is set to expire in 2026. The US and Russia have suspended participation in most of these agreements and China has never been a party to any of them.
By introducing a space-based missile shield, Trump risks opening a Pandora’s box. With space already declared a warfighting domain by both NATO and the US, and with the emergence of powerful new space actors, the Golden Dome may fundamentally alter the character of space security.
Trump’s Golden Dome may be technologically ambitious and politically bold, but its implications are profound and far-reaching. It challenges long-standing international norms, stirs geopolitical tensions and threatens to accelerate the weaponization of space.
As arms control frameworks erode and space becomes the next frontier of competition, the world faces a stark choice: will space remain a shared, peaceful domain or will it become the next theater of strategic conflict? If Trump truly wishes to cement his legacy not just as a protector but as a peacemaker, he may need to extend his diplomatic ambitions skyward — into the final frontier.
