Lawmakers Question Ambitious Homeland Defense System After Closed-Door Briefing
Following a classified briefing on Tuesday, some Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) voiced concerns regarding the cost and technical feasibility of the Golden Dome missile shield, an ambitious homeland defense system championed by President Donald Trump.
Guetlein Briefs SASC on Initial Architecture
Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director for the Golden Dome, presented the initial architecture for the system to SASC members in his first interaction with the committee since being appointed to lead the effort in May. While lawmakers generally praised Guetlein’s leadership and improved transparency from the Pentagon, several Democrats expressed lingering doubts about the program’s value for taxpayer dollars.
Doubts Over Reliability and Expense
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), ranking Democrat on SASC’s tactical air and land subcommittee, maintained his „reservations” about the program, emphasizing the need for extremely high reliability. „This is an incredibly expensive system. It’s complicated. The physics are really hard… We need a lot more information before we make decisions to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars,” Kelly stated.
Feasibility and Timeline Concerns
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) reiterated his existing anxieties about the program’s cost, timeline, and overall feasibility. He highlighted that independent experts have projected significantly longer timelines and higher costs than the Pentagon’s estimates.
Vigorous Questioning on Price Tag
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) noted that while the program is progressing, Guetlein faced „vigorous and challenging” questions, particularly concerning its hefty price tag. „I think everybody on both sides of the aisle is still really trying to get their head around that, whether the numbers that have been publicly floated are sufficient,” Kaine said.
Limited Details Emerge, Industry Investment Expected
Few specific details about Golden Dome have been publicly released beyond the President’s vision of a comprehensive homeland defense system capable of intercepting cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missiles by the end of his administration. While a $25 billion down payment was made in the reconciliation bill, a comprehensive budget plan remains undisclosed. Indications suggest that industry partners will be required to contribute internal research funding to participate in the project.
Pentagon Statement Emphasizes Strategic Imperative
In a statement, a Pentagon official affirmed that the department met its deadline to develop an initial architecture, which is currently under review. „We continue doing our part to meet the President’s vision as Golden Dome for America remains a strategic imperative to protect our Homeland,” the official stated.
Cost Estimate Remains Consistent
Lawmakers declined to share specific details about the timeline, cost, and technologies associated with Golden Dome, citing classification concerns. However, when asked if the cost estimate still aligns with Trump’s previous figure of $175 billion, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who chairs SASC’s tactical air and land subcommittee, confirmed that „it does.”
Push for Live Testing Over Simulations
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Ala.) emphasized the need for aggressive live testing of the Golden Dome system, contrasting it with the Missile Defense Agency’s perceived „risk averse culture” that relies heavily on simulations. Sullivan expressed satisfaction with Guetlein’s commitment to real-world testing, stating that SASC’s version of the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill includes a live-fire requirement for the program. „I think their goal…is to be super aggressive on live testing, real testing, not just simulations,” Sullivan said.
