The Wrong War: Why An American Golden Dome Won’t Keep Us Safe

In an executive order, President Trump has called for the development of an “Iron Dome for America,” an initiative that has since been referred to as the “Golden Dome.” Title II, Section 20003 of The Big Beautiful Bill, allocated nearly $25 billion for air and missile defence, although there was no specific mention of the “Golden Dome” itself. Envisioned is a costly, Israeli-style missile defence system designed to intercept all manner of threats. While the rhetoric may resonate with more militaristic and performatively patriotic audiences, the reality is far more concerning: such a system would represent an expensive illusion that misdiagnoses the true threats to U.S. national security.

Israel’s Iron Dome is part of a multi-layered air defence system. It uses radar to detect and intercept short-range rockets, missiles, and drones. Often regarded as the most effective missile defence system in the world, the Iron Dome was developed in response to Israel’s unique predicament. The country faces constant threats from Hezbollah in the north, in Lebanon, and Hamas in the south, in Gaza. The Iron Dome became operational in 2011, largely as a response to the 2006 war, which concluded with Hamas taking control of Gaza. Today, as tensions on Israel’s northern border escalate, the Iron Dome continues to intercept missiles fired by Hezbollah.

In contrast, President Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” envisions a network of potentially hundreds of satellites to detect, track, and intercept incoming missiles. The stated goal of this project is to shield the U.S. from threats posed by China and Russia.

Two of the most immediate concerns with this proposal are its staggering $175 billion price tag and its overall feasibility. Unlike Israel, which is defending against short-range projectiles from regional neighbours, the United States would most likely be targeted with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in a high-level conflict. The Iron Dome, as it currently exists, is not capable of intercepting ICBMs, meaning the Pentagon would have to start from scratch.

Beyond feasibility, the “Golden Dome” reflects a misguided understanding of the nature of modern threats. The United States has fundamentally different geographic and security dynamics than Israel and currently faces greater risks from cyber warfare and domestic operations. Former FBI Director Christopher Wray has repeatedly identified cyber operations, particularly those originating from China, as the most urgent national security threat to the United States.

These warnings have become more tangible in recent years. In 2024, cyber operations from the Chinese Communist Party escalated dramatically, with Taiwan suffering the majority of the attacks. Within the U.S., numerous Chinese-sponsored cyberattacks targeted government agencies and critical infrastructure. A particularly significant breach occurred in December 2024, when the U.S. Treasury Department was hit by a cyberattack linked to Chinese operatives, an act of escalation aimed at intelligence gathering and strategic disruption. That same year, Linda Sun, a former aide to New York governors Andrew Cuomo and Kathy Hochul, was indicted for allegedly acting as an unregistered agent of the Chinese government.

Additional examples suggest that threats to U.S. national security may be far closer to home than a potential ICBM from abroad. Russia, for instance, has been expanding its presence in Mexico, using the country as a base for espionage in what appears to be a revival of Cold War-era tactics. In recent years, Russia has significantly increased its diplomatic staff in Mexico City despite limited economic ties between the two nations. Moreover, in 2019, a Hezbollah operative was convicted of conducting surveillance on FBI offices in New York City, JFK International Airport, and Jewish community centres, passing intelligence to Hezbollah handlers.

While the idea of a “Golden Dome” may sound like a bold step toward strengthening American national security, it distracts from more immediate and realistic dangers. The modern threat landscape is defined not by incoming missiles, but by digital warfare, espionage, and domestic infiltration. U.S. security policy must be grounded in present-day realities, not science fiction fantasies.

Illustration by Will Allen/Europinion