{"id":43812,"date":"2025-08-27T19:45:34","date_gmt":"2025-08-27T11:45:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/lawmaker-trumps-golden-dome-will-end-the-madness-and-thats-not-a-good-thing\/"},"modified":"2025-08-27T19:45:34","modified_gmt":"2025-08-27T11:45:34","slug":"lawmaker-trumps-golden-dome-will-end-the-madness-and-thats-not-a-good-thing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/lawmaker-trumps-golden-dome-will-end-the-madness-and-thats-not-a-good-thing\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawmaker: Trump\u2019s Golden Dome will end the madness, and that\u2019s not a good thing"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat in his 11th year on Capitol Hill, had some things to say when the House Armed Services Committee met last month to write President Trump\u2019s Golden Dome missile defense shield into law.<\/p>\n

The Republican-led committee debated and voted on an annual defense policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a sprawling piece of catch-all legislation that does everything from setting pay raises for service members to determining how many airplanes and ships the Pentagon should buy.<\/p>\n

Moulton is the top Democrat on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, a panel that oversees the military\u2019s nuclear and space programs. In this role, the congressman representing Massachusetts\u2019 North Shore is using his voice to counter the Trump administration\u2019s signature initiative in the military space arena. Ars recently spoke with Moulton, and we present the interview in its entirety below.<\/p>\n

But first, let\u2019s set the scene.<\/p>\n

President Trump signed an executive order on January 27, just one week into his second term in the White House, directing the Pentagon to develop a layered air and missile defense shield to protect the US homeland. Trump called the system the Iron Dome for America, a spin on Israel\u2019s Iron Dome missile defense shield. A month later, the White House renamed the idea the \u201cGolden Dome.\u201d<\/p>\n

Deterrence or defeat?<\/h2>\n

Amid committee debates on culture war issues and earmarks for various defense programs, Moulton proposed a series of amendments that would make changes to the Golden Dome. In one of his amendments, Moulton proposed a clause that he said would have reaffirmed the US military\u2019s long-standing doctrine of nuclear deterrence known as \u201cMutually Assured Destruction\u201d (MAD). In other words, an adversary should think twice about a nuclear strike against the United States because the US would launch an overwhelming nuclear attack in response.<\/p>\n

Moulton argued that a missile shield like the Golden Dome would change the decision-making of a potential adversary. If another country\u2019s leaders believe the United States can protect itself from widespread destruction\u2014and therefore remove the motivation for a massive US response\u2014that might be enough for an adversary to pull the trigger on a nuclear attack. Inevitably, at least a handful of nuclear-tipped missiles would make it through the Golden Dome shield in such a scenario, and countless Americans would die, Moulton said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf nations know that they will get obliterated if they use nuclear weapons against us, they are never going to use them,\u201d Moulton said in the House Armed Services Committee\u2019s markup hearing.<\/p>\n

Rep. John Garamendi, D-California, put it succinctly: \u201cIf you\u2019re playing defense, you\u2019re likely to lose\u2026 somebody out there is going to figure out a way to get around it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moulton\u2019s Republican counterpart on the strategic forces subcommittee, Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, had a different view of the matter. The US military\u2019s existing missile defense system is limited in reach. It\u2019s designed to take down a small number of missiles launched at the United States from a \u201crogue state\u201d like North Korea, not a volley of hundreds of missiles from a nuclear superpower.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

\u201cThe underlying issue here is whether US missile defense should remain focused on the threat from rogue states and\u2026 accidental launches, and explicitly refrain from countering missile threats from China or Russia,\u201d DesJarlais said. He called the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction \u201coutdated.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

President Donald Trump speaks alongside Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in the Oval Office at the White House on May 20, 2025, in Washington, DC. President Trump announced his plans for the Golden Dome, a national ballistic and cruise missile defense system.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

Moulton\u2019s amendment on nuclear deterrence failed to pass the committee in a voice vote, as did another Moulton proposal that would have tapped the brakes on developing space-based interceptors.<\/p>\n

But one of Moulton\u2019s amendments did make it through the committee. This amendment, if reconciled with the Senate, would prohibit the Pentagon from developing a privatized or subscription-based missile defense intercept capability. The amendment says the US military can own and operate such a system.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the House Armed Services Committee voted 55\u20132 to send the NDAA to a vote on the House floor. Then, lawmakers must hash out the differences between the House version of the NDAA with a bill written in the Senate before sending the final text to the White House for President Trump to sign into law.<\/p>\n

More questions than answers<\/h2>\n

The White House says the missile shield will cost $175 billion over the next three years. But that\u2019s just to start. A network of space-based missile sensors and interceptors, as prescribed in Trump\u2019s executive order, will eventually number thousands of satellites in low-Earth orbit. The Congressional Budget Office reported in May that the Golden Dome program may ultimately cost up to $542 billion over 20 years.<\/p>\n

The problem with all of the Golden Dome cost estimates is that the Pentagon has not settled on an architecture. We know the system will consist of a global network of satellites with sensors to detect and track missile launches, plus numerous interceptors in orbit to take out targets in space and during their \u201cboost phase\u201d when they\u2019re moving relatively slowly through the atmosphere.<\/p>\n

The Pentagon will order more sea- and ground-based interceptors to destroy missiles, drones, and aircraft as they near their targets within the United States. All of these weapons must be interconnected with a sophisticated command and control network that doesn\u2019t yet exist.<\/p>\n

Will Golden Dome\u2019s space-based interceptors use kinetic kill vehicles to physically destroy missiles targeting the United States? Or will the interceptors rely on directed energy weapons like lasers or microwave signals to disable their targets? How many interceptors are actually needed?<\/p>\n

These are all questions without answers. Despite the lack of detail, congressional Republicans approved $25 billion for the Pentagon to get started on the Golden Dome program as part of the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The bill passed Congress with a party-line vote last month.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Israel\u2019s Iron Dome aerial defense system intercepts a rocket launched from the Gaza Strip on May 11, 2021.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n Jack Guez\/AFP via Getty Images<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

Moulton earned a bachelor\u2019s degree in physics and master\u2019s degrees in business and public administration from Harvard University. He served as a Marine Corps platoon leader in Iraq and was part of the first company of Marines to reach Baghdad during the US invasion of 2003. Moulton ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 but withdrew from the race before the first primary contest.<\/p>\n

The text of our interview with Moulton is published below. It is lightly edited for length and clarity.<\/p>\n

Ars:<\/strong><\/em> One of your amendments that passed committee would prevent the DoD from using a subscription or pay-for-service model for the Golden Dome. What prompted you to write that amendment?<\/p>\n

Moulton:<\/strong><\/em> There were some rumors we heard that this is a model that the administration was pursuing, and there was reporting in mid-April suggesting that SpaceX was partnering with Anduril and Palantir to offer this kind of subscription service where, basically, the government would pay to access the technology rather than own the system. This isn\u2019t an attack on any of these companies or anything. It\u2019s a reassertion of the fundamental belief that these are responsibilities of our government. The decision to engage an intercontinental ballistic missile is a decision that the government must make, not some contractors working at one of these companies.<\/p>\n

Ars:<\/strong><\/em> Basically, the argument you\u2019re making is that war-fighting should be done by the government and the armed forces, not by contractors or private companies, right?<\/p>\n

Moulton:<\/strong><\/em> That\u2019s right, and it\u2019s a fundamental belief that I\u2019ve had for a long time. I was completely against contractors in Iraq when I was serving there as a younger Marine, but I can\u2019t think of a place where this is more important than when you\u2019re talking about nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n

Ars:<\/strong><\/em> One of the amendments that you proposed, but didn\u2019t pass, was intended to reaffirm the nation\u2019s strategy of nuclear deterrence. What was the purpose of this amendment?<\/p>\n

Moulton:<\/strong><\/em> Let\u2019s just start by saying this is fundamentally why we have to have a theory that forms a foundation for spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Golden Dome has no clear design, no real cost estimate, and no one has explained how this protects or enhances strategic stability. And there\u2019s a lot of evidence that it would make strategic stability worse because our adversaries would no longer have confidence in Mutual Assured Destruction, and that makes them potentially much more likely to initiate a strike or overreact quickly to some sort of confrontation that has the potential to go nuclear. <\/p>\n

In the case of the Russians, it means they could activate their nuclear weapon in space and just take out our Golden Dome interceptors if they think we might get into a nuclear exchange. I mean, all these things are horrific consequences.<\/p>\n

Like I said in our hearing, there are two explanations for Golden Dome. The first is that every nuclear theorist for the last 75 years was wrong, and thank God, Donald Trump came around and set us right because in his first administration and every Democratic and Republican administration, we\u2019ve all been wrong\u2014and really the future of nuclear deterrence is nuclear defeat through defense and not Mutually Assured Destruction. <\/p>\n

The other explanation, of course, is that Donald Trump decided he wants the golden version of something his friend has. You can tell me which one\u2019s more likely, but literally no one has been able to explain the theory of the case. It\u2019s dangerous, it\u2019s wasteful\u2026 It might be incredibly dangerous. I\u2019m happy to be convinced that Golden Dome is the right solution. I\u2019m happy to have people explain why this makes sense and it\u2019s a worthwhile investment, but literally nobody has been able to do that. If the Russians attack us\u2026 we know that this system is not going to be 100 percent effective. To me, that doesn\u2019t make a lot of sense. I don\u2019t want to gamble on\u2026 which major city or two we lose in a scenario like that. I want to prevent a nuclear war from happening.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Several Chinese DF-5B intercontinental ballistic missiles, each capable of delivering up to 10 independently maneuverable nuclear warheads, are seen during a parade in Beijing on September 3, 2015.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n Xinhua\/Pan Xu via Getty Images<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

Ars:<\/strong><\/em> What would be the way that an administration should propose something like the Golden Dome? Not through an executive order? What process would you like to see?<\/p>\n

Moulton:<\/strong><\/em> As a result of a strategic review and backed up by a lot of serious theory and analysis. The administration proposes a new solution and has hearings about it in front of Congress, where they are unafraid of answering tough questions. This administration is a bunch of cowards who can who refuse to answer tough questions in Congress because they know they can\u2019t back up their president\u2019s proposals.<\/p>\n

Ars:<\/strong><\/em> I\u2019m actually a little surprised we haven\u2019t seen any sort of architecture yet. It\u2019s been six months, and the administration has already missed a few of Trump\u2019s deadlines for selecting an architecture.<\/p>\n

Moulton:<\/strong><\/em> It\u2019s hard to develop an architecture for something that doesn\u2019t make sense.<\/p>\n

Ars:<\/strong><\/em> I\u2019ve heard from several retired military officials who think something like the Golden Dome is a good idea, but they are disappointed in the way the Trump administration has approached it. They say the White House hasn\u2019t stated the case for it, and that risks politicizing something they view as important for national security.<\/p>\n

Moulton:<\/strong><\/em> One idea I\u2019ve had is that the advent of directed energy weapons (such as lasers and microwave weapons) could flip the cost curve and actually make defense cheaper than offense, whereas in the past, it\u2019s always been cheaper to develop more offensive capabilities rather than the defensive means to shoot at them. <\/p>\n

And this is why the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the early 1970s was so effective, because there was this massive arms race where we were constantly just creating a new offensive weapon to get around whatever defenses our adversary proposed. The reason why everyone would just quickly produce a new offensive weapon before that treaty was put into place is because it was easy to do. <\/p>\n

My point is that I\u2019ve even thrown them this bone, and I\u2019m saying, \u2018Here, maybe that\u2019s your reason, right?\u201d And they just look at me dumbfounded because obviously none of them are thinking about this. They\u2019re just trying to be lackeys for the president, and they don\u2019t recognize how dangerous that is.<\/p>\n

Ars:<\/strong><\/em> I\u2019ve heard from a chorus of retired and even current active duty military leaders say the same thing about directed energy weapons. You essentially can use one platform in space take take numerous laser shots at a missile instead of expending multiple interceptors for one kill.<\/p>\n

Moulton:<\/strong><\/em> Yes, that\u2019s basically the theory of the case. Now, my hunch is that if you actually did the serious analysis, you would determine that it still decreases state strategic stability. So in terms of the overall safety and security of the United States, whether it\u2019s directed energy weapons or kinetic interceptors, it\u2019s still a very bad plan. <\/p>\n

But I\u2019m even throwing that out there to try to help them out here. \u201cMaybe this is how you want to make your case.\u201d And they just look at me like deer in the headlights because, obviously, they\u2019re not thinking about the national security of the United States.<\/p>\n

Ars:<\/strong><\/em> I also wanted to ask about the Space Force\u2019s push to develop weapons to use against other satellites in orbit. They call these counter-space capabilities. They could be using directed energy, jamming, robotic arms, anti-satellite missiles. This could take many different forms, and the Space Force, for the first time, is talking more openly about these issues. Are these kinds of weapons necessary, in your view, or are they too destabilizing?<\/p>\n

Moulton:<\/strong><\/em> I certainly wish we could go back to a time when the Russians and Chinese were not developing space weapons\u2014or were not weaponizing space, I should say, because that was the international agreement. But the reality of the world we live in today is that our adversaries are violating that agreement. We have to be prepared to defend the United States.<\/p>\n

Ars:<\/strong><\/em> Are there any other space policy issues on your radar or things you have concerns about?<\/p>\n

Moulton:<\/strong><\/em> There\u2019s a lot. There\u2019s so much going on with space, and that\u2019s the reason I chose this subcommittee, even though people would expect me to serve on the subcommittee dealing with the Marine Corps, because I just think space is incredibly important. We\u2019re dealing with everything from promotion policy in the Space Force to acquisition reform to rules of engagement, and anything in between. There\u2019s an awful lot going on there, but I do think that one of the most important things to talk about right now is how dangerous the Golden Dome could be.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat in his 11th year on Capitol Hill, had some things to say when the House Armed Services Committee met last month to write President Trump\u2019s Golden Dome missile defense shield into law. The Republican-led committee debated and voted on an annual defense policy bill known as the National Defense […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":43813,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43812"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43812"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43812\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/43813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}