The idea sounds like something out of a science fiction movie: thousands of satellites orbiting Earth, space-based sensors tracking missiles in real time, and weapons capable of destroying threats just seconds after launch. But behind the spectacular “Golden Dome” project promoted by President Donald Trump are serious doubts about its feasibility.

A new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the system could cost up to $1.2 trillion over two decades — a figure nearly seven times higher than the $175 billion Trump initially promised. And even with that monumental expense, experts warn that the shield might not stop a massive attack from Russia or China.

The actual cost

Trump presented the “Golden Dome” as a revolutionary defense system capable of protecting the United States from advanced aerial threats, including ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles. The project was launched via an executive order signed during the first week of his second term.

At the time, the president assured that the system would be fully operational before the end of his term in January 2029. He also stated that the total cost would be around $175 billion.

However, the new CBO report paints a much more costly picture of the project. The nonpartisan agency estimated that developing, deploying, and operating the system over 20 years could drive costs up to $1.2 trillion. Acquisition costs alone would exceed $1 trillion.

The CBO itself clarified that the estimate does not represent a definitive government design, as the Pentagon has not yet detailed exactly how the system will function or how many components it will include. The report notes that this is “one illustrative approach rather than an estimate of a specific Administration proposal.”

A space shield inspired by Israel

The “Golden Dome” concept is partly inspired by Israel’s “Iron Dome,” the well-known multi-layered system that intercepts rockets and short-range missiles launched from Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran.

However, while Israel protects a relatively small territory against regional threats, Trump’s project aims to cover the entire continental United States, as well as Alaska and Hawaii, against far more sophisticated weapons.

The proposed architecture includes ground-based and space-based capabilities to detect, track, and intercept missiles at various stages of flight. A significant portion of the cost would come precisely from that space-based component.

According to the CBO, about 70% of the acquisition cost would go toward space-based interceptors and a constellation of approximately 7,800 satellites. An orbital system needed to destroy just ten incoming ballistic missiles alone would cost nearly $720 billion.

Trump justified the plan by arguing that strategic threats have evolved dangerously over the past few decades. In his executive order, he stated: “Over the past 40 years, rather than lessening, the threat from next-generation strategic weapons has become more intense and complex.”

Doubts about its effectiveness

Beyond the cost, the report also raised doubts about the system’s true capabilities. The CBO concluded that the “Golden Dome” could effectively respond to a limited attack by countries with lesser capabilities, such as North Korea. But the picture changes when facing military powers comparable to the United States.

The analysis warns that the system “could be overwhelmed by a full-scale attack mounted by a peer or near-peer adversary,” referring to countries such as Russia or China. In other words, even with a multibillion-dollar investment, the shield could become overwhelmed by a massive missile launch.

That possibility fuels the skepticism that already existed among military experts and lawmakers regarding the technical feasibility of the project. Several officials have warned that current U.S. missile defense systems have failed to keep pace with new technologies developed by potential adversaries, especially in the field of hypersonic missiles.

There are also doubts about the timeline. Trump said he wanted to see the system operational before the end of his term, but experts consider it extremely difficult to build an infrastructure of that magnitude in less than four years.

The political debate and multimillion-dollar contracts

Despite criticism, the government has already begun allocating resources to the project. Congress previously approved approximately $24 billion for initiatives related to the “Golden Dome,” while the Pentagon requested an additional $17 billion in future budget allocations.

In addition, companies in the defense and aerospace sectors have already secured major contracts. SpaceX and Lockheed Martin received contracts worth up to $3.2 billion to develop prototypes of space interceptors.

General Michael Guetlein, the project’s director, recently defended the initiative before lawmakers and dismissed the most alarmist estimates. As he explained, many external estimates simply take the cost of previous systems and multiply it. “That is not what Golden Dome is doing,” the general stated. “We are laser-focused on affordability.”

However, even he acknowledged that the space component poses enormous financial risks. During a hearing last month, he warned that if the space interceptors cannot be produced at a reasonable cost, they will not go into production.

Meanwhile, Democratic critics argue that the program could turn into a massive windfall for military contractors. Senator Jeff Merkley, who requested the CBO report, called the bill “nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition

Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker

Enormous banners erected across Plaza de Mayo and the surrounding avenues in downtown Buenos Aires repeated the same slogan: “Milei, comply with the law.” Hundreds of thousands of people chanted it this Tuesday as they marched to demand that Argentina’s hardline government halt its cuts to public universities and release the funds approved by Congress. “The funding of the national university system is in a critical state, and the main cause is that the national government is failing to comply with the basic democratic and constitutional rule: to uphold the university funding law, which establishes a minimum level of resources that ensures the normal functioning of the system,” denounced academic authorities, faculty members and students in a joint statement read at the main protest event. The administration of Javier Milei labeled the federal university march an “opposition act” and reiterated that it will not release the requested funds.

Organized by the universities themselves, teachers’ unions, and student federations, the mobilization drew a massive crowd in the Argentine capital and was replicated in numerous cities across the country. According to the organizers, more than 1.5 million people demonstrated nationwide.

From midday onwards, columns of educators, students, and university employees filled the main streets of downtown Buenos Aires. The rhythm of drums could be heard from various points as they marched towards the historic Plaza de Mayo. Teenagers and adults carried flags identifying their universities, unions, or political groups from across a spectrum ranging from the center to the left.

“Without public universities, there is no future,” warned one of the many signs displayed by the protesters. “I defend public universities,” declared another. “The worst enemy of a corrupt government is an educated population.” And also: “Freedom without education is a lie.” Many posters targeted Milei’s Chief of Staff, Manuel Adorni, who is under investigation for alleged illicit enrichment: “How many teachers’ salaries were used to pay for this idiot’s vacation?” asked another sign illustrated with the high-ranking official’s face.

Since Milei took office in 2023, budget allocations to universities have suffered a cumulative drop of 45.6%, according to the National Interuniversity Council (CIN). During the same period, the salaries of professors and other employees at state universities have lost more than a third of their purchasing power—receiving increases of 147% compared to an inflation rate of 293%. The budget prepared by the executive branch for this year allocates 4.8 trillion pesos (approximately US$3.4 billion) to universities, compared to the 7.2 trillion pesos required by these institutions as “the bare minimum to maintain current operations.” This stark contrast in figures is at the heart of the conflict between the academic community and the far-right government.

“All we want is for the law to be upheld,” says Marisa Corral, a retired teacher and now, at 68, a literature student at the University of Buenos Aires, as she walks toward the plaza. “The president is too focused on the economy; he should read other things,” she suggests. “I’m here to defend our public university, which isn’t a privilege but a right of all Argentinians. And this government wants to destroy it,” affirms Marcelo, 24, a student at the University of Quilmes. Sitting on a set of steps, a few meters from the Casa Rosada (the seat of government), Agustina explains that she’s neither a student nor a teacher, but felt compelled to participate in the march. “The university is our future as a society, as a people,” she says. Next to her, Sabrina, a 29-year-old teacher, laments that governments “always cut funding for public education.”

The main demand of the academic community is that the executive comply with the university funding law. The law, passed last year by Congress with broad support from the opposition, simply updates the sector’s budgets to reflect the situation in effect at the end of 2023. Milei vetoed it, but the legislators overruled the veto. The president again attempted to repeal the law in the 2026 budget, but Parliament once more voted against it. Nevertheless, Milei failed to comply with the law, arguing that it would jeopardize the fiscal surplus generated by his political maneuvering. The universities have taken legal action. In two instances, the courts have issued injunctions ordering the government to begin releasing the funds, but the executive is resisting and has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Before Tuesday’s massive protest, the government had announced its refusal to accept the demands and focused on accusing the universities of “politicizing the protest” and resisting audits of their use of funds. “The only law we will comply with is the budget law,” emphasized the Undersecretary of University Policies, Alejandro Alvarez, who described the march as “an opposition act.” The Milei administration official criticized the universities because, he asserted, they have “one of the lowest graduation rates in the region” and because they do not charge tuition to international students.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition