King Leads Golden Dome Hearing, Questions Scholars on Costs and Impacts to American Taxpayer

September 29, 2026
To watch or download the exchange, click here
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services (SASC) Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, questioned leading authorities on the costs and impacts of the President’s proposed Golden Dome missile defense project on the American taxpayer. As details surrounding the ambitious military program remain vague , Senator King took the advantage of the open hearing to gain more concrete information from the assembled experts.
In his exchange with the Honorable David Trachtenberg, a senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy, the Senator asked how much the Golden Dome would cost the American taxpayer and who and what American territory would be protected by the defense program.
Senator King began his remarks, “First I have an issue with how this program is being funded. That is not really your problem, but it’s being funded principally through reconciliation, which is a totally partisan process with very little input from the appropriations committee or the members of this committee. It has very little restrictions in the way of how it can be spent. So I want it on the record, as I mentioned at the beginning, that this is one of the most expensive and important initiatives of this government and it should be one that has broad popular support, indicated by broad support here in the congress. The fact that the vast bulk of it was funded first in the reconciliation last year and is proposed for this year, I think is very bothersome from the point of view of process.
“…The other piece of this that bothers me, I was looking at the president's executive order, which says it will deter and defend its citizens and critical infrastructure, provide for the common defense of its citizens,” Senator King continued. “The implication of the term golden dome is a national coverage. I think all of you will agree that that is just not in the cards. So, one of the questions that has to be discussed is, who is being protected? And what is the golden dome actually going to do? The nomenclature implies an arch over the entire country that is protected from any kind of missile attack. Would you agree that is not what we are talking about here?”
Trachtenberg replied, “ Senator, I would suggest that the nature of golden dome is to try to produce a system capable of a much broader level of defense for the American people and for the country.” “ So, this means every American citizen can sleep better tonight because they are protected from a missile attack?” Senator King asked.
“ With all due respect, Senator, I don't think that is the appropriate metric to use,” Trachtenberg answered. “ I believe the appropriate metric is, as I stated is can we build a system that provides a level of protection that dissuades and discourages.”
Senator King followed up, “To whom? To whom? Who is being protected and who makes that decision? Are you telling me that every citizen in America can be protected by this system?
Trachtenberg concluded, “ No, I'm not saying every citizen can be protected.”
“ So if that is the case, who decides who is protected and who isn’t?” Senator King asked again.
Trachtenberg replied, “I think that the actual architecture would be, again, I don't have insight into the current architectural plans, but I think it would be deployed probably in phases or in stages, at certain times when the architecture is ready. But I think it should be expansive. I'm a firm believer, Senator, in the old air force recruiting motto, aim high. I think we should aim high on this. We may not get there, I agree. But I would rather aim high than aim low, in terms of what we are attempting to do.”
King focused his concerns on the actual scope of the program, which portions of the country would be protected, and on obtaining realistic cost estimates.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces – which oversees the United States’ nuclear arsenal and posture – Senator King has been an outspoken voice on the need to address the growing nuclear capacity of our adversaries and to protect the threats by our adversaries to the mainland United States.
###