Trump unveils plans for $175B ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense shield
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday unveiled plans to begin building a sophisticated new missile defense shield that could intercept threats from space, estimating the endeavor would cost some $175 billion and become operational in three years.
The project “Golden Dome,” which will be led by Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, echoes President Ronald Reagan’s failed “Star Wars” program, which was criticized for being overly ambitious and siphoning money away from other national priorities. The White House cited advancements in technology as a reason why some of Reagan’s vision was now possible.
“This design for the Golden Dome will integrate with our existing defense capabilities and should be fully operational before the end of my term,” Trump said in announcing the plan. “So we’ll have it done in about three years. Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space.”
Trump began calling for a U.S. missile defense shield similar to Israel’s Iron Dome a year ago on the campaign trail after watching Israel deflect some 300 missiles and drones amid Iran’s attacks that spring. Military officials said at the time that they hadn’t expressed a need for such a comprehensive shield to defend the U.S., while critics noted the U.S. wasn’t under threat from its neighbors, Canada and Mexico, and is buffered by two oceans.
Still, some experts say the idea of improving the nation’s ability to fend off aerial threats is long overdue.
Tom Karako, a missile defense expert, said the current U.S. system is focused mostly on the ability to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles from rogue states like North Korea. But the U.S. needs better protection when it comes to other threats like drones, cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons, he said.
“The truth is, we’re pretty vulnerable,” said Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project and a senior fellow with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
One question, though, is how much capability the U.S. can develop in just three years, particularly considering Trump’s stated goal of developing a network of space-based interceptors.
“It’s not to say that it can’t be done sooner than perhaps some folks think, but three years is going to be pushing it for some of those things,” Karako said.
Standing beside Trump in the Oval Office was Guetlein, the Pentagon’s vice chief of space operations who will lead the project, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said the project was possible now because technology has improved since the Reagan days.
“The technology wasn’t there. Now it is,” Hegseth said of Reagan’s “Star Wars” program. “And you’re following through to say we will protect the homeland from cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones, whether they’re conventional or nuclear.”
On Capitol Hill, early indications were that Republicans would support the effort with Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, promising to include a $25 billion “down payment” in an upcoming spending bill.
Democrats, though, have questioned the steep price tag. Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the committee, noted last week the White House requested some $113 billion in its budget for next year without outlining a clear plan on what the program would achieve and when.
“That’s essentially a slush fund at this point,” said Reed, D-Rhode Island.
Trump’s talk of building “the greatest dome of them all” seemed to originate on the campaign trail. After watching Israel’s successful use of its Iron Dome, Trump’s calls for a U.S. version was met with cheers from crowds at his rallies so much that Republicans included the construction of a U.S. missile shield in its party platform ahead of the 2024 elections. In January, Trump signed an executive order calling on Hegseth to make it happen.
“The threat of attack by ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles, and other advanced aerial attacks, remains the most catastrophic threat facing the United States,” Trump wrote in the Jan. 27 order.
Since then, “the Defense Department has gathered the brightest minds and best technical talent available to review a full range of options that considers current U.S. missile defense technology and cutting-edge innovation to rapidly develop and field a dependable umbrella of protection for our homeland,” Sean Parnell, chief Pentagon spokesman and Hegseth’s senior adviser, said earlier this week amid reports the Defense Department has been working on the proposal.
Still unclear is exactly how comprehensive the system would be. Also in question is whether such an ambitious program might siphon away money from other vital programs. The Air Force, for example, is in the process of replacing 400 of its intercontinental ballistic missiles built in the 1970s with new ones.
“Some U.S. technology in space such as space-based sensors and air and missile defense exist today, but all of the systems comprising the Golden Dome architecture will need to be seamlessly integrated,” Hegseth said in a statement. “Golden Dome will be fielded in phases, prioritizing defense where the threat is greatest.”
Trump’s plan appears to be on the lower end of congressional cost estimates, but dramatically sooner than thought possible. Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the U.S. would need to spend anywhere from $161 billion to $542 billion over 20 years to develop and launch a network of space-based interceptors.
According to the CBO, these cost estimates are lower than they would have been years ago because of a decline in the cost of available launch services.
(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois has announced his bid to run for Senate in 2026, confirming speculations that he would join the quickly expanding field of primary competitors looking to win the safe Democratic seat left open by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who is retiring at the end of his term.
In an interview with ABC News, the five-term congressman said he’s running on a record of confronting “bullies” like Donald Trump and is keenly focused on opposing agencies such as the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk.
“I have a track record of standing up to Donald Trump in Congress. I voted for impeaching him twice, but I also … played a big role in the first impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill,” said Krishnamoorthi, who entered the House in 2016, now serves as the top Democrat on the House’s China select committee on the Chinese Communist Party and is a senior member of the Intelligence and Oversight committees.
“But I have a track record of standing up to lots of bullies, whether it’s the e-cigarette companies that prey on our youth and try to hook them on vapes or it’s Purdue pharmaceuticals that try to hook a generation to Oxycontin. I’ve gone after all of them. They put a target on my back, but I got results, and now we need results with Donald Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE,” he added.
Krishnamoorthi added that he is running to fight for the economic prosperity of Illinoisans who are “suffering under the economic chaos unleashed by Donald Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE.”
“We need to focus like a laser on their economic problems right now, even at the same time that we’re standing up to Donald Trump,” he told ABC News.
Krishnamoorthi’s bid will kick off with three campaign stops on Friday as he “vows to ‘stand up and fight back’ against Trump’s agenda. The congressman, who represents much of Chicago’s northwestern suburbs, will make stops in his hometown of Peoria, Illinois, and in Schaumburg, Illinois, where he currently lives.
“My roots are in Peoria. I represent the suburbs. I’ve worked in the city for many years. So I want to try to trace that journey that I’ve had in Illinois but also speak to as many people as possible across Illinois,” he told ABC News.
In an announcement video released on Wednesday, Krishnamoorthi called the actions occurring within the White House “insanity” and suggested that he is a Democrat who can “fight back” against the Trump administration. The Democratic Party is grappling with questions over its political direction following the startling loss of all three branches of government during the 2024 elections.
“People want to know, at this moment, in this time, where is the power to fight back? What does it look like?” Krishnamoorthi said in the video. “Well, I’ll tell you: It looks like you and you and you, all of us ready to stand up and fight back. I spent my life standing up to bullies, fighting for everyday people. So I’ll never be quiet while billionaires like Elon Musk and a convicted felon deny the dreams of the next generation for their own egos and personal profit. That’s why I’m running for the United States Senate.”
The Harvard University-educated lawyer who received his undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering from Princeton University was born in central Illinois to Indian immigrants.
Ahead of his election to Congress, Krishnamoorthi served in a number of state roles and as a policy director in the Obama administration. In his announcement video released on Wednesday, the congressman referred to himself as “Raja” and referenced the fact that former President Barack Obama, too, had an ethnically ambiguous sounding name, saying, “I worked on a friend’s campaign who showed that Illinois will give you a shot even if you have a funny name. And inspired by Barack’s example, I was elected to Congress.”
“Yes, I know the name is long, so like always, just call me Raja,” he concluded the video.
Krishnamoorthi, one of the front-runners in the already hotly contested race, has amassed over a $19 million war chest ahead of his launch, with a stunning $3 million raised in just the first three months of 2025.
His bid comes after Durbin announced in April that he would not seek a sixth term. Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton jumped in the race less than 48 hours after Durbin’s announcement and quickly earned the endorsements of billionaire Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Illinois’ other senator, Tammy Duckworth.
“At the end of the day, the most important thing is I get the endorsement from the people of Illinois,” Krishnamoorthi told ABC News when asked about his posture among the already crowded primary field.
“They need to have their say. … We need to make sure that the process plays out, unfolds, that they are able to kick the tires and assess who they want to hire to represent them in the U.S. Senate, and I’m going to do everything in my power to earn their support,” he added.
Krishnamoorthi’s announcement also comes just a day after his colleague, Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., declared her own bid for the seat. In an announcement video posted on Tuesday, Kelly brought up how in Congress, she does not stand up during moments of silence to mark mass shootings because, she said, “moments of silence in Congress just aren’t going to cut it anymore.”
Kelly is also the former Illinois Democratic Party chairwoman and a member of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ leadership team. It’s reported that Rep. Lauren Underwood, who is also a member of Jeffries’ leadership circle, is still exploring a run for the seat.
Krishnamoorthi told ABC News that his record, paired with his ability to “stand up” to Trump distinctly, makes him uniquely positioned for the role.
“I think that your track record matters. I think that the diversity of your experiences, plus … where you come from, I think that matters,” he said. “I think that most of all, who is going to be the most effective at standing up to Donald Trump but also delivering for constituents?”
Durbin said he doesn’t plan on endorsing any particular candidate but is not ruling out the possibility in an “extreme case.”
“I hope I do not have to,” Durbin said.
Still, Krishnamoorthi linked himself to Durbin as he launched his bid for Senate on Wednesday, lauding him as a “titan” who was a “fellow son of downstate.”
“Senator Dick Durbin is a titan who will go down as one of the most effective and dedicated public servants in Illinois history. I am deeply humbled by the encouragement I have received from friends, family members, and community leaders encouraging me, a fellow son of downstate, to run for the U.S. Senate,” Krishnamoorthi said in a statement announcing his candidacy.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Thursday announced he’s nominating Michael Waltz to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as interim national security adviser while keeping his current role as well.
“I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations,” Trump wrote on his conservative social media platform. “From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role.”
“In the interim, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as National Security Advisor, while continuing his strong leadership at the State Department,” Trump continued. “Together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Sources had told ABC News earlier Thursday that Waltz was expected to leave his post as national security adviser.
The move came as President Trump has been increasingly frustrated by Waltz after he came under intense scrutiny for inadvertently adding a reporter to a Signal chat with top Trump officials discussing a U.S. military strike on Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Waltz responded to Trump’s announcement on X, writing: “I’m deeply honored to continue my service to President Trump and our great nation.”
Rubio was a National Prayer Event at the White House earlier Thursday before the news broke. He was seen standing in the colonnade on his phone, and at times speaking with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce learned about Rubio replacing Waltz in the middle of Thursday’s press briefing. She was being asked by reporters on whether Rubio would consider the position when Trump’s social media post came out.
“It is clear that I just heard this from you,” Bruce said as she reacted to the news in real time. She praised Rubio as “a man who, as I think you all know, has worn several hats from day one” and is “someone who is well known by the president.”
Bruce said the move was not “not entirely surprising,” but acknowledged “these last 100 days, it’s like hanging onto a freaking bullet train.”
Waltz was spotted doing a Fox News interview at the White House on Thursday morning, but was not present later on at the prayer event.
He was in attendance at Trump’s Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, where he offered praise for the president’s leadership and strength on the world stage during his first 100 days in office.
Trump publicly defended Waltz in the aftermath of the March Signal mishap, telling NBC News the day after details came to light in an article by The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg that Waltz “has learned a lesson and is a good man.”
Trump was asked further about Waltz’s future by The Atlantic in an April 24 interview. He said Waltz was “fine” despite being “beat up” after accidentally adding Goldberg to the group chat.
Trump also said in that interview that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who also came under fire for the Signal fiasco, was “safe.”
“I think we learned: Maybe don’t use Signal, okay?” Trump said about the controversy. “If you want to know the truth. I would frankly tell these people not to use Signal, although it’s been used by a lot of people. But, whatever it is, whoever has it, whoever owns it, I wouldn’t want to use it.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Amid the Trump administration’s battle with Harvard University, hundreds of grants worth millions of dollars for medical research have been canceled.
The White House has accused Harvard of allowing antisemitism to go unchecked on campus and of not ending diversity, equity and inclusion practices.
In a letter on April 11, the Trump administration argued Harvard “failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment” and proposed terms including changing the school’s governance, adopting merit-based hiring, shuttering any DEI programs and allowing “audits” to ensure “viewpoint diversity.” The administration then said it was withholding $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contract value to the institution.
Harvard has taken steps such as renaming the Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging to the Office of Community and Campus Life. Additionally, Harvard’s president said the school is committed to making changes to create a “welcoming and supportive learning environment” but argued the Trump administration’s requests go too far.
At least 350 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF) and elsewhere been canceled at Harvard Medical School, excluding the School of Public Health and the School of Engineering, a Harvard University faculty source told ABC News.
Harvard has said the loss of research funding interrupts work on topics including tuberculosis, chemotherapy, pandemic preparedness, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. The school has also said the Trump administration’s threats have endangered its educational mission.
The Trump administration did not immediately reply to ABC News’ request for comment.
This includes research for studying biotic resistance, identifying the earliest precursors of breast cancer, breaking barriers to deliver effective drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, studying microbial evolution and researching cures for ALS.
Scientists at Harvard say the cancellations of their research grants are collateral damage in the battle with the Trump administration and worry some scientific breakthroughs will never be discovered.
“I will say that receiving a grant from the NIH is very challenging,” David Sinclair, a professor in the department of genetics at Harvard Medical School, told ABC News. “It takes years of work and a lot of effort. You have to go through peer review, and it can take years to get this money, and when you get it — I’ve literally dropped to my knees with gratitude of receiving one of these grants. These are a big deal, and they literally are our lifeblood, and to just have that terminated is devastating.”
‘What do I say to her’?
Sinclair was inspired to find a cure for ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), a debilitating neurological disorder, after his partner’s mother was diagnosed with it.
“We’ve watched her descend from an active, healthy lady in her 70s to now, where she’s on a breathing machine and being saved by a tube,” he said. “And our house is an ICU unit with nurses 24/7 and for us, it’s a race against time.”
Sinclair said within the last month, his lab had a breakthrough using artificial intelligence to find both synthetic and naturally occurring molecules that may reverse the aging process and treat ALS.
Sinclair received word on May 15 that two grants of his were being terminated. One was an NIH grant awarded to Sinclair’s lab on a project to reverse the aging process and the second was a career award given to a postdoctoral researcher in his lab on the ALS project.
The career award grant was paying for the salaries of the researcher and two people working under her. Now all three are effectively without salaries unless another form of funding can be found.
Sinclair said in the interview that he had not told his partner’s mother that the ALS grant has been canceled.
“I just feel so concerned for the patients who, like my partner’s mother, are counting on us scientists to find treatments and cures for what ails them,” he said. “And what do I say to Serena’s mom? I haven’t talked to her yet. What do I say? That the research that looked so promising is now terminated? That her life is counting on us, and she’s just one of millions of people in this country who are counting on the research at Harvard Medical School to make the breakthroughs that will literally save their lives.”
Similarly, on a search for stopping debilitating diseases, Joan Brugge, director of the Ludwig Center at Harvard Medical School, was studying how to identify the earliest precursors of breast cancer with a goal of designing treatments to prevent them from becoming cancerous.
The work was supported by an approximately seven-year grant from the NIH’s National Cancer Institute totaling at about $600,000. The grant was in its sixth year with 1.5 more years left.
Another canceled grant was a fellowship for a postdoctoral researcher in Brugge’s lab. These grants support costs such as training, tuition and fees and child care, according to the NIH.
“These kinds of things are going to affect our ability to make progress in the way we want,” Brugge told ABC News. “This is not right. Why should Americans be deprived of potential benefits from this research?”
Claims of antisemitism
Steven Shuken, a postdoctoral researcher at the Gygi Labs at Harvard Medical School, was studying what the barriers are in developing treatments for Alzheimer’s disease.
He said drugs don’t penetrate the blood-brain barrier very well, resulting in failures to receive FDA approval to treat Alzheimer’s disease.
“They seem to have some effectiveness at some dose, but once you get up to the high dose that you need to see the effect, there are these terrible side effects that come up,” he told ABC News.
In order to improve future drugs’ efficacy and reduce side effects enough to make them safe and effective for Alzheimer’s patients, Shuken teamed up with Boston Children’s Hospital to see if they could leverage the chorid plexis, a section of the blood-cerebral spinal fluid barrier as a pathway without side effects.
Shuken had been awarded a K99/R00 grant, which is for postdoctoral scientists completing research that will eventually lead to a tenure-track or equivalent faculty position.
The K99 portion supports one to two years of postdoctoral research training and the R00 portion supports up to three years “contingent on the scientist securing an independent, tenure track faculty position,” according to the NIH.
Two weeks ago, he received news that the K99 grant – which was awarded last year for two years – was terminated and there is no policy that supports activating an R00 on a K99 that’s been terminated, effectively terminating the R00 as well.
Shuken said no reason was given for the grant terminations, but he said he did see the letter sent to Harvard from the NIH citing semitism.
Trump and other members of his administration have accused the university of fostering antisemitism on its campus, specifically related to pro-Palestinian demonstrations amid the Israel-Hamas war.
“Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination — all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry — has put its reputation in serious jeopardy,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a letter in March.
The administration’s joint task force, made up of the Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration, is conducting a review of Harvard, saying it is part of an effort to remove alleged antisemitic conduct and harassment.
Last year, a federal judge in Boston ruled that Harvard “failed its Jewish students” and must face a lawsuit over antisemitism on campus. Some Jewish students had claimed Harvard had been indifferent to their fears of walking through the campus and facing alleged harassment from pro-Palestinian protesters.
However, some Jewish students and faculty members, such as Shuken, said he has not experienced antisemitism during his time at Harvard. He said if there is antisemitism occurring on the main campus, he’s not sure why retaliatory grant cuts are affecting the university’s medical school.
“I will note that I work at the Harvard Medical School quad, which is a half-hour shuttle ride away from the main campus,” he said. “So even if there is antisemitism on the main campus, which — as far as I can tell — is dramatically exaggerated in certain news outlets, if it’s happening over there, it’s not happening where I work.”
Michael Baym was also affected by the grant terminations at Harvard. He said there is a disconnect between the political battle raging between the Trump administration and Harvard and the grants awarded to the medical school that were cut as a result.
“Our lab studies bacteria. None of the content of this research is related to a contemporary political or is part of a contemporary political battle,” he told ABC News. “There’s no sense in it. It’s bacteria; how can bacteria be antisemitic?”
Harvard has said it is resolved in its commitment to combatting antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias.
Grants are not gifts to Harvard
Baym’s laboratory at Harvard Medical School studies the biology of how bacteria become resistant to biotics and what things keep them from gaining resistance. The World Health Organization has called microbial resistance one of the world’s top public health and development threats.
Earlier this month, Baym learned that five grants to his laboratory and researchers in his lab were being terminated. This included an NIH five-year flexible award to support all basic research in the lab and two NSF grants, one to help study bacteriophages that kill biotic-resistant bacteria, and the other to help study the basic biology of the vectors of biotic resistance.
Additionally, an NIH graduate student grant for a project looking for new bacteriophages was terminated as well as two NIH postdoctoral fellowships that were on the same grant. The total cost of the grants canceled was $4.35 million.
Baym said what he thinks many people don’t understand is that the grants are not monetary gifts from the government to a rich, private university. They are contracts awarded by panel of impartial experts directly to researchers and to projects. In this case, the researchers happen to conduct their work at Harvard.
“That’s what’s being cut,” he said “These grants, this is not a gift to build a dorm. This is a research contract that’s being terminated, right.”
Michael Desai, a professor of organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard, who was also subject to grant terminations, agreed, saying the grants don’t support operations of the university and Harvard’s endowment, valued at $53.2 billion, cannot cover all the costs of grants that were terminated.
“There’s all kinds of specific purposes that donors have designated for their money to be spent on,” he told ABC News. “The other thing is that Harvard already spends roughly 5% of the endowment every year. The way to think about it is a retirement account … and it’s supposed to last for hundreds of years, rather than dozens.”
“If they spend more than they already are, then it will, over the course of 10 to 20 years, just be gone, and the university would have to shut down,” Desai added.
Fear of losing scientists to other countries
At the time of the terminations, Desai’s work was focused on microbial evolution and population genetics, which looks at how microbial populations — microorganisms — adapt to new conditions.
Desai had three grants terminated on May 15, two from the NIH and one from the NSF.
The NIH grants totaled about $300,000 to $350,000 per year in direct costs plus a little under $200,000 per year in indirect costs, and the NSF grant was about $100,000 per year in direct costs and another $69,000 in indirect costs, Desai said.
Desai said he wasn’t surprised the grants were terminated due to news that the Trump administration was planning on freezing grant money, but he expressed concern for the younger scientists whose research and salaries were being supported on these grants.
“There’s a battle, as we all know, between Harvard and the Trump administration,” he said. “It centers around things that have absolutely nothing to do with science. There’s broad support for the kind of science we and many other people at Harvard are doing. I don’t think it’s an intended target, but it’s certainly getting caught up in the battle.”
Desai emphasized the broader impact grant freezing could on have U.S. scientific dominance, highlighting the potential for young American scientists to go aboard or international scientists to not come to the U.S.
“Over the past 15 years that I’ve been at Harvard, I can’t think about how many hundreds of emails I’ve gotten from the smartest people in China and India and Europe and all over the world asking if they could come work with me or my colleagues across the country and basically bring all of their talents to essentially work for us, to work for trying to increase the United States’ technological dominance in the world,” he said.
Desai went on, “I kind of worry that 10 years from now, our smartest students are going to be writing professors in research institutes in China hoping that they can go do science to make China stronger. The bottom line is if we don’t invest in this stuff, other people certainly will.”
