Stand up for the facts!

Our only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy.
We need your help.

More Info

I would like to contribute

Louis Jacobson
By Louis Jacobson February 4, 2025

Trump releases vague, but ambitious, vision for missile defense

Within a week of his second-term inauguration, President Donald Trump issued an executive order outlining his vision for an "Iron Dome for America," modeled on Israel's missile defense system.

As a presidential candidate in 2023, Trump promised, "to build a state-of-the-art, next-generation missile defense shield. Just as Israel is now protected by the Iron Dome, a dream once thought impossible, America must have an impenetrable dome to protect our people. We worked with Israel to develop that Dome."

On Jan. 27, Trump signed an order that said, "The United States will provide for the common defense of its citizens and the nation by deploying and maintaining a next-generation missile defense shield."

The order says that within 60 days, the defense secretary will submit "an implementation plan for the next-generation missile defense shield," including defending the U.S. "against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks from peer, near-peer, and rogue adversaries." (These three categories refer to foreign adversaries, in descending levels of military and economic capabilities.)

The Israeli Iron Dome air defense system fires to intercept rockets that were launched from Lebanon, as seen from Haifa in northern Israel, Nov. 11, 2024. (AP)

Trump's use of the term "Iron Dome" in respect to U.S. defense strategy is a bit of a misnomer: Iron Dome was designed to combat threats such as those faced by Israel, a small nation hemmed in by enemies. The United States is much larger and has less concern that its direct neighbors will fire rockets on Americans.

Calling the proposed U.S. system Iron Dome is "just a marketing slogan," said John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, a national security think tank in Washington. "Israel and America face completely different types of missile threats."

Iron Dome is used primarily against short-range rockets or ground-launched cruise missiles; By contrast, the U.S., bordered on two sides by oceans, faces tougher challenges from submarine-launched cruise missiles and long-range, hypersonic cruise missiles.

Beyond the "Iron Dome" framing, missile defense experts told PolitiFact that Trump's order is vague, far-reaching, technically challenging and potentially expensive.

"The overall goals of the memo are incredibly far-reaching," said retired U.S. Air Force Col. Dana Struckman, a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College. (Struckman said his views are his own and don't necessarily reflect those of the Naval War College, the Department of the Navy, the Defense Department, or the U.S. government.)

The order has "a lot of generalities that have been floating around for decades," Pike added. "But it's much more ambitious" than what previous presidents have ordered, he said.

Experts said the order's scope makes it difficult to determine how fast its goals can be achieved. It addresses defenses against ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, and other advanced cruise missiles, "which are all very different threats," said Brendan Green, a public policy professor at the University of Cincinnati.

The order also mentions defending against "advanced aerial attacks." Jaganath Sankaran, an assistant professor at the University of Texas's Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, said that wording signals a new focus: "If it suggests a desire to provide nationwide air defense against fighters and drones, that is certainly a new effort."

Every piece of the order faces different technical challenges, Green said, though they all must grapple with the reality that "an effective system needs many more interceptors than there are attacking warheads," Green said. "This is because you are not going to hit 100% of incoming targets, and you need layered defenses that allow you multiple shots at 'leakers' that are not destroyed on the first shot."

Green added that intercepting a weapon midair is difficult because "simple, cheap decoys" can fool ground-based detection when attempting to intercept ballistic missiles in outer space.

Sankaran said an Iron Dome's price could become "a very significant concern. It makes sense to have some limited defense, but expanding the scope might divert resources from other vital efforts" to defend the U.S. homeland.

Green said there are "lots of moving pieces in the missile-defense problem." He added, however, that the U.S. "has made advances on many pieces of the problem, and seems capable of making further advances. So, if this project moves from pie-in-the-sky political rhetoric to something more reasonable, it could well achieve important capabilities against some parts of the threat profile."

Trump's executive order laid out an initial blueprint, and we will track the progress made on its vision. For now, the promise rates In the Works.

CORRECTION, Feb. 4, 2025: This article has been updated to clarify that decoys can specifically fool the interception of ballistic missiles in outer space. It also corrects the speaker of the final quote.

Our Sources

Donald Trump, "Iron Dome for America" (executive order), Jan. 27, 2025

PolitiFact, "Trump Orders 'Iron Dome' for U.S., but Freezes Funds for Nuclear Protection," Jan. 28, 2025

PolitiFact, "The US may not have an Iron Dome, but the military is spending on this technology. Here's how," Oct. 13, 2023

Email interview with John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, Jan. 29, 2025

Email interview with Jaganath Sankaran, assistant professor at the University of Texas's Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, Jan. 29, 2025

Email interview with retired Air Force Col. Dana Struckman, professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, Jan. 30, 2025

Email interview with Brendan Green, public policy professor at the University of Cincinnati, Jan. 29, 2025

Latest Fact-checks