Concerns are being raised regarding the feasibility and financial implications of Trump's ambitious 'Golden Dome'. While pitched as a game changer, experts question the likelihood of completing such a complex system within the proposed timeframe, citing technological, political, and budgetary obstacles.

Opponents have pointed out that even if the Golden Dome is built, it may not effectively protect against the advanced missile technology developed by adversarial nations like China and Russia. There are fears that this project could spur an arms race in space rather than improving national security, much like previous missile defense initiatives.

Critics argue that reliance on a space-centered defense strategy could divert funds from more effective ground-based systems and intelligence efforts, which have been historically underfunded. The potential for increased tensions and military aggression with other nations remains a significant point of concern.

Supporters of the Golden Dome view it as a necessary evolution of U.S. missile defense strategy, especially in light of threats from adversaries like Iran, North Korea, and increasingly sophisticated missile technologies from China and Russia. The system is seen as a proactive measure to secure U.S. homeland protection.

The allocation of $25 billion in funding from Trump's proposed tax bill is considered a critical first step in the development of the Golden Dome, which aims to address contemporary threats and defend U.S. interests both in the continental U.S. and abroad.

With Israel's Iron Dome as a model, proponents argue that the Golden Dome could significantly enhance American defense capabilities and should be prioritized to protect vital infrastructure and populations from imminent attack, despite the criticisms regarding costs and feasibility.