May 21, 202510 min readWhy Some Experts Call Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ Missile Shield a Dangerous FantasyThe White House’s $175-billion plan to protect the U.S. from nuclear annihilation will probably cost much more—and deliver far less—than has been claimed, says nuclear arms expert Jeffrey LewisBy Lee Billings U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 20, 2025, during a briefing announcing his administration’s plan for the “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty ImagesDuring a briefing from the Oval Office this week, President Donald Trump revealed his administration’s plan for “Golden Dome”—an ambitious high-tech system meant to shield the U.S. from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missile attacks launched by foreign adversaries. Flanked by senior officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the project’s newly selected leader, Gen. Michael Guetlein of the U.S. Space Force, Trump announced that Golden Dome will be completed within three years at a cost of $175 billion.The program, which was among Trump’s campaign promises, derives its name from the Iron Dome missile defense system of Israel—a nation that’s geographically 400 times smaller than the U.S. Protecting the vastness of the U.S. demands very different capabilities than those of Iron Dome, which has successfully shot down rockets and missiles using ground-based interceptors. Most notably, Trump’s Golden Dome would need to expand into space—making it a successor to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) pursued by the Reagan administration in the 1980s. Better known by the mocking nickname “Star Wars,” SDI sought to neutralize the threat from the Soviet Union’s nuclear-warhead-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles by using space-based interceptors that could shoot them down midflight. But fearsome technical challenges kept SDI from getting anywhere close to that goal, despite tens of billions of dollars of federal expenditures.“We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,” Trump said during the briefing. Although the announcement was short on technical details, Trump also said Golden Dome “will deploy next-generation technologies across the land, sea and space, including space-based sensors and interceptors.” The program, which Guetlein has compared to the scale of the Manhattan Project in past remarks, has been allotted $25 billion in a Republican spending bill that has yet to pass in Congress. But Golden Dome may ultimately cost much more than Trump’s staggering $175-billion sum. An independent assessment by the Congressional Budget Office estimates its price tag could be as high as $542 billion, and the program has drawn domestic and international outcries that it risks sparking a new, globe-destabilizing arms race and weaponizing Earth’s fragile orbital environment.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.To get a better sense of what’s at stake—and whether Golden Dome has a better chance of success than its failed forebears—Scientific American spoke with Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on the geopolitics of nuclear weaponry at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]It’s been a while, but when last I checked, most experts considered this sort of plan a nonstarter because the U.S. is simply too big of a target. Has something changed?Well, yes and no. The killer argument against space-based interceptors in the 1980s was that it would take thousands of them, and there was just no way to put up that many satellites. Today that’s no longer true. SpaceX alone has put up more than 7,000 Starlink satellites. Launch costs are much cheaper now, and there are more launch vehicles available. So, for the first time, you can say, “Oh, well, I could have a 7,000-satellite constellation. Do I want to do that?” Whereas, when the Reagan administration was talking about this, it was just la-la land.But let’s be clear: this does not solve all the other problems with the general idea—or the Golden Dome version in particular.What are some of those other problems?Just talking about space-based interceptors, there are a couple [of issues that] my colleagues and I have pointed out. We ran some numbers using the old SDI-era calculation from [SDI physicists] Ed Teller and Greg Canavan—so we couldn’t be accused of using some hippie version of the calculation, right? And what this and other independent assessments show is that the number of interceptors you need is super-duper sensitive to lots of things. For instance, it’s not like this is a “one satellite to one missile” situation—because the physics demands that these satellites ... have to be in low-Earth orbit, and that means they’re going to be constantly moving over different parts of the planet.So if you want to defend against just one missile, you still need a whole constellation. And if you want to defend against two missiles, then you basically need twice as many interceptors, and so on.You probably have to shoot down missiles during the boost phase, when the warheads are still attached. For SDI, the U.S. was dealing with Soviet liquid-fueled missiles that would boost, or burn, for about four minutes. Well, modern ones burn for less than three—that’s a whole minute that you no longer have. This is actually much worse than it sounds because you’re probably unable to shoot for the first minute or so. Even with modern detectors [that are] much better than [those] we had in the 1980s, you may not see the missile until it rises above the clouds. And once it does, your sensors, your computers, still have to say, “Aha! That is a missile!” And then you have to ensure that you’re not shooting down some ordinary space launch—so the system says, “I see a missile. May I shoot at it, please?” And someone or something has to give the go-ahead. So let’s just say you’ll have a good minute to shoot it down; this means your space-based interceptor has to be right there, ready to go, right? But by the time you’re getting permission to shoot, the satellite that was overhead to do that is now too far away, and so the next satellite has to be coming there. This scales up really, really fast.Presumably artificial intelligence and other technologies could be leveraged to make that sort of command and control more agile and responsive. But clearly there are still limits here—AI can’t be some sort of panacea.Sure, that’s right. But technological progress overall hasn’t made the threat environment better. Instead it’s gotten much worse.Let’s get back to the sheer physics-induced numbers for a moment, which AI can’t really do much about. That daunting scaling I mentioned also depends on the quality of your interceptors, your kill vehicles—which, by the way, are still going to be grotesquely expensive even if launch costs are low. If your interceptors can rapidly accelerate to eight or 10 kilometers per second (km/s), your constellation can be smaller. If they only reach 4 km/s, your constellation has to be huge.The point is: any claim that you can do this with relatively low numbers—let’s say 2,000 interceptors—assumes a series of improbable miracles occurring in quick succession to deliver the very best outcome that could possibly happen. So it’s not going to happen that way, even if, in principle, it could.So you’re telling me there’s a chance! No, seriously, I see what you mean. The arguments in favor of this working seem rather contrived. No system is perfect, and just one missile getting through can still have catastrophic results. And we haven’t even talked about adversarial countermeasures yet.There’s a joke that’s sometimes made about this: “We play chess, and they don’t move their pieces.” That seems to be the operative assumption here: that other nations will sit idly by as we build a complex, vulnerable system to nullify any strategic nuclear capability they have. And of course, it’s not valid at all. Why do you think the Chinese are building massive fields of missile silos? It’s to counteract or overwhelm this sort of thing. Why do you think the Russians are making moves to put a nuclear weapon in orbit? It’s to mass kill any satellite constellation that would shoot down their missiles.Golden Dome proponents may say, “Oh, we’ll shoot that down, too, before it goes off.” Well, good luck. You put a high-yield nuclear weapon on a booster, and the split second it gets above the clouds, sure, you might see it—but now it sees you, too, before you can shoot. All it has to do at that point is detonate to blow a giant hole in your defenses, and that’s game over. And by the way, this rosy scenario assumes your adversaries don’t interfere with all your satellites passing over their territory in peacetime. We know that won’t be the case—they’ll light them up with sensor-dazzling lasers, at minimum!You’ve compared any feasible space-based system to Starlink and noted that, similar to Starlink, these interceptors will need to be in low-Earth orbit. That means their orbits will rapidly decay from atmospheric drag, so just like Starlink’s satellites, they’d need to be constantly replaced, too, right?Ha, yes, that’s right. With Starlink, you’re looking at a three-to-five-year life cycle, which means annually replacing one third to one fifth of a constellation.So let’s say Golden Dome is 10,000 satellites; this would mean the best-case scenario is that you’re replacing 2,000 per year. Now, let’s just go along with what the Trump administration is saying, that they can get these things really cheap. I’m going to guess a “really cheap” mass-produced kill vehicle would still run you $20 million a pop, easily. Just multiply $20 million by 2,000, and your answer is $40 billion. So under these assumptions, we’d be spending $40 billion per year just to maintain the constellation. That’s not even factoring in operations.And that’s not to mention associated indirect costs from potentially nasty effects on the upper atmosphere and the orbital environment from all the launches and reentries.That, yes—among many other costly things.I have to ask: If fundamental physics makes this extremely expensive idea blatantly incapable of delivering on its promises, what’s really going on when the U.S. president and the secretary of defense announce their intention to pump $175 billion into it for a three-year crash program? Some critics claim this kind of thing is really about transferring taxpayer dollars to a few big aerospace companies and other defense contractors.Well, I wouldn’t say it’s quite that simple.Ballistic missile defense is incredibly appealing to some people for reasons besides money. In technical terms, it’s an elegant solution to the problem of nuclear annihilation—even though it’s not really feasible. For some people, it’s just cool, right? And at a deeper level, many people just don’t like the concept of deterrence—mutual assured destruction and all that—because, remember, the status quo is this: If Russia launches 1,000 nuclear weapons at us—or 100 or 10 or even just one—then we are going to murder every single person in Russia with an immediate nuclear counterattack. That’s how deterrence works. We’re not going to wait for those missiles to land so we can count up our dead to calibrate a more nuanced response. That’s official U.S. policy, and I don’t think anyone wants it to be this way forever. But it’s arguably what’s prevented any nuclear exchange from occurring to date.But not everyone believes in the power of deterrence, and so they’re looking for some kind of technological escape. I don’t think this fantasy is that different from Elon Musk thinking he’s going to go live on Mars when climate change ruins Earth: In both cases, instead of doing the really hard things that seem necessary to actually make this planet better, we’re talking about people who think they can just buy their way out of the problem. A lot of people—a lot of men, especially—really hate vulnerability, and this idea that you can just tech your way out of it is very appealing to them. You know, “Oh, what vulnerability? Yeah, there’s an app for that.”You’re saying this isn’t about money?Well, I imagine this is going to be good for at least a couple of SpaceX Falcon Heavy or Starship launches per year for Elon Musk. And you don’t have to do too many of those launches for the value proposition to work out: You build and run Starlink, you put up another constellation of space-based missile defense interceptors, and suddenly you’ve got a viable business model for these fancy huge rockets that can also take you to Mars, right?Given your knowledge of science history—of how dispassionate physics keeps showing space-based ballistic missile defense is essentially unworkable, yet the idea just keeps coming back—how does this latest resurgence make you feel?When I was younger, I would have been frustrated, but now I just accept human beings don’t learn. We make the same mistakes over and over again. You have to laugh at human folly because I do think most of these people are sincere, you know. They’re trying to get rich, sure, but they’re also trying to protect the country, and they’re doing it through ways they think about the world—which admittedly are stupid. But, hey, they’re trying. It’s very disappointing, but if you just laugh at them, they’re quite amusing.I think most people would have trouble laughing about something as devastating as nuclear war—or about an ultraexpensive plan to protect against it that’s doomed to failure and could spark a new arms race.I guess if you’re looking for a hopeful thought, it’s that we’ve tried this before, and it didn’t really work, and that’s likely to happen again.So how do you think it will actually play out this time around?I think this will be a gigantic waste of money that collapses under its own weight.They’ll put up a couple of interceptors, and they’ll test those against a boosting ballistic missile, and they’ll eventually get a hit. And they’ll use that to justify putting up more, and they’ll probably even manage to make a thin constellation—with the downside, of course, being that the Russians and the Chinese and the North Koreans and everybody else will make corresponding investments in ways to kill this system.And then it will start to really feel expensive, in part because it will be complicating and compromising things like Starlink and other commercial satellite constellations—which, I’d like to point out, are almost certainly uninsured in orbit because you can’t insure against acts of war. So think about that: if the Russians or anyone else detonate a nuclear weapon in orbit because of something like Golden Dome, Elon Musk’s entire constellation is dead, and he’s probably just out the cash.The fact is: these days we rely on space-based assets much more than most people realize, yet Earth orbit is such a fragile environment that we could muck it up in many different ways that carry really nasty long-term consequences. I worry about that a lot. Space used to be a benign environment, even throughout the entire cold war, but having an arms race there will make it malign. So Golden Dome is probably going to make everyone’s life a little bit more dangerous—at least until we, hopefully, come to our senses and decide to try something different.

A few summers ago, when the culture was moving through micro trends as fast as they could be Instagrammed, Cottage Core was born. The trend, which came out of a Covid-influenced romanticism for living close to nature (but not ruffing it, à la gorpcore, fashion’s cousin trend), inspired an infusion of chintz and whicker-filled interiors, and, of course, lush English-style gardens.Flash forward to 2025. All those cottage gardens planted in early 2020—rustic, sophisticated, chic—are at their peak. And there really is something to an outdoor space that merges with the indoors, is there not? On a warm summer evening, when the bougainvillea is in bloom, and the grass is a bit damp, what could be more appealing than a home built to nestle into a fantastical garden.Here, we’ve collected some of our favorite cottage gardens. They range from fairy house gardens to campground landscape, historical (Anne Hathaway’s famed cottage that has inspired Shakespeare devotees the world over) to contemporary compound gardens in the woods.While we may have a specific notion of a cottage garden, but they are—and should be—as unique as the people who tend them. One lesson for planting your own? A small space is an asset rather than a limitation.Below, you’ll find 15 of our favorite cottage gardens from Marin County California to Stratford-Upon-Avon, England.William Jess LairdThis Amagansett cottage was literally designed for “summertime snoozes.” It’s also a good reminder that a delicate slate garden pathway can take you far. Designer Melissa Lee noted how “unexpected” the whole place felt, surrounded by the many mansions of the Hamptons. As she rightfully notes, the charm is in the surprise. A suggestion of mystery always adds to a cottage! Think The Secret Garden or the unexpectedly expansive Weasley Family home.Noe DewittVines climb up this 1920s English Art and Crafts style cottage in the Hamptons. The elegant and eclectic cottage was re-designed by Nick Olsen to emphasize outdoor living with comfy couches, a tiled patio and a pool.William James LairdThis pink cottage kitchen looks out over a garden in Litchfield County, Connecticut. Designer Clive Lonstein’s work is vibrant and unexpected, particularly for a modest Connecticut cottage built in the late 1800s. In a way though, the bright colors all throughout the house are a reflection of the original design for the house. The architect, Ehrick Rossiter was known for his own whimsy, and even included a turret in this design. This cottage is a great reminder to leave the door open all summer long.Stephen Kent JohnsonThis former fishing shack in Provincetown proves that a sprawling garden can fit into a small space. From Windex yellow fox gloves to arching lavender, this is a bucolic slice of heaven. A classic shingled home, complete with flower boxes and a white picket fence, it has a deeply cottage-core sequence backstory. It was used as an artist studio for William Maynard until his death in 2016, and when it was sold, prospective buyers were asked to write why they wanted to live there.Rachael SmithWe love an indoor / outdoor cottage garden. Ideally, you have a branch that grows through a window, like this one in Suzie de Rohan Willner’s English Country Garden. It is a charming marriage of dynamics: English and French, contemporary and historical, and, of course just as eclectic as a cottage should be. Willner notes, “The whole house is a collection of things from each period of my and my husband’s lives. I love to pick up bibs and bobs and it all comes together very happily.”Chronicle / Alamy Stock PhotoKate Middleton’s Adelaide Cottage conjures images of an Arthurian fantasy. The Wales family made this their Windsor home since 2023. Built in 1831 for Queen Adelaide (the German-born wife of William IV, who was the Uncle of Queen Victoria). It went through a transformative renovation in 2015 which left the historical decorations in tact. Fun fact: the Wales family pay market rent for their use of the home.Photo 12//Getty ImagesThe poet, actor, and playwright Anne Hathaway’s famed cottage and accompanying garden must have inspired her husband’s plays (that would be Shakespeare). This might be what comes to mind when you think of a cottage garden. Now open to the public daily, it was originally built more than 500 years ago, and is the site of Hathaway’s own birth in 1556.CostcoThis Costco (yes, Costco!) shed turned cottage is an ideal backdrop for your cottage garden fantasy. If you’re feeling very DIY this year, start here. Priced at $6,499, it measures 12’ x 24’ feet, a perfect amount of space for your own summer hide away or gardening shed.Richard PowersThis glass house is a reminder that a cottage garden doesn’t have to follow a prescribed style. The Amagansett cottage, originally built in 1960, is a marvel of mid-century design, an aesthetic reflected in the mod-furniture choices. Again, we love a stylistic mix in an updated cottage. Japanese Maple Trees complete the woodsy vibe.© David Hockney, Photo By Jonathan WilkinsonDavid Hockney illustrated his own cottage garden during the Pandemic. His drawing is illustrative of the benefits of an English garden: a bit wild, extremely lush, and more green than anything else. If we could, we’d jump right into this scene like Mary Poppins on a rainy day.John M. Hall for ELLE DecorHere’s a rule of thumb: trust Ina Garten. This cottage-like structure, on the grounds of the East Hampton home Garten shares with her husband Jeffrey, is perennially perfect. Note, too, the green and purple color scheme here. This is perhaps the dream cottage garden and something of a childhood playhouse. It has just enough space for a cozy chat and is a reminder that you can build your own little cottage on a very small plot of land.Photo 12//Getty ImagesMarie Antoinette’s Hamlet on the grounds of Versailles still sets the standard for the cottage garden with a thatched roof, hedges, and roses straight out of a fairy tale. During the former French Queen’s reign, her hamlet was used as a faux farm house, where she and her young daughter, Princess Marie Thérèse, would dress as idealized versions of French peasant farmers and milk cows. The interior, though, of this modest cottage, is appropriately grand with silk furnishings and canopy beds.Douglas FriedmanA garden that proves succulents and cottages are a match made in heaven. This one, in Marin County, California, adds a bit of desert flair. On the other side of this cottage is a water way and a perfect little dock for launching paddle boards. We love how the greens liven up this side of the house and create a completely different, almost modern desert-like, aesthetic. As with any great cottage garden, there is a distinctly transportive factor.Michael CliffordA light wood sauna and cold plunge on the grounds of Jenni Kayne’s Hudson Valley farmhouse are hidden behind shrubbery for a sense of privacy against a wide open landscape. We love the idea of adding a spa-like ambiance to a cottage garden as well as finding inventive ways to use the space. This is exactly where we want to be in the summer!Getty ImagesThis is sort of cheating, but Bunny Williams is a necessary inclusion! Williams’s Oak Spring Garden in Upperville, Virginia continues to inspire garden and cottage enthusiasts the world over. Rather than one cottage, the grounds of Williams’s large estate feature a guest cottage and a basket house, both of which are charming in the extreme.Dorothy ScarboroughDorothy Scarborough (she/her) is the assistant to the Editor in Chief of Town & Country and Elle Decor.