The second Trump Administration has proposed to develop a "next-generation missile defense shield" against nuclear and conventional attacks that it has called a "Golden Dome for America." Since the 1950s, Members of Congress have periodically debated the costs, feasibility, scope, and sufficiency of strategic defense systems that could limit damage to the U.S. homeland from a nuclear attack. In these debates, some Members have stated that some of these systems could adversely affect U.S. security by destabilizing nuclear deterrence relationships with adversaries and/or by contributing to a competition in nuclear-armed missiles. This Insight focuses on certain strategic stability issues that Congress may consider when providing oversight of or funding for Golden Dome. See the text box for a definition of "Strategic Stability."
|
Strategic Stability A state of relations between adversarial nuclear-armed states where neither side has an incentive to (1) employ nuclear weapons first (this is known as crisis stability or first strike stability), or (2) build up nuclear weapons (this is known as arms race stability). |
One of the major roles of U.S. strategic nuclear forces has been and remains the deterrence of a nuclear attack on the U.S. homeland through a threat of nuclear retaliation (a second strike). After the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States and the Soviet Union gradually sought to improve strategic stability in their mutual deterrence relationship. The Johnson and Nixon Administrations concluded that deploying missile defenses (anti-ballistic missile, or ABM, systems) against a large-scale Soviet nuclear attack was infeasible and that U.S. interests would be better served by negotiating with the Soviet Union to reduce Soviet incentives for a nuclear first strike or an offensive nuclear missile buildup to overcome U.S. ABM systems. In 1972, after hearings, the Senate voted 88-2 to provide advice and consent to ratification of the ABM Treaty that restricted the development and deployment of ABM systems and approved an Interim Agreement that imposed numerical limits on strategic nuclear ballistic missiles.
As part of his 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative, President Ronald Reagan articulated a shift in U.S. strategy from threatening nuclear retaliation toward a defensive approach reliant on intercepting Soviet strategic ballistic missiles with space-based ABM systems. In negotiations that eventually led to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), Soviet leaders sought to keep the United States in the ABM Treaty and limit U.S. space-based ABM systems.
After the end of the Cold War, Congress passed several Missile Defense Acts setting policy and providing funding for missile defenses to protect the U.S. homeland from threats posed by the regional proliferation of missile technologies. Russian concerns about these efforts complicated bilateral nuclear arms control during the 1990s. However, the United States and Russia concluded the 2002 Moscow Treaty that further reduced strategic nuclear forces despite the concomitant U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. During the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama Administrations, the two countries also attempted to cooperate bilaterally and within the NATO-Russia framework on elements of a collaborative missile defense system.
Russian officials express concern that U.S. missile defenses are not limited programs aimed at countering regional threats like North Korea or Iran, but are instead an open-ended effort aimed at undermining Russia's ability to engage in nuclear retaliation. Russian negotiators unsuccessfully sought "legally-binding guarantees" that U.S. missile defenses would not be aimed against Russian strategic nuclear forces. The 2010 New START Treaty's preamble included language, secured by Russian negotiators, regarding an "interrelationship" between strategic offenses and defenses. The Senate's resolution of advice and consent to New START ratification stated that the treaty did not restrict U.S. missile defenses.
The Russian military has some missile defense systems and capabilities to protect its nuclear deterrent, as well as to counter U.S. missile defenses beyond traditional countermeasures. In 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia had novel nuclear weapons to counter U.S. missile defenses. During the Biden Administration, Russian officials focused on missile defense as one of the factors, in addition to nuclear weapons and conventional precision strike, affecting strategic stability.
U.S. missile defense policy has become an area of coordination for Russia and the People's Republic of China (PRC), whose growing nuclear arsenal now poses "a direct threat to the [U.S.] Homeland," according to U.S. intelligence estimates. In a May 2025 statement, Russia and the PRC stated that, through Golden Dome, the United States sought to undermine their ability to engage in nuclear retaliation.
As Congress assesses the Trump Administration's homeland missile defense plans and their strategic stability implications, it may consider the following issues: