Log in
Donald Trump wants to build a “Golden Dome” for America—and he wants Canadians to help pay for it.
The multi-billion-dollar missile defence project, announced two weeks ago by the U.S. president, could spark a new nuclear arms race and lead to the militarization of space.
And the cost that could be shouldered by Canadians to participate in this folly? At least $83.6 billion, and possibly much more.
So why is Prime Minister Mark Carney considering joining Trump’s scheme?
Fresh off a federal election that hinged on the Liberals’ promise to put more distance between Canada and the U.S., Prime Minister Carney’s confirmation that he is considering signing Canada up for the multi-billion dollar missile defence initiative has left many observers dumbfounded.
“Is this for real?” asked Lloyd Axworthy in a Globe and Mail opinion piece. “Is Canada seriously contemplating joining Mr. Trump’s latest cockamamie idea?”
It seems to be the result of a perfect storm: a foolhardy attempt by Carney to comply with Trump’s blackmail, while also giving in to a long-standing push by Canada’s corporate lobby for more military integration with the United States.
Besides the exorbitant and likely escalating cost, the project will spark an escalating arms race, while benefiting major U.S. arms dealers and tech billionaires like Peter Thiel’s software company Palantir.
The Golden Dome, in short, is unlikely to make Canadians any safer, but will almost certainly make some of the most reactionary oligarchs on the planet richer.
The Dome is a delusion—and a recipe for an arms race
Trump’s announcement follows his January executive order dubbed “Iron Dome for America,” inspired by Israel’s air defence system.
Experts and scientists have lambasted the scheme as “a fantasy,” “a mirage,” and “science fiction.”
Dr. Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned Scientists has called the comparison to the Iron Dome completely off-base. She points out that Israel’s system was designed to intercept short-range, non-nuclear missiles over small geographics areas. Trump’s vision, by contrast, is to shield the entire U.S. from intercontinental ballistic missiles that “travel 100 times further and seven times faster.”
“Invoking Iron Dome is just marketing,” she says, “trying to manufacture credibility for something that has never worked.”
But the Golden Dome is not only unworkable—it’s profoundly dangerous. Far from a purely defensive measure, it would make the world less safe.
Nuclear proliferation experts warn that its true goal would be to give the U.S. “first strike” advantage—that is, the ability to launch nuclear attacks on adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea without fear of retaliation.
That would be a recipe for an arms race, not deterrence: it would prompt geopolitical rivals to expand their own nuclear arsenals in response, to evade the Golden Dome’s defences.
The sheer scope of Trump’s proposal—to deter and defend against “any foreign aerial attack on the Homeland”—goes beyond anything attempted by previous U.S. administrations. In today’s multipolar nuclear environment, analysts warn, such a project could dangerously “jolt the strategic balance” and inspire massive rearmament across the world.
Of course, technical impossibility has never stopped the U.S. military-industrial complex from pouring public money into a weapons system.
Trump’s Golden Dome is simply the latest in a decades-long string of failed missile defence programs, from Reagan’s infamous “Star Wars” program to George W. Bush’s Ballistic Missile Defence program of the early 2000s.
As Dr. Grego notes, the U.S. has spent more than $350 billion on these schemes over the past 60 years, with few tangible results to show for it—except a reliable stream of profits for arms manufacturers.
The folly of kissing the ring of U.S. president
Prime Minister Carney appears eager to fall in line with Trump’s delusional scheme.
He has talked up potential threats to Canada and framed participating in the scheme as the only way to have a say over hemispheric defence.
“Yes, it‘s a good idea to have protection against missiles in place for Canadians,” he told reporters.
But what kind of protection is Canada really buying?
It’s likely the real ”protection” Carney is seeking is against Trump’s trade policies. U.S officials have openly used tariffs to pressure allies into military cooperation, and the President effectively views global security arrangements as a kind of mafia protection racket.
But any such benefits gained by joining the Golden Dome will almost certainly prove fleeting.
“If it‘s a blackmail payment to encourage the U.S. to drop tariffs,” a Scotiabank economist told The Globe and Mail, “then maybe it could be worth it. Until the next blackmail.”
The corporate lobby’s long push for military integration
Carney’s apparent willingness to play ball with Trump is exactly what Canada’s corporate class has been demanding.
After a brief dalliance with “elbows up” nationalism, the Business Council of Canada—which represents the CEOs of the country’s most powerful corporations—now wants to see the country “stabilize” its relationship with the United States.
“We need to remember,” Council president Goldy Hyder wrote recently after meeting with Carney, “that in some respects we do want to be more integrated with the U.S.”
The corporate lobby group has called for closer military links with the U.S., naming Golden Dome as an area where there is “much common ground and partnership” for the countries to build on.
This isn’t the first time the Business Council has pushed for Canadian participation in such schemes. They also supported participation in both Reagan and George W. Bush’s missile defence programs.
It’s quite the about-turn. On the campaign trail, Carney repeatedly declared that Canada’s “old relationship” with the United States—one rooted in deepening economic integration and tight military cooperation—“is over.” Nearly 80 per cent of Canadians agree, according to a recent poll.
It apparently matters little to Canada’s corporate elite that Mark Carney and the Liberals were elected to office recently on a promise to do exactly the opposite of what they’re now considering.
‘Footing the bill for a technological disaster’
The cost to Canadians for this boondoggle-in-the-making could well be in the hundreds of billions.
When Trump first announced the project, he told the press that Canada will pay its “fair share.” “We’ll work with them on pricing,” he said.
Last week, he got more specific. On the platform Truth Social, the U.S. President announced Canada’s “fair share” would amount to $61 billion USD—more than $83 billion CAD—over just three years.
That’s several times the projected lifetime cost of the troubled F-35 contract, which Carney has said his government will re-evaluate.
It would also be enough to build roughly 100,000 public nonmarket homes each year, roll out universal public pharmacare, eliminate tuition fees for postsecondary education, and dramatically expand public transit.
“If Canada blindly signs on to this, we could end up footing the bill for a technological disaster,” warns Steven Staples, a defence analyst and anti-war activist who wrote a book on the Bush-era missile defence saga entitled Missile Defence: Round One. “This will squeeze out all other government priorities, whether they be health care or reducing the deficit.”
Of course, the bill for Trump’s vanity missile defence system will almost certainly be higher than projected.
The price tag could rise to $830 billion USD, according to the Congressional Budget Office. One Republican Senator even likened the project to the creation of the atomic bomb or the Apollo moon landing—like to “cost in the trillions if and when Golden Dome is completed.”
Canadian analysts warn that extending the shield to cover Canadian territory could push costs even higher.
Bonanza for arms makers and tech titans
One thing is certain: the Golden Dome scheme—however unworkable or geopolitically reckless—will be a huge bonanza for arms manufacturers and Silicon Valley oligarchs.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX was named by several U.S. government sources as the frontrunner for the lucrative defence contracts that will result from the multibillion dollar project, according to a report from Reuters in April. (The social media feud between Musk and President Trump since then has thrown that contract into doubt.)
SpaceX’s partners for the project were reported to likely be Peter Thiel’s software company Palantir and drone maker Anduril, which was founded by a group of Palantir alums.
Thiel and Musk have been open about their contempt for democracy and their desire to build a new authoritarian order in the U.S.
Renewing our opposition to missile defence
Canadians have risen up against such schemes in the past, most notably when George W. Bush tried to bully Canada into supporting its Ballistic Missile Defence program, as penance for Canadian opposition to the disastrous and immoral invasion of Iraq.
The Liberal government of the day, led by Paul Martin, was favourable to missile defence and was eager to mend fences with the U.S., as was corporate Canada.
In response, the Council of Canadians, the Polaris Institute and a number of anti-war groups mobilized against the Iraq war came together to launch the Canadian Campaign to Oppose Missile Defence. Riding the wave of anger against U.S. militarism in Canada, the campaign used protests, open letters from celebrities (“Stars Against Star Wars”), and a book tour by Steve Staples.
During the 2004 election, the campaign developed a Canada-wide network of activists who staged small protests at Paul Martin’s campaign stops on extremely short notice. In what was perhaps one of the earliest instances of successful digital campaigning in Canada, the campaign sent over 50,000 emails to MPs voicing opposition to the missile defence scheme, causing the Liberal caucus to split on the issue.
As one Liberal staffer admitted, “missile defence isn’t a vote-getter.” Leading a minority government and facing a caucus revolt, Paul Martin announced officially in February 2005 that Canada would not participate in the Bush administration’s dangerous scheme.
As Mark Carney betrays his election pledge to confront Donald Trump, a new anti-war movement must rise to stop Canada going down this expensive and dangerous path.
What our journalism can accomplish
‘The first video I ever made with The Breach was on why we need to support the movement for Land Back. Today, it’s being used in educational settings everywhere—in universities and colleges and children’s classrooms too. When I give talks, people will say, ‘I saw your video and it helped me understand the issue.’
That’s what we do at The Breach—reach people where they are at, with bold ideas, principled analysis, and critical investigations.” – Pam Palmater, scholar and author
Become a sustaining member of our work today.
