What you need to know about Trump’s Golden Dome threat
A guide to Canada’s involvement in America's space weapons plan
I am very worried that Canada is sleepwalking into potentially the most dangerous military project since the atom bomb.
Trump’s Golden Dome will put thousands of weapons in space – one of the few places where there are no weapons today – and lock us into a new Cold War with Russia and China that will rob our children and grandchildren of essential social spending that we have enjoyed for generations.
This week in Washington Prime Minister Carney looked on in the gilded Oval Office as Trump announced, “We’ll be working together on a Golden Dome for the two countries.”
As The Globe and Mail noted, Mr. Trump’s comments about collaborating with Canada on his Golden Dome project were noteworthy because Ottawa has not explicitly announced that it has agreed to join the project.
Canadians don’t know what’s in store for us. Unfortunately, reporting on Golden Dome has generally been scant, largely uncritical, and sometimes error-prone.
Thank goodness the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives covered Golden Dome and Canada in its latest edition of The Monitor magazine. If you are a monthly donor to the CCPA (like I am), then you will be receiving a copy in the mail.
What follows is the article I wrote for the CCPA that reveals what’s really behind Canada and Golden dome, and the risks it poses.
Why is Mark Carney backing Trump’s Golden “Doom” space weapons plan?
by Steven Staples, The Monitor, Fall 2025.
Donald Trump’s announcement in May stunned Canadians. He declared that the U.S. would build a “Golden Dome” continental missile defence system featuring “next-generation technology across land, sea, and space,” including space-based sensors and interceptors. He also revealed that “Canada has called us and they want to be a part of it.”
In one sentence, Trump unveiled a sprawling, untested, and enormously expensive plan to place weapons in space—and claimed Canadian support, presumably secured in undisclosed calls between him and Prime Minister Mark Carney.
It’s no surprise Carney didn’t break the news himself. Supporting Golden Dome signals a major reversal: instead of pursuing economic and strategic independence, as promised, Carney appears ready to deeply integrate Canada’s military with the U.S. Pentagon.
Former Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy called Golden Dome a cockamamie” idea and condemned Carney’s pivot.
“After winning an election on a clear promise to assert a more independent foreign and defence policy…it’s a betrayal of the vision Canadians voted for,” he wrote in The Globe and Mail.
Defending free trade, not Canada
Golden Dome is less about protecting Canada from nuclear threats and more about securing access to the U.S. market. Since taking office,
Carney has linked trade and security in negotiations to remove U.S. tariffs—a strategy past governments avoided for good reason.
Canada has seen this before. After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. closed the Canada-U.S. order and intensified security, sparking panic among Canadian businesses.
Corporate lobby groups joined with pro-defence organizations and pushed for a “Fortress North America” concept: harmonize Canada’s security policies with the U.S. in exchange for border access.
Today, similar forces are backing Golden Dome. The business-friendly C.D. Howe Institute says, “Canada can enhance its sovereignty and restore the tariff-free trade that is vital to both economies by committing to increased defence spend with a portion directed to U.S. procurement. This would create leverage in both security and trade negotiations.”
Less sovereignty, more risk
Trump’s May revelation suggests Carney is prepared to abandon Canada’s decades-long commitment to nuclear disarmament and peaceful space use—an approach maintained by both Liberal and Conservative governments for over 40 years.
Golden Dome is essentially the rebirth of President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” from the 1980s. Canada’s Prime Minister Brian Mulroney declined to join over concerns about an escalating arms race, especially in space.
Reagan’s proposed system was shelved after the Cold War until President George W. Bush revived the idea in 2004, sinking 40 interceptors into Alaska and California to try to intercept a limited number of missiles fired by Iran or North Korea.
Prime Minister Paul Martin, once again, declined Canada’s participation over the prospect of space weapons, but allowed radar data from Canada’s NORAD radars to be used by the American system.
Now, Trump’s Golden Dome aims to shield the U.S. from full-scale nuclear attacks by Russia and China. The scale is enormous. Many technologies it depends on, like AI integration and space-based interceptors, don’t yet exist.
Trump cites Israel’s Iron Dome as inspiration, but the comparison is flawed. Iron Dome is designed to stop short-range rockets in a small region. North America is vastly larger, and Russian or Chinese missiles are faster, more advanced, and deployed in far greater numbers.
Despite the uncertainty, Trump promises deployment within three years, with costs estimated between $175 billion and $500 billion USD. Critics argue missile defence systems like Golden Dome don’t make the world safer—they destabilize it.
They undermine the concept of deterrence that has kept nuclear conflict at bay for decades. When one country builds a shield, others build better swords. Golden Dome could trigger a new arms race in space, encouraging Russia and China to develop more advanced, evasive nuclear weapons while derailing disarmament talks.
Indeed, President Bush’s limited system 20 years ago spurred today’s generation of hypersonic missiles and upgraded warheads in both Europe and Russia. Arms control treaties have faltered, while new war-fighting technologies expand.
Even worse, Golden Dome gives President Trump— or any future president—the ability to consider a first strike against Russia or China, knowing America might intercept any counterattack and escape “Mutually Assured Destruction.”
Yet the reliability of missile defence remains doubtful. Over 25 years, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency has spent over $250 billion on interceptors, with only a 50 per cent success rate in controlled tests. If decision-makers rely on this system in a real-world crisis, they could be dangerously misled.
Will Golden Dome protect Canada?
Canada’s inclusion would require expanding Golden Dome’s coverage—more interceptors, radars, and tracking systems—at substantial cost. With a limited number of interceptors, would Canadian cities be protected equally to U.S. cities? Would interceptors be reserved exclusively for Canada? Who decides when to launch interceptors?
We might be asked to provide land or infrastructure: a new radar site in Newfoundland, missile-equipped naval vessels, or an interceptor base located in Canada.
Yet operational control would likely remain entirely American. As one U.S. general bluntly told me, “I am responsible for the defence of the United States—including Air Force One. I can’t hand that responsibility to any other country.”
How much will it cost Canada?
The United States cannot put forward a reliable cost figure, rendering the price for Canada equally ambiguous—but one thing is for sure: it will be unimaginably expensive.
On May 27, Trump declared Canada’s share of the project would be $61 billion USD ($83 billion CAD). But just weeks later, he upped the ante to $71 billion USD ($100 billion CAD).
As for a discount? Trump quipped that the cost would be zero if Canada became the 51st state.
Trump has also stated the project will be built in America, offering minimal economic benefits for Canada.
Even the trade payoff is uncertain—Trump insists any deal to join Golden Dome would be separate from broader tariff negotiations.
Carney should say “No” to Golden Dome
Joining Golden Dome is a bad deal for Canada. The system risks escalating global tensions by putting weapons into space, undermines Canadian sovereignty, offers little economic benefit for us, and costs more than the country can afford.
Rather than bankrolling a space arms race, Canada should recommit to its longstanding position: no weapons in space and a world free of nuclear weapons. The future lies not in golden domes, but in global cooperation and arms control.
Steven Staples is a long-time policy analyst and author of “Missile Defence: Round One. An insider’s account of how and why Canada said No to George Bush—and why this issue won’t die,” published by Lorimer. He is also on the CCPA’s Members’ Council.
Leave a comment explaining your vote.
Readers wary of drone-prone airports
Last weekend’s newsletter looked at the mysterious drones that have been disrupting air traffic at European airports. I asked you, “If drone incidents persist, would you be less likely to travel by air in affected countries?”
Nearly a quarter of readers said, “No” (22%) they wouldn’t avoid affected countries, while the majority (59%) said they would. The remainder (19%) said they didn’t know or were unsure.
Did you miss last week’s newsletter?
Viewed 1.5k times
Happy Thanksgiving, and thank you for everything you do for peace.
Steve
True security among nations could be achieved if they/we used increased diplomacy and cooperation. That would create trust among nations at much less cost to the world's population and the environment. We could sleep at night knowing that "space" is not full of weapons ready to bomb us in our sleep. Is the desire among billionaires and political autocrats to create a suicidal weapons research/manufacturing industrial strategy the reason we are not pursuing diplomacy and cooperation and peace among the nations?