INSIGHTi

Golden Dome: Proposed Funding in H.R. 1

June 27, 2025

Introduction
On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), which, if
enacted, would provide approximately $24.7 billion for the “enhancement of Department of Defense
[DOD] resources for integrated air and missile defense” (Title II, §20003). On June 3, 2025, Senator
Roger Wicker, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), released a draft version of the
same title of the reconciliation bill. On June 25, 2025, Senator Wicker released an updated draft version.
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and the SASC chair have described the proposed funding
as going towards “Golden Dome for America,” (hereafter, Golden Dome), although Golden Dome is not
mentioned in either version.
Some Members of Congress have noted that few programmatic details about Golden Dome are currently
available. Its estimated cost and technical feasibility have been the subject of congressional interest and
debate. Congress may consider whether or not to provide funding for Golden Dome in H.R. 1, whether
such funding would potentially signal congressional support for the Golden Dome initiative, and whether
Congress has adequate information about Golden Dome to assess this issue. Congress’s decisions
regarding Golden Dome in H.R. 1 could affect U.S. security, defense capabilities, and funding
requirements, as well as the defense industrial base.

What Is Golden Dome?

The “Golden Dome for America” (initially known as the “Iron Dome for America”) is an executive
branch initiative to develop an integrated air and missile defense system for the U.S. homeland. President
Donald J. Trump officially introduced the initiative on January 27, 2025, with an executive order (EO)
directing the Secretary of Defense to submit “a reference architecture, capabilities-based requirements,
and an implementation plan for the next-generation missile defense shield.” (For more on this EO, see
CRS Insight IN12544, The Golden Dome (Iron Dome) for America: Overview and Issues for
Congressional Consideration.) According to a DOD press release from May 20, 2025, Golden Dome is to
combine several systems that would collectively protect the United States from “aerial attacks from any
foe.” This initiative marks a shift in U.S. homeland missile defense strategy, which previously aimed to
defend against threats from rogue nations, such as North Korea, while relying on U.S. nuclear capabilities

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12576

CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service 2

to deter threats from peer and near-peer states, such as Russia and China. The proposed architecture may
incorporate and enhance existing capabilities (e.g., ground-based midcourse defense system) while
developing, fielding, and integrating new capabilities (e.g., space-based interceptors and directed energy
weapons).

Section 20003 of Title II

The House-passed and updated SASC chair-released versions of Section 20003 would provide
approximately $24.7 billion and $24.4 billion, respectively, in FY2025 mandatory funding (i.e., budget
authority) for integrated air and missile defense. The provisions state that such funds are to “remain
available until September 30, 2029.” As currently written, the two versions would provide nearly identical
funding amounts for various efforts (see Table 1).
The text of the proposals does not specify the extent to which the proposed bills would fund existing
DOD programs, projects, and activities or create new lines of effort. The House-passed and SASC chair-
released versions include provisions that would require DOD to provide Congress with spending plans at
the account and line-item level of detail (not later than 45 days or 60 days, respectively, after the date of
enactment).

Table 1. Proposed Funding for Integrated Air and Missile Defense in H.R. 1, Title II, Section
20003 and SASC Chair-Released Draft
House-Passed H.R. 1a Updated SASC Chair-Released Draftb Enacted

Section 20003(a)(1) would provide $183 No such provision. —

million for “Missile Defense Agency special
programs.”
Section 20003(a)(2) would provide $250 Section 20003(a)(1) would provide the same —
million for “development and testing of amount for the same purpose as the House
directed energy capabilities by the provision.
Undersecretary for Research and Engineering.”
Section 20003(a)(3) would provide $300 No such provision. —
million for “classified military space superiority
programs run by the Strategic Capabilities
Office.”
Section 20003(a)(4) would provide $500 Section 20003(a)(2) would provide the same —
million for “national security space launch amount for the same purpose as the House
infrastructure.” provision.
Section 20003(a)(5) would provide $2 billion Section 20003(a)(3) would provide the same —
for “air moving target indicator military amount for the same purpose as the House
satellites.” provision.
Section 20003(a)(6) would provide $400 Section 20003(a)(4) would provide the same —
million for “expansion of Multi-Service amount for the same purpose as the House
Advanced Capability Hypersonic Test Bed provision.
program.”
Section 20003(a)(7) would provide $5.6 billion Section 20003(a)(5) would provide the same —
for “development of space-based and boost amount for the same purpose as the House
phase intercept capabilities.” provision.
Section 20003(a)(8) would provide $2.4 billion No such provision. —
for “the development of military non-kinetic
missile defense effects.”
Congressional Research Service 3

House-Passed H.R. 1a Updated SASC Chair-Released Draftb Enacted

Section 20003(a)(9) would provide $7.2 billion Section 20003(a)(6) would provide the same —
for “the development, procurement, and amount for the same purpose as the House
integration of military space-based sensors.” provision.
No such provision. Section 20003(a)(7) would provide $2.55
billion for the “development, procurement,
and integration of military missile defense
capabilities.”
Section 20003(b)(1) would provide $2.2 billion Section 20003(b)(1) would provide the same —
for “acceleration of hypersonic defense amount for the same purpose as the House
systems.” provision.
Section 20003(b)(2) would provide $800 Section 20003(b)(2) would provide the same —
million for “accelerated development and amount for the same purpose as the House
deployment of next-generation provision.
intercontinental ballistic missile defense
systems.”
Section 20003(b)(3) would provide $408 Section 20003(b)(3) would provide the same —
million for “Army space and strategic missile amount for the same purpose as the House
test range infrastructure restoration and provision.
modernization in the United States Indo-Pacific
Command area of operations west of the
international dateline.”
Section 20003(b)(4) would provide $1.975 Section 20003(b)(4) would provide the same —
billion for “improved ground-based missile amount for the same purpose as the House
defense radars.” provision.
Section 20003(b)(5) would provide $530 Section 20003(b)(5) would provide the same —
million for “the design and construction of amount for the same purpose as the House
Missile Defense Agency missile instrumentation provision.
range safety ship.”

Source: CRS analysis of the engrossed version of H.R. 1; Senator Roger Wicker, “SASC Chairman Roger Wicker
Releases Updated Text of Defense Reconciliation Bill,” press release, June 25, 2025, https://www.wicker.senate.gov/2025/6/
sasc-chairman-roger-wicker-releases-updated-text-of-defense-reconciliation-bill.
Notes: The “enacted” column rows are blank because, as of the date of this publication, Congress has not passed a
negotiated version of H.R. 1.
a. Reflects the engrossed version of H.R. 1.
b. Reflects the updated SASC chair-released draft version issued on June 25, 2025, that replaced an earlier draft version
released on June 3.

Issues for Congress

Congress is deciding whether or not, and potentially how, to pursue the Golden Dome initiative for
homeland air and missile defense. Some Members of Congress have introduced legislation in support of
Golden Dome. Some Members of the Senate reportedly formed a Golden Dome Caucus on May 13, 2025,
and some Members of the House on June 10, 2025. In hearings, Members have raised questions about
cost and feasibility of Golden Dome, as well as its implications for strategic stability. (For more on
strategic stability as it relates to Golden Dome, see CRS Insight IN12568, Golden Dome: Potential
Strategic Stability Considerations for Congress.) Congress may consider issues including but not limited
to the following:
• In a May 20, 2025, press conference, President Trump described air and missile defense
funding in the proposed reconciliation bill as an “initial deposit” toward Golden Dome,
Congressional Research Service 4

and stated that the entire project would cost a total of $175 billion and be completed by
the end of his term in office. Would providing $24.7 billion (or some other figure) in H.R.
1, or other legislation, potentially signal congressional support for initiating Golden
Dome as an acquisition effort? If so, to what degree would Congress’s approval of such
spending incur future spending commitments in, for example, maintenance and
sustainment costs?
• The provisions in Section 20003 would, if enacted, fund space-based sensors and
defensive systems against missiles and hypersonic weapons, among other capabilities.
Would such funding implement a particular technical approach for Golden Dome? To
what extent would such funding augment capabilities already in use, accelerate programs
in development, or introduce new technologies and operational concepts? What
objectives might Congress expect could be implemented by the end of President Trump’s
term in office and which might take longer to implement?
• The Trump Administration has described Golden Dome as a necessary investment to
“protect the homeland from advanced missile threats.” To what extent does the proposed
funding—and the Golden Dome initiative, writ large—address such threats? Does
Congress have sufficient information about such threats to assess the potential value of
various air and missile defense capabilities?

Options for Congress

In considering air and missile defense funding in H.R. 1 or other legislation, Congress has multiple
options, including but not limited to the following:
• In general, Congress may approve, reject, or modify Administration funding requests and
proposed acquisition strategies.
• Congress may consider directing the Administration to share a detailed architecture and
implementation plan for Golden Dome, as well as the threat assessment required in the
January 27 EO to support congressional assessment of this initiative. Congress may also
require DOD to provide additional information on the cost, schedule, technical approach
and risks, and role of Golden Dome as an element of overall U.S. deterrent and
warfighting strategy.
• Congress may consider directing an independent assessment of the cost and feasibility of
various homeland air and missile defense capabilities. Information on costs could include
initial procurement costs and life-cycle operation and support (O&S) costs.
CRS has several products on topics relevant to U.S. homeland air and missile defense. For non-exhaustive
list, see CRS Report R48584, Golden Dome: Related CRS Products.
Congressional Research Service 5

Author Information

Hannah D. Dennis Daniel M. Gettinger

Analyst in U.S. Defense Policy Analyst in U.S. Defense Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN12576 · VERSION 1 · NEW