Democratic Congress expected to end Trump’s Golden Dome initiative

This is a new development in a story we reported earlier: Democrats win House and Senate, Golden Dome funding uncertain.

Democratic lawmakers are expected to strip funding from or otherwise end President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome initiative, and any successor program will not keep the Golden Dome name, as the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress prepares to write the Pentagon’s budget.

Democrats won solid majorities of both chambers in the 2026 midterm elections, placing the national checkbook in the hands of a Democrat-majority House. The Republican midterm defeat dimmed prospects for Trump‘s $1.5 trillion defense budget request during an unpopular Middle East war.

President Donald Trump announced the Golden Dome program in January 2025, one week into his second term in the White House. The announcement came shortly after Trump began his second term.

Trump signed an executive order outlining Golden Dome in January 2025. The order created a new program to consolidate existing Pentagon missile defense efforts, accelerate work on new Ground-Based Interceptors, and deploy orbiting sensors and Space-Based Interceptors against ballistic missiles, drones, and hypersonic weapons. Ground-Based Interceptors are missiles launched from the ground to intercept incoming warheads, while Space-Based Interceptors are weapons stationed in orbit.

Much of what the Trump administration calls Golden Dome was already in development or operational when Trump signed the order. The initiative predated the executive order, which created a consolidation program rather than starting every element from scratch.

The first tranche of Golden Dome funding was approximately $24 billion, included in Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The bill passed Congress on a party-line vote. Because the vote split along party lines, Golden Dome’s funding bypassed the normal bipartisan military budgeting process and moved through the reconciliation shortcut instead.

Golden Dome’s budget passed Congress through the controversial reconciliation shortcut rather than the normal bipartisan military budgeting process. The reconciliation route meant the initiative’s funding did not undergo the standard two-party congressional budgeting procedure.

Two of the top lawmakers backing the Pentagon’s Golden Dome missile defense shield are among the Republicans leaving Congress as Democrats take over. Their departure raises questions about the future of Trump’s signature second-term defense initiative as the new Congress prepares to write the Pentagon’s budget.

Military officials signaled in recent months that they might backpedal from the Golden Dome capability to shoot down missiles in their initial boost phase shortly after launch, an element Trump had requested. The possible retreat from the boost-phase element emerged amid the wider Capitol Hill shakeup after the 2026 congressional elections. The boost phase is the period shortly after a missile leaves the ground.

Democratic lawmakers, according to half a dozen current and former officials, plan to “put forth bills to strip out Golden Dome’s most controversial component and give the program a new name.” Any successor program will not keep the Golden Dome name. The expected action follows the party’s takeover of both chambers in the 2026 midterms.

Richard Thomas, citing Dabbiru, assesses that Golden Dome will most likely be trimmed down rather than cancelled outright. Lawmakers are challenging its most ambitious elements, such as space-based systems and the orbital shield idea, because of significant price tags.

Mark Cancian, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said a rebranding of Trump’s Golden Dome and the Boeing F-47 could be expected. Cancian also said jettisoning the proposed 2027 reconciliation bill would shrink Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense proposal to a still substantial $1.1 trillion, and that missile defense is among major initiatives with bipartisan support.

Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense budget request represented a 44% increase from the previous fiscal year. Democrats, now controlling both chambers, were already opposed to the increase and signaled they would block any efforts to push it forward.

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, incoming chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said after the election that Congress must pursue a more realistic and sustainable national security approach not requiring a defense budget over $1 trillion or funded by draconian cuts to critical domestic programs. His statement came after Democrats won solid majorities of both chambers and as they signaled opposition to Trump’s 44% defense spending increase.

The Democratic resistance risks imperiling Trump’s Golden Dome missile shield and Trump-class battleship plan. The battleship plan is one of the expensive Trump-era projects that have drawn criticism from lawmakers including Republicans.

Lawmakers returning to Washington on Monday must address the annual defense policy bill and a fiscal year 2027 spending plan. Fiscal year 2027 began Oct. 1 under stopgap funding, a temporary spending measure, that runs out Dec. 11. Both measures are now in limbo after the midterm elections.

Shares of major contractors including Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. fell this week as midterm results eroded expectations of a ramp-up in US military spending. The decline followed Democratic opposition to Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense budget request.

Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, said Trump’s request for a steep fiscal 2027 budget would fund defense modernization efforts as autonomous systems change modern warfare. Autonomous systems are weapons or platforms that can operate with limited human control. The size of the increase, domestic spending cuts, Iran war costs, and expensive projects like Trump-class battleships grated on lawmakers including Republicans.

Todd Harrison, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said nearly all Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans still want to remove Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Harrison said Hegseth had done nothing to improve his position with Congress since the House adjourned over the issue in September, and removal would be at the top of the docket when lawmakers return.

Any initiative requiring new funding is likely to hit a brick wall, and a Hegseth initiative needing congressional authorization or funding is likely not going to happen, Harrison said. His assessment covers Golden Dome and other Trump administration defense priorities as the new Congress takes office.

The proposed 2027 reconciliation bill sought billions for autonomous capabilities and critical munitions procurement. If that increase does not pass in the lame duck, the next Congress must deal with it. Jettisoning the reconciliation bill would also shrink Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense proposal down to $1.1 trillion, according to Mark Cancian of CSIS.

Cancian said many major defense initiatives—drones, munitions, shipbuilding, and missile defense—have bipartisan support, though there may be some drone organization that is not a combatant command. A combatant command is a unified military command responsible for a specific region or function. Cancian offered this in the context of what might survive Democratic scrutiny after the midterms.

The B-21 bomber’s first plane is expected to enter service in 2027, so major change is not expected except perhaps some scaling back of acquisitions. Ward Clark offered this assessment alongside his view that Golden Dome is unlikely to survive under Democratic control.

Some lawmakers have voiced an intention to impeach Hegseth, and rumors swirl that he is angling for Tennessee Governor-Elect Marsha Blackburn’s vacated Senate seat. Trump told reporters on Wednesday he thinks Hegseth is doing a very good job, had not heard Hegseth was being considered for the Senate job, and said he would be very popular in the office.

Harrison said if Trump changes his mind, now is the time to push Hegseth out and still confirm a replacement, though once the new Congress takes office, confirmation would be difficult.

Rep-elect Elaine Luria, D-Va., a retired Navy commander, won back her former House seat and served on the House Armed Services Committee. She is among familiar faces who could pressure the Defense Department after the midterms.

Nancy Lacore, a former Navy admiral whom Hegseth forced to retire last year, flipped former Rep. Nancy Mace’s House seat in South Carolina, leaving open another House Armed Services Committee position. This is part of the post-election turnover affecting congressional oversight of defense.