By John LaForge

A dozen Senate and House Democrats sent a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth July 8th, calling the proposed Golden Dome missile defense program “a corrupt waste of taxpayers” dollars that, like its earlier versions, can’t work.

“[P]lans for Golden Dome could make it prohibitively expensive, operationally ineffective, massively corrupt, and detrimental to U.S. and global security by igniting a nuclear arms race with Russia and China,” the letter said. “We are concerned that Golden Dome will be much more effective at wasting taxpayer dollars than countering missile attacks. We urge you to rein in this dangerous plan.”

Led by Senators Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Reps. John Garamendi, D-Calif., and Don Beyer, D-Virg., the letter warned that, “Estimates by the Congressional Budget Office [are] that the system could cost up to $542 billion to complete [over the next 20 years], more than three times the cost that the Trump administration projected.”

To save some money, Montana Republican Senator Steve Daines has proposed a federal exemption from the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), whose requirements apply to major government construction projects.

Environmental protection is the function of NEPA, but meeting its requirements would slow and vastly increase the cost of replacing the 400 underground missile silos, their 40 underground launch control centers, and hundreds of miles of buried cables that connect missiles to controllers.

Senator Daines is a long-standing member of the ICBM lobby — senators with Minuteman missiles in their states. He has worked strenuously to create support for the dangerous, destabilizing U.S. land-based missiles, offering an amendment to the must-pass military appropriations bill that would exempt the Air Force from NEPA compliance.

Congress may lawfully exempt the Golden Dome plan and any other Pentagon project from NEPA requirements if Sec. Hegseth declares that “it is critical to national security,” or “is necessary for national defense.” Under NEPA rules, Hegseth must inform Congress of the reasons for any exemption, but the reasons may be classified “secret” if he determines secrecy is “necessary for reasons of national security.”

By John LaForge

At Vandenberg Space Force Base in California September 14, the Pentagon trotted out for the cameras the first full-scale model of the planned Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). While little more than a photo op, General Dale White, the Director of Pentagon’s Critical Major Weapon Systems in Arlington, Virginia, called the demonstration a “milestone.”

Sentinel is the missile the Air Force plans to put into 400 newly built underground silos spread around F. E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming, Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, and Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. The missile is intended to replace today’s 400 Minuteman III ICBMs. Stars and Stripes reports that the Air Force has said the massive project of replacing the current missiles “is expected to take well into the later part of the century,” or around 50 years. Air Force contractors intend to build new underground missile silos, new underground launch control centers (where personnel try to stay awake while maintaining launch readiness), and replace hundreds of miles of buried cables that connect the weapons to their controllers.

In July 2024, the Pentagon’s estimated total costs for the Sentinel program (not including warheads) was $141 billion in constant 2020 dollars, which was 81% (or $63 billion) above the program’s first estimate of $78 billion. The estimated life cycle cost of the Sentinel program was estimated then to be $260 billion, but is undoubtedly higher today.

Meanwhile, according to the ICBM Act, sponsored by Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass), the National Nuclear Security Administration which builds U.S. H-bombs, is developing a new replacement ICBM warhead for the Sentinel, the W87–1, and is expanding plutonium production for the warhead’s cores, costing at least $14 billion and $18 billion, respectively.

Gen. James Cartwright, former Vice-Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, wrote, with former Secretary of Defense William Perry, “[T]he greatest danger is not a Russian bolt but a U.S. blunder — that we might accidentally stumble into nuclear war. As we make decisions about which weapons to buy, we should use this simple rule: If a nuclear weapon increases the risk of accidental war and is not needed to deter an intentional attack, we should not build it…. Certain nuclear weapons, such as … the [intercontinental ballistic missile], carry higher risks of accidental war that, fortunately, we no longer need to bear. We are safer without these expensive weapons, and it would be foolish to replace them.” (Washington Post, Nov. 16, 2017)

⸺ Stars and Stripes, Sept. 14, 2026; the Congressional “ICBM Act”

In December 2025, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) issued its 2024 list of the biggest arms producers. SIPRI’s data shows that annual revenue from sales of weapons and military services by the 100 top war profiteers rose in 2024 to a record $679 billion, “the highest level ever recorded by SIPRI,” said Lorenzo Scarazzato of SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program. In 2024, the combined arms revenues of 39 U.S. companies in the top 100 reached $334 billion. These weapons dealing giants include Lockheed Martin (F-35 jet fighter), Northrop Grumman (Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missiles), and General Dynamics (Columbia class ballistic missile submarines). The three Israeli arms companies in the ranking increased their combined arms revenues to $16.2 billion. “The growing backlash over Israel’s actions in Gaza seems to have had little impact on interest in Israeli weapons,” said Zubaida Karim, researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program. — The new data is available from SIPRI, www.sipri.org.