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. border 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 spending 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.
