Chopping Blocks and Pedestals: The Implications of Policy Priorities

Valerie Cobb - Security Leadership Program

Introduction

As the new administration puts USAID and the Department of Education funds on the chopping block, missile defense has been put on a $24.8 billion pedestal. 

This is not the first time missile defense has been under the spotlight in history. Ballistic missile defense systems have been popular since the Cold War when the US was determined to pursue strategic deterrence against the Soviet Union. Although missile defense saw a pause during the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, since its termination in 2002, the US has continued to invest in missile defense. The withdrawal of the ABM had a lot to do with how the US planned to confront rogue states after 9/11. Today, the US has one of the most robust missile defense programs in the world. So why is missile defense still important in policy-making decisions? 

The political conflicts leading up to the second Trump administration have created unique conditions for new policies surrounding missile defense. Most importantly, the war with Russia in Ukraine and the attack on Israel in October 2023. Although both conflicts have different regional and political implications, the use of the Iron Dome and the risk of nuclear weapon use in Ukraine has sparked a drive for investment in missile defense.   

Policy Priorities: Cost v. Benefit  

We can expect that the geopolitics during the new Trump administration will give a new (and expensive) rise in the popularity of missile defense. Policymakers should be cautious about how to invest in expanding the missile defense program. Investing in missile defense may signal two distinct kinds of messages. First, we should be cautious about what message investing in missile defense will give to other countries. Whether it be China, Russia, or Iran, a policy of this magnitude may make other states feel weaker. This could lead us to see issues with proliferation, arms control, and treaty negotiations.  Second, we should ask ourselves why government areas such as USAID and the Department of Education have been gutted while missile defense policy has received even more funding. I argue that taxpayers will struggle to identify the payoff of investing more money in defense programs. Especially since most policies up until this point have been about saving money. 

No Biggie...Right?  

Before passing off missile defense as a niche defense area with significant policy implications, Secretary of Defense Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III announced that “the FY 2025 budget requests $28.4 billion to enhance U.S. missile-defense capabilities to defend the homeland, U.S. deployed forces, and our allies and partners against this growing missile threat.” The plans of the Trump administration seem to continue to pursue missile defense capabilities on a much more massive scale. During the recent joint address of Congress, President Trump addressed his stance on the issue. “Israel has it, other places have it, and the United States should have it, too," he said. He continues saying, "This is a very dangerous world. We should have it. We want to be protected. And we're going to protect our citizens like never before.”  Karko writes, "Alternatively, the objects of US missile defense efforts could be revised to include protection against not only attacks from North Korea and Iran, but to provide a “thin” defense against certain kinds of limited missile attack from whatever source, including Russia and China."

A quote from Gen. Michael Guetlein, Vice Chief of Space Operations of the U.S. Space Force, provides insight into the magnitude of investment and support the government is willing to provide towards missile defense in the new administration. "This is on the order of magnitude of the Manhattan Project, and it’s going to take a concerted effort from the very top of our government. It’s going to take a national will to bring all this together". A project comparable to the Manhattan Project will not only take a massive part of the defense budget, but it will also push other countries towards their own systems to compete. 

International Implications 

As expanding missile defense seems to be at the forefront of the future defense agenda, what are the implications? What Trump said in the joint address is important for two reasons. Firstly, it addresses the logic behind missile defense, which is driven partly in response to the dangerous nature of geopolitics and the US's relationship with other nuclear powers. If the US is prioritizing expanding the missile defense program due to the nature of geopolitics, then this may also signal barriers in nonproliferation negotiations that a due to happen after New Start expires in February 2026.

Secondly, Trump mentioned the need for a missile defense system driven by competition with other states. "If other states have them, we should have them too". This is an interesting statement because it illustrates the logic of states, deterrence, and security dilemma theories of International Relations. If Israel’s Iron Dome could influence the US, what would the US’ golden dome do to other states and arms control? Cimbala discusses strategic missile defense and competition saying, "Two members of the commission, Rebeccah L. Heinrichs and General John Hyten, have recently explained that American responses to Russian and Chinese technology advances and force building must include better U.S. homeland integrated air and missile defenses (IAMD) in order to deter and defend against future attacks. This might entail approaches based on new technology, but also on a change in primary mission, from deterrence and defense against limited strikes from rogue states to deterrence and defense against Russian and/or Chinese coercive threats or strikes."

Going Forward

Expanding the missile defense program will have both domestic and international implications. While there is no going back on missile defense, going forward, the current administration should act cautiously in the way it creates new policies for missile defense. A policy and investment of this magnitude might disrupt the perception of the nuclear balance of power. I believe there is a way to introduce new policy and simultaneously preserve the nuclear balance of power and missile defense’s relationship with nonproliferation and arms control regimes.