What Happened?

A Senate panel will put the Golden Dome missile defense initiative under the microscope on Sept. 29, when the Senate Armed Services Committee's (SASC) Strategic Forces Subcommittee holds a hearing on the program's progress and direction. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) chairs the subcommittee, with Sen. Angus King Jr. (I-ME) serving as ranking member.

The hearing gives Congress its first formal public look at where the initiative stands and where it is headed.

Why Does it Matter to Me?

Golden Dome is a federal defense initiative focused on missile defense. Decisions made in that hearing room could shape how billions of federal dollars flow to defense and technology companies, and which technologies get built to protect American skies.

Lobbying records show companies across the defense and technology sectors have spent months trying to influence how the program takes shape:

  • Gravitics Inc. reported $30,000 in lobbying spending each quarter from the third quarter of 2025 through the second quarter of 2026, covering its orbital space technology and its potential role in the program's architecture.
  • RTX Corp. spent $60,000 in the first quarter of 2026 and $90,000 in the second quarter of 2026 on lobbying that covered the initiative alongside munitions, engines, radars, and communications systems.
  • Applied Intuition Inc. reported $60,000 in lobbying spending in each of the first two quarters of 2026, covering software tools for missile defense and autonomous systems for the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
  • Florida State University, Battle Creek Unlimited, and Platform Systems Inc. each disclosed lobbying tied to the program's funding and mission opportunities in late 2025 and early 2026.

Both Sides, Now

The source material does not include on-record statements from supporters or opponents of the program ahead of the hearing, so no positions are attributed here. What the lobbying records do show is broad, sustained interest from defense contractors, aerospace firms, software companies, and academic institutions all seeking a piece of the program's federal funding.

Congress has the power to shape, fund, or constrain the initiative through the appropriations and authorization process. The SASC hearing is a congressional oversight action, not an executive one, meaning no White House order drives it. Senators on the subcommittee can use the session to press officials on cost, timeline, and technical progress.

What Happens Next?

No vote is scheduled as a direct result of the hearing, but testimony could shape how the program fares in upcoming defense budget negotiations.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article