Islamabad, Pakistan – As Pakistan sought to defend itself against Indian missiles and drones launched at its military bases and cities in early May, it relied on an unlikely combination of assets: Chinese missiles and air defence; Chinese and United States fighter jets; and US diplomacy.

The missiles, air defence and jets helped Pakistan thwart any devastating hits on its airbases and claim it had brought down multiple Indian fighter planes – an assertion that India has neither confirmed nor denied.

The diplomacy sealed a ceasefire that Pakistan has publicly welcomed and thanked the Donald Trump administration for.

Yet, as the US has in recent years increasingly picked India over Pakistan as its principal South Asian partner, Pakistan this week worked to reassure China that Beijing remained its most coveted ally.

Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, who also serves as foreign minister, visited Beijing earlier this week, meeting his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi on May 20 in the first high-profile overseas visit by a Pakistani leader since the ceasefire.

According to a statement from the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the two sides discussed the fallout of the brief but intense conflict with India, the ceasefire, and Islamabad’s criticism of New Delhi’s actions.

During the meeting with Wang, Dar highlighted India’s “unilateral and illegal decision” to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a six-decade water-sharing agreement. India halted the accord following the April 22 Pahalgam attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, which left 26 people dead. Delhi blamed the attack on Pakistan-based armed groups, an allegation Islamabad denies.

Wang, meanwhile, welcomed the ceasefire, describing it as serving the “fundamental and long-term interests of both sides [India and Pakistan]” while promoting regional peace.

Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister, Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar @MIshaqDar50, held in-depth consultations with the Foreign Minister of China, Wang Yi, today in Beijing.

Both sides exchanged views on evolving situation in South Asia, future trajectory of Pakistan-China… pic.twitter.com/mL03ljzyFr

— Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Pakistan (@ForeignOfficePk) May 20, 2025

Getting Wang on board was critical for Pakistan, say analysts.

‘Power struggle in South Asia’

With South Asia sitting on a tinderbox during the recent Pakistan-India standoff, a larger geopolitical contest loomed in the background.

Pakistan, once a key US ally, has shifted decisively into China’s orbit, relying on its northwestern neighbour heavily for economic and military support.

Meanwhile, India, long known for its non-alignment policy, has leaned closer to the US in recent years as part of a strategy to counter China’s rising influence.

Shahid Ali, an assistant professor of international relations at Lahore College for Women University, who specialises in Pakistan-China relations, said the timing and optics of Dar’s visit were significant.

“While Pakistan hoped to get China’s full diplomatic support for its conflict with India, especially regarding the suspension of the IWT, the visit also provided Dar a good opportunity to apprise China about US-led ceasefire dynamics, also reassuring them of Pakistan’s longstanding all-weather strategic partnership,” Ali told Al Jazeera.

Erum Ashraf, a UK-based scholar focused on Pakistan-China ties and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – a $62bn mega project launched a decade ago – echoed this view.

She said the meeting allowed China to better understand what promises Pakistan may have made to the US and President Trump, who helped mediate the ceasefire.

“The Chinese must be concerned how Pakistan managed to gain President Trump’s support to talk of ceasefire and to even offer to resolve the matter of Kashmir between both countries. The Chinese worry how US influence in their back yard could impact their interest in the region,” she told Al Jazeera.

CPEC remains a cornerstone

Pakistan’s former ambassador to China, Masood Khalid, called Beijing a “logical” first stop for Islamabad’s efforts to use diplomacy to push its narrative about the crisis with India in the aftermath of the ceasefire.

He noted that beyond the recent India-Pakistan military confrontation, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor remained a key pillar of bilateral cooperation.

“The foreign minister may apprise the Chinese side of the security steps which Pakistan has taken for Chinese nationals’ protection,” Khalid told Al Jazeera.

Indeed, according to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wang prodded both countries to work together to create an “upgraded version of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.”

CPEC, launched in 2015 under then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the elder brother of current Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, has been hailed as a “game-changer” for Pakistan.

It is a key component of China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a huge network of roads, bridges and ports spread across nearly 100 countries that Beijing hopes will recreate the ancient Silk Road trade routes linking Europe and Asia.

However, CPEC has faced repeated delays, especially in Balochistan, where its crown jewel, the Gwadar Port, is located.

Separatist groups in Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest but poorest province, have long waged an armed rebellion against the state and have repeatedly hit Chinese personnel and installations, accusing them of benefitting from the province’s vast natural resources.

According to Pakistani government figures, nearly 20,000 Chinese nationals live in the country. At least 20 have been killed since 2021 in various attacks in different parts of Pakistan.

While Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry did not mention it explicitly, the Chinese statement quoted Dar as saying his country would make every effort to “ensure the safety of Chinese personnel, projects and institutions in Pakistan”.

Muhammad Faisal, a South Asia security researcher at the University of Technology Sydney, said the safety of Chinese nationals remains Beijing’s “topmost concern”.

“Even as the crisis with India heightened, the presence of a large number of Chinese nationals in Pakistan, in some ways, compelled Beijing to seek swift crisis de-escalation,” he told Al Jazeera.

‘China’s high-wire act’

Between April 22, when the Pahalgam attack occurred, and May 7, when India struck targets inside Pakistani territory, a global diplomatic effort was quietly under way to de-escalate tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations.

During this period, the US initially showed little interest in direct involvement while China, initially, also was slow to get involved.

China, which has a historically tense relationship with Delhi that suffered further after their troops clashed in the Galwan Valley of Ladakh in 2020, eventually urged restraint from both sides.

However, many observers felt China’s position was seen as lacking neutrality due to its closeness with Pakistan.

Faisal said China is likely to maintain its current “high-wire act”, acknowledging Pakistan’s security concerns while continuing to call for calm on both sides.

He added that while the US was the lead mediator for the ceasefire, Beijing double-tapped Washington by calling both Islamabad and New Delhi to dial down tensions.

“A lesson Beijing learned is that its current restrained public posturing opened up diplomatic space to engage with interlocutors in both Islamabad and New Delhi, despite the fact that the latter views its role with scepticism,” he said.

Ashraf, the UK-based academic, said India did not view China as a “neutral umpire” in its disputes with Pakistan – even though New Delhi and Beijing have in recent months tried to reset their ties, pulling troops back from contested border points and ramping up diplomatic efforts to calm tensions.

“India and China have only recently achieved a breakthrough in their strained border relations, which perhaps helps to explain China’s initial ‘hands off’ behaviour with Pakistan after Pahalgam,” she said.

But ultimately, she said, China needs to “balance a tightrope”: It doesn’t want to “upset relations with India”, but it also needs to help Pakistan enough that it doesn’t “collapse in the face of India’s attacks”.

That’s a balance China managed to strike successfully in early May. With Dar’s visit to Beijing, say analysts, Pakistan – which also benefitted from US diplomatic intervention – tried to repay the favour.

Raipur, Chhattisgarh – Indian security forces have launched an all-out war against Maoist fighters in Chhattisgarh state, as the federal government aims to “wipe out” long-running armed rebellions in the mineral-rich tribal region of the country.

The Karrigatta hills forest, which straddles across Chhattisgarh and Telangana states, has turned into a “warzone” with more than 10,000 Indian soldiers deployed in the anti-Maoist operation – dubbed “Operation Zero or Kagar”.

The right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which runs both the state as well as the central government, has drastically escalated security operations, killing at least 201 Maoist rebels, also known as Naxals, this year.

At least 27 rebels were killed on Wednesday, including the leader of the Maoists. In the past 16 months, more than 400 alleged Maoist rebels have been killed in Chhattisgarh state, home to a sizable population of Adivasis (meaning original inhabitants or Indigenous people).

But activists are alarmed: They say many of those killed are innocent Adivasis. And campaigners and opposition leaders are urging the government to cease fire and hold talks with Maoist rebels to find a solution to the decades-old issue.

More than 11,000 civilians and security forces have been killed in clashes involving Maoist fighters between 2000 and 2024, according to official figures. Security forces have killed at least 6,160 Maoist fighters during the same period, according to police and Maoist figures.

So, will the government’s hardline approach help bring peace, or will it further alienate the Adivasis, who are already one of the most marginalised groups in the country?

Who are the Maoists, and why are they fighting against the Indian state?

The armed rebellion in India originated in a 1967 rural uprising in the small town of Naxalbari, located in West Bengal state. The word Naxal comes from the town’s name.

Led by communist leaders Kanu Sanyal, Charu Majumdar, and Jungle Santal, the armed uprising called for addressing the issues of landlessness and exploitation of the rural poor by landlords.

The three leaders founded the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (CPI(ML)) on April 22, 1969, to wage armed rebellion against the Indian state. They believed that their demands were not going to be met by the prevailing democratic set-up.

The Naxal rebels were also inspired by the revolutionary ideology of the Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Modelled on the Chinese communist party’s approach to capturing the state, they waged a violent rebellion against the Indian security forces in mineral-rich central and eastern India for decades. The West Bengal government, led by Congress leader Siddhartha Shankar Ray, launched a fierce campaign to suppress the Naxalite uprising.

I once again assure the countrymen that India is sure to be Naxal-free by 31 March 2026

by Amit Shah, home minister

Sanyal, one of the founding leaders of the movement, told this reporter in 2010 that “by 1973, at least 32,000 Naxalites or sympathisers had been jailed across India.”

“Many were killed in fake encounters. And when the Emergency was declared in June 1975, it was clear- the sun had almost set on the Naxalite movement,” he said. He died in 2010, aged 78, apparently by suicide in Siliguri.

Over the years, the CPI(ML) splintered into multiple parties, more than 20 of which still exist. The main CPI(ML) itself gave up armed struggle, expressed faith in the Indian Constitution and began participating in electoral politics. Currently, it is a legally recognised political organisation with several legislators.

Meanwhile, in 1980, one of the splinters, the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) People’s War, was founded by Kondapalli Seetharamayya and Kolluri Chiranjeevi in Andhra Pradesh.

Another major breakaway faction, the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC), had a base in Bihar and West Bengal states. In September 2004, the MCC and CPI(ML) People’s War merged, resulting in the formation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), the largest armed Maoist organisation in India today.

The organisation’s most recent general secretary, Nambala Keshava Rao, alias Basavaraj, was killed by security forces on Wednesday in Bastar, Chhattisgarh – the last stronghold of Maoists.

Has the BJP intensified the campaign against Maoists?

The BJP-run Chhattisgarh state government has adopted a more aggressive stance against Maoists compared with the previous government led by the Congress party.

At least 141 Maoists were killed between 2020 and 2023, when the Congress party was in power, but after the BJP came to power, security forces claimed to have killed 223 alleged Maoists in 2024 alone, according to government figures.

“For the past 15 months, our security personnel have been strongly fighting the Naxals,” Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai told Al Jazeera.

“This action is part of the broader efforts, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, to make India free from Naxalism. This is a decisive phase, and we are advancing rapidly in that direction,” he said.

The security forces have currently surrounded suspected Maoist hideouts in Karigatta Hills, with the army’s helicopters assisting in the operation, according to authorities.

Whether it’s the Maoists or the DRG, the one who kills is tribal and the one who dies is also tribal

by Former Member of Parliament Arvind Netam

On May 14, India’s Home Minister Amit Shah announced the killing of 31 fighters in the Karrigatta Hills.

“I once again assure the countrymen that India is sure to be Naxal-free by 31 March 2026,” Shah reiterated in his post on X.

Overall, nearly 66,000 security personnel spanning a range of paramilitary and special forces have been deployed in Chhattisgarh.

The latest operation, which involves more than 10,000 soldiers, centres around the mineral-rich Bastar region of Chhattisgarh, which spans 38,932 square kilometres (15,032sq miles) – an area nearly the size of the US state of Kentucky.

The government has set up approximately 320 security camps in Bastar alone – home to three million people. The number of personnel at each security camp fluctuates depending on the requirement: It can be as low as 150 personnel and rise up to 1,200. They include security forces, as well as technical staff.

Security camps are often equipped with surveillance and communication equipment to assist in the operation against the rebels. The 20,000-strong local police force is also helping in the operations in Bastar.

The use of cutting-edge technology, such as advanced drones equipped with high-definition cameras and thermal imaging sensors, has helped security forces monitor Maoist activity in the region’s dense forests.

However, local villagers allege that security forces have carried out aerial bombings in various parts of Bastar using large drones. Maoist groups have also accused the forces of conducting air strikes.

Security forces have consistently denied these allegations.

Shah, the home minister, has made frequent visits to Chhattisgarh, even spending nights with security forces in Bastar.

But the federal government of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who preceded Modi in India’s top executive office, had also taken a tough stance against Naxals.

Singh even called Naxalism the “greatest internal security threat” to India, and his government launched a major crackdown in 2009 under what it called “Operation Green Hunt” to quash the armed rebellion. Amid allegations of human rights violations, Indian security forces managed to reduce the terrain controlled by the Maoists.

In the 2000s, Naxals controlled nearly one-third of India’s mineral-rich tribal areas, known euphemistically as the Red Corridor, straddling the states of Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Odisha, Jharkhand and Maharashtra, among others. But the number of districts where Maoists wield significant influence had declined from 126 in 2013 to just 38 by April last year.

As the government claims success in its military offensive, human rights groups such as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) accuse the security forces of carrying out fake encounters or extrajudicial killings.

“A large-scale military campaign is being carried out under the pretext of eliminating Maoists,” Junas Tirkey, the president of the PUCL in Chhattisgarh state, said.

“Since 2024, violence, human rights violations, and militarisation have increased sharply in Bastar. Innocent tribals are being killed in fake encounters,” he told Al Jazeera.

Since 2024, violence, human rights violations, and militarisation have increased sharply in Bastar. Innocent tribals are being killed in fake encounters

by  Junas Tirkey, president of the PUCL in Chhattisgarh

The PUCL has identified at least 11 incidents as fake encounters over the past one and a half years.

On March 25, police claimed it had killed Maoist rebels Sudhakar alias Sudhir, Pandru Atra, and Mannu Barsa in Bordga village, Bijapur, about 160km (100 miles) east of Bastar.

But villagers allege the police’s version is false. They claim that the police surrounded the village at night, took 17 people away, released seven, shot three, and took the remaining seven with them.

The government has denied the allegations, but no independent investigation has been conducted in this case. The regular magisterial inquiry, which is carried out after so-called encounters, is not considered credible by rights groups and tribal communities as it is largely based on the police version of events.

“It’s true that Sudhakar was a Maoist and came to visit someone in the village. But the police captured Sudhakar, my brother and others alive, took them away, and later shot them, falsely declaring it an encounter,” the brother of Mannu Barsa, Manesh Barsa, told Al Jazeera.

Inspector general of police of Bastar region, Pattilingam Sundarraj, disagreed with these allegations. He claimed that Maoists often pressure locals to fabricate accusations against the police following encounters.

However, multiple so-called encounters in Bastar have been proven fake in the past, and in most cases, justice has evaded victims.

Even if they are eliminated from Bastar, Maoism is an ideology that cannot be defeated through violence alone

by Former DGP Vishwaranjan

Out of thousands of so-called encounters in Bastar in the last 25 years, only two have faced judicial inquiry. On June 28, 2012, 17 Adivasis, including six minors, were killed in Sarkeguda village in Bijapur district. On May 17, 2013, four minors were among eight Adivasis killed in Edasmeta village in the same district.

The inquiries led by High Court judges found all victims to be innocent. The reports were released in 2022 during the previous Congress rule, though no police cases have been registered against any personnel to date.

Even peaceful protests against mining projects and the militarisation of the region have been met with harsh crackdowns.

The Moolvasi Bachao Manch (MBM), led by Adivasis, was banned last year for “opposing development” and “resisting security forces”.

Dozens of Adivasi youth associated with MBM have been arrested since 2021.

Why is the recruitment of former Maoists in government forces criticised?

The recruitment of Adivasis, many of them former Maoists, in recent years by the authorities seems to have turned the tide in favour of the government.

The then-BJP state government started to incorporate Adivasis, particularly former Maoists, in the District Reserve Guard (DRG) force in 2008 with the aim of using them in anti-Maoist operations. The idea: Former Maoists are better at navigating dense jungle terrain and know about Maoist hideouts.

But past records have raised concerns. Adivasis enlisted as Special Police Officers (SPOs), as they were called, have been accused of rights violations.

In 2005, the state government ruled by the Congress government launched a campaign against Maoists called Salwa Judum (meaning “peace march” in the local Gondi language). Salwa Judum members were armed and were later designated as SPOs and paid 1,500 rupees/month ($17/month).

On one hand, the government itself had proposed dialogue with the Maoists. But now, that same government has turned Bastar into a warzone

by Soni Sori, Adivasi activist

But Salwa Judum members faced accusations of rape, arson, torture and murder. In 2011, the Supreme Court declared Salwa Judum illegal and slammed the state for arming civilians. Subsequently, many SPOs were absorbed into the DRG.

DRG personnel have also been accused of rights abuses, but such cases have rarely been investigated.

Campaigners have also questioned the policy of using surrendered Maoists in combat instead of rehabilitating them.

“The manner in which SPOs were incorporated into the DRG is disturbing. It shows how tribal youth involved in violence were again handed guns under the pretext of rehabilitation,” lawyer and human rights activist Priyanka Shukla told Al Jazeera.

Former Member of Parliament Arvind Netam believes Bastar is “in a state of civil war”. In a situation like this, he says, it’s the tribals who suffer the most.

“Whether it’s the Maoists or the DRG, the one who kills is tribal and the one who dies is also tribal,” Netam, a tribal leader, told Al Jazeera.

Campaigners have argued that Chhattisgarh’s new rehabilitation policy, which promises bounties and cash rewards, incentivises people to turn on each other for money, often with allegations that may be legally untenable.

Why has the government resisted calls for a ceasefire?

Interestingly, while the government has intensified its offensive, it has also continued to offer peace talks to Maoists.

“We still reiterate, Maoists should come forward for dialogue after laying down their arms. Our doors for talks within the framework of the Indian Constitution are always open,” Chhattisgarh’s Home Minister Vijay Sharma told local media last week.

The Maoists, however, insist on a ceasefire and withdrawal of paramilitary forces as conditions for talks. They argue that peace talks and military operations cannot run simultaneously.

In a statement, CPI (Maoist) spokesperson Abhay said, “The right to life guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is being crushed by the government itself … On one hand, our party is trying to initiate unconditional dialogue, and on the other hand, ongoing killings of Maoists and tribals render the peace process meaningless.”

Activists have raised concerns regarding the plight of Adivasi communities.

Soni Sori, an Adivasi social activist from Bastar, believes the government must take the initiative for peace talks.

“On one hand, the government itself had proposed dialogue with the Maoists. But now, that same government has turned Bastar into a warzone,” Sori told Al Jazeera.

“Given the way these operations are being conducted, the government should halt them, foster an environment conducive to dialogue, and take meaningful steps toward initiating peace talks.”

Human rights activists, academics and students have been targeted after being dubbed Naxal sympathisers. A 90 percent disabled professor from Delhi University, GN Saibaba was jailed for backing Maoists. Last October, he died months after being acquitted by the country’s top court after a decade of incarceration.

But state Chief Minister Sai says there will be no leniency in this matter. “Naxal eradication is not just a campaign but a mission to secure Bastar and Chhattisgarh’s future,” he said.

Is Maoist support declining?

In 2011, then-Director General of Police of Chhattisgarh Vishwaranjan estimated approximately 10,000 armed Maoists and 40,000 militia members in the Bastar region. Accurate numbers are hard to determine.

The rebels were able to carry out deadly attacks against the security forces. In 2010, they killed 76 paramilitary troops in a forest ambush in Chhattisgarh. Three years later, dozens of people, including the Congress leader who founded the Salwa Judum, were killed in a rebel ambush.

Current Bastar IGP Sundarraj P estimates about 1,000 armed Maoists remain, along with 15,000 affiliated individuals.

Internal Maoist reports acknowledge declining recruitment, smaller units, and ammunition shortages. Of the 40 central committee and politburo members, only 18 remain free – the rest are either dead or arrested.

Meanwhile, security forces have expanded, built new camps, and improved intelligence and training, while Maoists’ base areas are shrinking.

While our government is running an anti-Naxal campaign, we are also actively working on development projects

by Vishnu Deo Sai, chief minister of Chhattisgarh

Former DGP Vishwaranjan says Maoists are weakened in Chhattisgarh, but they have expanded into neighbouring Madhya Pradesh.

“Even if they are eliminated from Bastar, Maoism is an ideology that cannot be defeated through violence alone,” he told Al Jazeera.

“As long as we build a society on economic inequality, the ideology may resurface in a new form.”

Defending his government’s policies, Chief Minister Sai said that “security and development go hand in hand.”

“While our government is running an anti-Naxal campaign, we are also actively working on development projects,” he said.

Is the real fight over iron ore?

Naxals have invoked the exploitation of natural resources, particularly through mining leases issued to global corporations, and the displacement of local communities, as their reasons for picking up guns in mineral-rich areas of the country. Thousands of Adivasis have been displaced and their local environments severely damaged due to mining activities.

Of the 51 mineral leases in Bastar, 36 are held by private firms, including global steel major ArcelorMittal.

Former MLA and tribal leader Manish Kunjam echoes a similar sentiment, arguing, “The real issue is iron ore.”

According to the Indian government, 19 percent of the country’s iron ore reserves are in Chhattisgarh, mainly in Bastar.

Chhattisgarh accounts for 18 percent of India’s railway freight revenue, largely from mineral transport – and this is growing.

Kunjam explained that when the corporations Tata and Essar began their projects in 2005 to mine iron ore, the state launched Salwa Judum, evacuating 644 villages under the pretext of Maoist fear. At least 350,000 people were displaced. However, strong tribal resistance forced the companies to withdraw.

“Learning from that failure, the government has now set up security camps in mining zones, preparing for renewed extraction,” he said.

“Without village council approval, mining cannot proceed. If tribals protest, they will be labelled as Maoists or sympathisers and dealt with accordingly.”

A closer look at his claims reveals that most camps are indeed in areas where mining has begun or is about to. In Bastar’s mining belt, there is one soldier for every nine tribals. Many of these camps are funded by mining companies.

But Chief Minister Sai believes that the mineral resources in tribal areas should be utilised.

The idea of generating revenue at the cost of tribal lives is dangerous and unconstitutional

by Sushil Anand Shukla, opposition Congress party spokesperson

“The lives of tribals will change with the beginning of mining and industrial activities,” he said. He boasted that Chhattisgarh ranks second among mineral-producing states [after Odisha], earning approximately 14.19 billion rupees ($1.71bn) last year.

This year, the state has allocated 48 major mineral blocks to private companies in the state.

But mass poverty and lack of basic health facilities expose the government’s claims.

Netam, the tribal leader, pointed out that the state has an infant mortality rate of nearly 38 per 1,000 live births, compared to the national infant mortality rate of 28 per 1,000 live births.

In Bastar, he said, poverty is 80 percent.

The opposition Congress spokesperson Sushil Anand Shukla claimed that under the guise of mining, preparations were under way to completely displace tribals from Bastar.

“Today, Bastar stands on the brink of war, and its answers cannot be found by looking to the past. The government must stop surrendering to corporate houses and mining companies at the cost of evicting tribals,” Sushil Anand Shukla says.

“The idea of generating revenue at the cost of tribal lives is dangerous and unconstitutional,” he told Al Jazeera.

United States President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he has selected a $175bn design for the multilayered Golden Dome missile defence programme aimed at countering aerial threats “even if they are launched from space”.

As part of the project, the US would deploy missile interceptors in space to shield against ballistic and hypersonic threats.

Here is more about the Golden Dome project.

What did Trump announce?

Trump on Tuesday announced $25bn initial funding for the project that will cost $175bn and be completed by the end of his current term in 2029.

“Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world, and even if they are launched from space,” Trump said.

“This is very important for the success and even survival of our country.”

Trump also announced that US Space Force General Michael Guetlein would be the lead programme manager, responsible for overseeing the project’s progress.

“I promised the American people that I would build a cutting-edge missile defence shield to protect our homeland from the threat of foreign missile attack,” said Trump.

Trump additionally announced: “Canada has called us, and they want to be a part of it. So we’ll be talking to them.”

What is the Golden Dome project?

Trump said the Golden Dome was made to take down “hypersonic missiles, ballistic missiles and advanced cruise missiles”, adding that the programme would have space-based interceptors and sensors.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, speaking alongside Trump, said the system is aimed at protecting “the homeland from cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones, whether they’re conventional or nuclear”.

The announcement comes just months after January 27, when Trump signed an executive order to “immediately begin the construction of a state-of-the-art Iron Dome missile defence shield, which will be able to protect Americans”.

The Iron Dome is Israel’s missile defence system which detects an incoming rocket, determines its path, and intercepts it. The development of the system was funded by a grant from the US.

Trump said existing defence capabilities will be used in the construction of the project, and predicted the total cost would be about $175bn.

The White House has not yet released further details about the project. While Trump said the system would be developed in the US, he has not named which companies will be involved.

A space-based defence system was first envisaged by Ronald Reagan, the Republican US president from 1981 to 1989. Amidst the Cold War, Reagan proposed a barrier to nuclear weapons that included space-based technology, as part of his Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars project.

“We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,” Trump said on Tuesday.

Is the Golden Dome plan feasible?

Industry experts have questioned the timeline and budget of the plan.

Funding for the Golden Dome has not yet been secured. At Tuesday’s news conference, Trump confirmed that he was seeking $25bn for the system in a tax cut bill currently moving through Congress, although that sum could be cut amid ongoing negotiations.

Additionally, some variation is expected in the total cost of the project. The Associated Press quoted an unnamed government official as saying Trump had been given three versions of the plan, described as “medium,” “high”, and “extra high”. These versions correspond to the number of satellites, sensors and interceptors that will be placed in space. AP reported that Trump picked the “high” version, which has an initial cost ranging between $30bn and $100bn.

“The new data point is the $175 billion, but the question remains, over what period of time. It’s probably 10 years,” Tom Karako, a senior fellow with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told the Reuters news agency.

On May 1, 42 Democratic members of the US Congress signed a letter questioning the possible involvement of Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which is among the top technology companies seeking to build key components of the Golden Dome.

“If Mr Musk were to exercise improper influence over the Golden Dome contract, it would be another example of a disturbing pattern of Mr Musk flouting conflict of interest rules,” the letter says.

How did China and Russia – the US’s biggest rivals – react?

The US sees a growing threat from China and Russia, its main adversaries.

Over the past decades, China has greatly advanced its ballistic and hypersonic missile technology, while Moscow boasts one of the most advanced intercontinental-range missile systems in the world. Russia and the US have amassed the largest arsenals of nuclear warheads worldwide.

The threat of drones has also grown amid advancements in technology.

China denounced the Golden Dome as a threat to international security and accused the US of prompting an arms race.

“The United States puts its own interests first and is obsessed with seeking its own absolute security, which violates the principle that no country’s security should come at the expense of others,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said at a regular briefing.

“(The plan) heightens the risk of space becoming a battlefield, fuels an arms race, and undermines international security,” he said.

The Kremlin said the Golden Dome missile shield plan was a “sovereign matter” for the US.

“This is a sovereign matter for the United States. If the United States believes that there is a missile threat, then of course it will develop a missile defence system,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, including AFP, on Wednesday.

“That is what all countries do,” he added.

“Of course, in the foreseeable future, the course of events will require the resumption of contacts to restore strategic stability,” he said.