USA Trump Unveils New Battleship Class

[Passenger]

Trump Unveils New Battleship Class; Proposed USS Defiant Will Be Largest U.S. Surface Combatant Since WWII​

By Mallory Shelbourne and Sam LaGrone
December 22, 2025 7:07 PM

Naval Sea Systems Command image

The centerpiece of the Trump administration’s revamp of the U.S. Navy is the largest surface combatant America will build since World War II.

The U.S. Navy will buy two new “battleships” as part of the “Golden Fleet” effort, President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Navy Secretary John Phelan announced Monday at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump said the Navy will start by purchasing two ships and eventually purchase 10, with a goal of 20 to 25 in total for the class with the start of construction planned for 2030.

“The U.S. Navy will lead the design, along with me, because I’m a very aesthetic person,” Trump said.

Images of a future USS Defiant (BBG-1) were featured alongside Trump, Hegseth and Phelan, as well as a ship logo based on the July 13, 2024, Evan Vucci photo taken shortly after Trump was shot in the ear during an assassination attempt amid his presidential campaign.

“The future Trump-class battleship – the USS Defiant – will be the largest, deadliest and most versatile and best-looking warship anywhere on the world’s oceans,” Phelan said during the presentation. “Now there will be work for shipyards everywhere from Philadelphia to San Diego, from Maine to Mississippi, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast, and for manufacturers that will build components for this battleship in every state.”

The new platform will be a more than 35,000-ton warship and draft 24 to 30 feet, according to Navy data reviewed by USNI News. That’s more than double the size of the 15,000-ton Zumwalt class of destroyers, which is the largest surface combatant currently in the fleet.

The steel ships will be built in the U.S., the president said, but he noted the U.S. will work with others, without disclosing whether other countries would be involved in the construction.

When asked if the new ship class is meant to counter China, Trump said: “It’s a counter to everybody. It’s not China.”The new ships will replace the Navy’s next-generation DDG(X) program, which was projected to be about half the size of this proposed battleship. Construction is slated to begin in the early 2030s with the Navy serving as the lead design agent for the effort, USNI News understands. The Navy first unveiled the DDG(X) concept in 2022.

Like the DDG(X) program, the new ships will feature existing combat systems and weapons in use on the Flight III Arleigh Burke DDG-51 guided-missile destroyers. They will field the AN/SPY-6 air search radar, 128 MK-41 vertical launch system cells, 12 Conventional Prompt Strike long-range hypersonic missiles and five-inch guns, two sources familiar with the plans told USNI News. The design will also leave margin to add additional weapons, including directed energy, the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile and potentially a 32 Megajoule rail gun, according to Navy data.

Like the initial DDG(X) concept, Defiant would use gas turbines and diesels to drive an electrical grid that would supply power to the ship’s weapon systems and sensors, according to the Navy data. The ship would be capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots. The flight deck and hangar will be capable of fielding V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors and the next future vertical lift aircraft.

“The battleship will be capable of operating independently, as part of a Carrier Strike Group, or commanding its own Surface Action Group depending on the mission and threat environment,” reads the Navy data sheet for Defiant. “With the ability to provide forward command and control for both manned and unmanned platforms, [the] battleship will be a critical component in executing the Navy Warfighting Concept.”

The announcement comes as the Trump administration overhauls the Navy’s acquisition plans for the surface fleet. Last week, Phelan and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said the service would buy a patrol frigate based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s Legend-class National Security Cutter program built by HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding.

That decision followed Phelan’s truncation of the Constellation-class frigate line last month after the program faced ongoing delays due to design and workforce challenges.

The Navy explored multiple size options, including up to 50,000 tons, before settling on a 30,000-ton battleship, USNI News understands. Other options included a smaller ship that could have been 15,000 to 20,000 tons.

Naval analyst Bryan Clark told USNI News earlier this month that the Navy is considering buying 12 to 13 vessels in this new ship class that could field large hypersonic missiles in large specialized missile tubes in addition to the traditional MK-41 VLS cells. The three Zumwalt-class destroyers are currently having Conventional Prompt Strike tubes installed at HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss.

The cost of building this battleship in an American yard could range from $10 to $15 billion, based on the size and the systems that are included, USNI News understands.

The Navy previously worked with HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss., and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine, which have both built surface combatants.

Both yards said they are standing by to support the Navy’s new effort.

“General Dynamics Bath Iron Works stands ready to fully support the Navy in the design and construction of this important new shipbuilding program,” Charles Krugh, the president of Bath Iron Works, said in a statement provided to USNI News.

HII CEO Chris Kastner said in a statement to USNI News: “We understand the urgency and have taken a number of actions to increase the speed at which we can deliver. We have seen improvements in our labor and throughput and expect these to continue in 2026. These efforts combined with our distributed shipbuilding network are working, and more capacity is being created to meet these critical requirements.”

Asked how the U.S. would ensure it has a sufficient workforce to build the new ships, Trump said shipyards would utilize robots.

The U.S. industrial base has not delivered a battleship to the Navy since 1944, when the 60,000-ton USS Missouri (BB-63) was turned over to the Navy. Missouri was later the site of Japan’s formal declaration of surrender at the end of World War II.

Since then, the Zumwalt class at 15,000 tons has been the largest surface combatant in the fleet. The Navy proposed building a 20,000-ton guided-missile cruiser – the CG(X) – but the Obama administration cancelled the program in 2010 due to cost and schedule reasons. Instead, the Navy elected to build the Flight III Arleigh Burkes.

Over the years the Navy has struggled to move forward with its DDG(X) program, a planned follow-on to the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer. Planned purchase and construction timelines for DDG(X) were delayed several times as the Navy racked up bills for current ship classes and the development of new programs like the next-generation attack submarine and the sixth-generation fighter.

Trump Battleship Will be Largest Surface Combatant Since WWII - USNI News

The centerpiece of the Trump administration’s revamp of the U.S. Navy is the largest surface combatant America will build since World War II. The U.S. Navy will buy two new “battleships” as part of the “Golden Fleet” effort, President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Navy...

news.usni.org

Golden Fleet

www.goldenfleet.navy.mil

 

[TR_123456]

Trump Unveils New Battleship Class; Proposed USS Defiant Will Be Largest U.S. Surface Combatant Since WWII​

By Mallory Shelbourne and Sam LaGrone
December 22, 2025 7:07 PM

View attachment 78726
Naval Sea Systems Command image

The centerpiece of the Trump administration’s revamp of the U.S. Navy is the largest surface combatant America will build since World War II.

The U.S. Navy will buy two new “battleships” as part of the “Golden Fleet” effort, President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Navy Secretary John Phelan announced Monday at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump said the Navy will start by purchasing two ships and eventually purchase 10, with a goal of 20 to 25 in total for the class with the start of construction planned for 2030.

“The U.S. Navy will lead the design, along with me, because I’m a very aesthetic person,” Trump said.

Images of a future USS Defiant (BBG-1) were featured alongside Trump, Hegseth and Phelan, as well as a ship logo based on the July 13, 2024, Evan Vucci photo taken shortly after Trump was shot in the ear during an assassination attempt amid his presidential campaign.

“The future Trump-class battleship – the USS Defiant – will be the largest, deadliest and most versatile and best-looking warship anywhere on the world’s oceans,” Phelan said during the presentation. “Now there will be work for shipyards everywhere from Philadelphia to San Diego, from Maine to Mississippi, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast, and for manufacturers that will build components for this battleship in every state.”
View attachment 78723
The new platform will be a more than 35,000-ton warship and draft 24 to 30 feet, according to Navy data reviewed by USNI News. That’s more than double the size of the 15,000-ton Zumwalt class of destroyers, which is the largest surface combatant currently in the fleet.

The steel ships will be built in the U.S., the president said, but he noted the U.S. will work with others, without disclosing whether other countries would be involved in the construction.

When asked if the new ship class is meant to counter China, Trump said: “It’s a counter to everybody. It’s not China.”The new ships will replace the Navy’s next-generation DDG(X) program, which was projected to be about half the size of this proposed battleship. Construction is slated to begin in the early 2030s with the Navy serving as the lead design agent for the effort, USNI News understands. The Navy first unveiled the DDG(X) concept in 2022.

Like the DDG(X) program, the new ships will feature existing combat systems and weapons in use on the Flight III Arleigh Burke DDG-51 guided-missile destroyers. They will field the AN/SPY-6 air search radar, 128 MK-41 vertical launch system cells, 12 Conventional Prompt Strike long-range hypersonic missiles and five-inch guns, two sources familiar with the plans told USNI News. The design will also leave margin to add additional weapons, including directed energy, the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile and potentially a 32 Megajoule rail gun, according to Navy data.

Like the initial DDG(X) concept, Defiant would use gas turbines and diesels to drive an electrical grid that would supply power to the ship’s weapon systems and sensors, according to the Navy data. The ship would be capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots. The flight deck and hangar will be capable of fielding V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors and the next future vertical lift aircraft.

“The battleship will be capable of operating independently, as part of a Carrier Strike Group, or commanding its own Surface Action Group depending on the mission and threat environment,” reads the Navy data sheet for Defiant. “With the ability to provide forward command and control for both manned and unmanned platforms, [the] battleship will be a critical component in executing the Navy Warfighting Concept.”

View attachment 78727
The announcement comes as the Trump administration overhauls the Navy’s acquisition plans for the surface fleet. Last week, Phelan and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said the service would buy a patrol frigate based on the U.S. Coast Guard’s Legend-class National Security Cutter program built by HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding.

That decision followed Phelan’s truncation of the Constellation-class frigate line last month after the program faced ongoing delays due to design and workforce challenges.

The Navy explored multiple size options, including up to 50,000 tons, before settling on a 30,000-ton battleship, USNI News understands. Other options included a smaller ship that could have been 15,000 to 20,000 tons.

Naval analyst Bryan Clark told USNI News earlier this month that the Navy is considering buying 12 to 13 vessels in this new ship class that could field large hypersonic missiles in large specialized missile tubes in addition to the traditional MK-41 VLS cells. The three Zumwalt-class destroyers are currently having Conventional Prompt Strike tubes installed at HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss.

The cost of building this battleship in an American yard could range from $10 to $15 billion, based on the size and the systems that are included, USNI News understands.

The Navy previously worked with HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss., and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine, which have both built surface combatants.

Both yards said they are standing by to support the Navy’s new effort.

“General Dynamics Bath Iron Works stands ready to fully support the Navy in the design and construction of this important new shipbuilding program,” Charles Krugh, the president of Bath Iron Works, said in a statement provided to USNI News.

View attachment 78725
HII CEO Chris Kastner said in a statement to USNI News: “We understand the urgency and have taken a number of actions to increase the speed at which we can deliver. We have seen improvements in our labor and throughput and expect these to continue in 2026. These efforts combined with our distributed shipbuilding network are working, and more capacity is being created to meet these critical requirements.”

Asked how the U.S. would ensure it has a sufficient workforce to build the new ships, Trump said shipyards would utilize robots.

The U.S. industrial base has not delivered a battleship to the Navy since 1944, when the 60,000-ton USS Missouri (BB-63) was turned over to the Navy. Missouri was later the site of Japan’s formal declaration of surrender at the end of World War II.

Since then, the Zumwalt class at 15,000 tons has been the largest surface combatant in the fleet. The Navy proposed building a 20,000-ton guided-missile cruiser – the CG(X) – but the Obama administration cancelled the program in 2010 due to cost and schedule reasons. Instead, the Navy elected to build the Flight III Arleigh Burkes.

Over the years the Navy has struggled to move forward with its DDG(X) program, a planned follow-on to the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer. Planned purchase and construction timelines for DDG(X) were delayed several times as the Navy racked up bills for current ship classes and the development of new programs like the next-generation attack submarine and the sixth-generation fighter.
View attachment 78724

Trump Battleship Will be Largest Surface Combatant Since WWII - USNI News

The centerpiece of the Trump administration’s revamp of the U.S. Navy is the largest surface combatant America will build since World War II. The U.S. Navy will buy two new “battleships” as part of the “Golden Fleet” effort, President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Navy...

news.usni.org

Golden Fleet

www.goldenfleet.navy.mil

This is nuts,10 to 15$ billoin,expect another cancellation.

 

[Zafer]

How many tons of rare earths will the Trump ship need to ask from CN ?
Imports was down 11% from last year.

 

[Azeri441]

This is nuts,10 to 15$ billoin,expect another cancellation.

about 7x more than Arleigh Burke Flight III or $2 billion more than latest Gerald R. Ford Carrier, lmao

 

[Merzifonlu]

Just another madman caught up in yet another piece of his “Wunderwaffe” (miracle weapon) obsession.

 

[Ryder]

I want to see a TCG Uzun Adam or TCG RTE lmaoooo

 

[TheInsider]

This is related to the Chinese new 25000-ton battlecruiser. The Chinese battlecruiser is cost-effective and actually has a purpose. China can construct up to 6 vessels(empty body) annually, according to Chinese experts I follow (but probably construct 2 at a time). I expect a cost of 2-2.5 billion $ per ship for China.

I think we should also consider a 10000+ ton heavy TF-2000 variant for the long term. 2x 64x VLS+16x VLS for ballistic missiles.

 

[Pokemonte13]

This is related to the Chinese new 25000-ton battlecruiser. The Chinese battlecruiser is cost-effective and actually has a purpose. China can construct up to 6 vessels(empty body) annually, according to Chinese experts I follow (but probably construct 2 at a time). I expect a cost of 2-2.5 billion $ per ship for China.

I think we should also consider a 10000+ ton heavy TF-2000 variant for the long term. 2x 64x VLS+16x VLS for ballistic missiles.

Isn't there supposed to be a third more capable variant of TF2000 anyway like korean KDDX although i believe Korea canceled it.

 

[Soldier30]

US President Donald Trump announced the launch of a large-scale construction program for the "Golden Fleet" and the Trump-class battleships. The new ships will be the largest in the history of the US Navy and will be equipped with hypersonic weapons, lasers, and capable of carrying nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and railguns. It is worth noting that the last American battleship, the USS Wisconsin, an Iowa-class battleship, was decommissioned and transferred to a museum in 2006. The Iowa-class ships were decommissioned after World War II and periodically returned to service for service in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The first of the new battleships will be named USS Defiant. The construction is planned to cost $26 billion. The photo shows the armament of the future battleships. Two ships will be built initially, with plans to build up to 25 battleships in the future. The displacement of the American battleships will be approximately 30,000-40,000 tons. By comparison, the Russian nuclear-powered cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Project 1144M) displaces 25,860 tons. In addition to the new class of battleships, the "Golden Fleet" envisions increasing the number of other types of warships and building 15 submarines, including a more compact and maneuverable class of frigates, previously announced by the US Navy.

 

[Khagan1923]

Gonna get cancelled the second Trump leaves office. Also am I just blind or were are the funnels for the engines?

 

[TheInsider]

Gonna get cancelled the second Trump leaves office. Also am I just blind or were are the funnels for the engines?

Maybe it runs on nuclear power.

 

[Passenger]

Maybe it runs on nuclear power.

“Like the initial DDG(X) concept, Defiant would use gas turbines and diesels to drive an electrical grid that would supply power to the ship’s weapon systems and sensors, according to the Navy data,” USNI News has reported.


So, the artist forget to add funnels.

 

[Perun]

Maybe funels are located underwater

 

[Passenger]

Trump Class Battleships Will Be Nuclear Powered​

Equipping the Trump class with nuclear propulsion presents benefits, but also massive challenges, and Navy officials had been pushing back against the idea.

The U.S. Navy says its Trump class battleships are now set to be nuclear-powered. This is a huge development that will impact the cost and complexity of the design. With those issues in mind, now-former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan had said this was “unlikely” to happen just four weeks ago.

The Navy announced its intention to fit a nuclear propulsion system to the Trump class warships in its latest annual shipbuilding plan, which was released earlier today The document also refers to these future large surface combatants as BBGNs, or nuclear-powered (N) guided-missile (G) battleships (BB). USNI News was first to report on this development.

The only nuclear-powered surface vessels in the Navy’s fleet today are its Nimitz and Ford class aircraft carriers. The service has not had a nuclear-powered surface combatant since the 1990s, when the one-of-a-kind cruiser USS Long Beach and frigate USS Bainbridge, as well as four Virginia class cruisers (not to be confused with the subsequent Virginia class of attack submarines) left active duty. Nuclear propulsion offers functionally unlimited range, as well as a major boost in onboard power generation. It also comes with cost and complexity, in terms of a ship’s core design, and what it takes to operate and maintain it. We will come back to those issues later on.

The Navy has now outlined plans to acquire 15 Trump class BBGNs, one virtually every other year, between Fiscal Year 2028 and 2055. Two are also set to be ordered back-to-back in Fiscal Years 2030 and 2031. An initial official estimate has put the price tag of each of these ships at $17 billion. This is more than what the service expects to spend on each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers, the projected unit costs of which range from roughly $13 to $15 billion.

A chart from the Navy’s latest annual shipbuilding plan laying out the planned schedule for ordering new Trump class battleships, referred to here as BBG(X)s, as well as other vessels. USN


“Our Fleet deserves and our national security requires the most comprehensive capability a surface combatant can provide, not just what we can make do with tradeoffs. The nuclear-powered Battleship is designed to provide the Fleet with a significant increase in combat power by longer endurance, higher speed, and accommodating advanced weapon systems required for modern warfare,” the Navy’s new shipbuilding plan declares. “Adding capability at the highest end of the high- low mix, the Battleship’s primary role is to deliver high-volume, long-range offensive fires and serve as a robust, survivable forward command and control platform, it is not a destroyer replacement.”

The shipbuilding plan highlights various aspects of the planned arsenal on each of the Trump class warships, including its ability to launch a mix of nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, loaded into large vertical launch system (VLS) arrays. Each one of the vessels will also have an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, laser directed energy weapons, and various additional weapons for close-in defense.

“Vastly increased power generation capacity provides warfighting capability across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including through electronic warfare tools and high-output lasers that allow us to reduce reliance on high-cost single-use munitions for both attack and defense,” the shipbuilding plan also notes. “The internal volume and capability to embark a fleet command staff allows us to take the Maritime Operations Center concept to sea. As a tactical command-and-control platform, the Battleship can lead a Surface Action Group (SAG), integrate its systems with a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) for layered defense, or operate autonomously, possessing the organic capability to defeat advanced threats and distributing our force capability.”

The Navy has said in the past that each of the Trump class warships will displace approximately 35,000 tons, very roughly three times that of the newest Flight III subvariant of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. They are also expected to be between 840 and 880 feet long, have a beam (the widest point in the hull) between 105 and 115 feet, and be able to reach a top speed greater than 30 knots.

As noted, as recently as four weeks ago, the Navy was pushing back on the idea, at least publicly, that the Trump class warships could be nuclear-powered. The service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which was rolled out last month, describes the vessels as non-nuclear BBGs that will feature “diesel generators, gas turbines, [and] propulsion motors.”

“That [the $17 billion estimated unit cost of a Trump class warship] is the early initial estimate. We’ll see where we really settle down as we get through that and start to rationalize some of the costs. So let’s see where we land on that first ship, and then what the economies of scale get us to as we move through it,” former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan had also told reporters at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2026 exposition on April 21. “I think a little bit with those numbers, they’re still moving around, because this question is it nuclear-powered, is it not nuclear-powered?”

“It could be [nuclear powered], but it’s unlikely, but it could be,” Phelan said at that time. “I think we’re trying to understand all the proper trade-offs.”

Phelan was fired unexpectedly and with little explanation the following day, with veteran Navy officer Hung Cao taking over as Acting Secretary. On April 23, The New York Times, published a report, citing anonymous sources, saying former Navy Secretary’s sudden exit was tied to disagreements with President Donald Trump over plans for the Trump class battleships, including efforts to accelerate their production and entry into service. There have been reports pointing to other factors in Phelan’s dismissal, including friction with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, as well.

“He’s a very good man. I really liked him, but he had some conflict with, not necessarily with [Secretary] Pete [Hegseth], but with some other,” President Trump himself told members of the press on April 23. “He’s a hard charger, and he had some conflicts with some other people, mostly as to building and buying new ships. I’m very aggressive in the new shipbuilding.”

“I think it’s a logical question to think, hey, here’s a big capital ship. It’s going to be carrying a lot of load, you know, in places that we don’t necessarily need a strike enforcement air wing as a large ship there that’s in command of a flotilla,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle also said at a roundtable around the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) main annual symposium back in January. “Wouldn’t it be logical to be nuclear powered? And that brings a tail to the construction of that that [sic] just really fell outside the scope of what we want to do on the speed to get this thing in the water. And so what you trade off with, with persistency that only nuclear power can do, is you end up having, you know, the ability to go produce that — it pushes the battleship into a timeframe that just didn’t meet the operational need of the ship.”

TWZ has reached out to the Navy for any more information it can offer about when and why the decision was made regarding nuclear propulsion for the Trump class. We have already raised numerous questions about the plans for these warships in the past, including their exact operational utility, as well as the costs and risks involved. As Phelan and Caudle previously indicated, nuclear power can only add to the design’s complexity and up-front price tag, as well as what it will take to operate and maintain the ships once they enter service. These were factors in the Navy’s past decision to move away from nuclear propulsion on surface warships. Russia’s Kirov class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov is the only nuclear-powered surface combatant in service anywhere in the world today. Nuclear-powered surface ships of any kind remain a relative rarity globally, as well, even among nuclear powers.

The choice now to use nuclear reactors to power the Trump class comes at a time when naval shipbuilders in the United States are already under heavy strain, and have been struggling in many cases to stay on budget and schedule. Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, is the only yard in the country currently building nuclear-powered surface vessels of any kind, which are the Ford class aircraft carriers. While the USS Gerald R. Ford is in service now, work on subsequent ships in the class continues to be beset by delays and cost growth.

There is also immense pressure on U.S. shipyards that built nuclear-powered submarines. This has been magnified by plans to provide Virginia class boats to the Royal Australian Navy as part of the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) defense cooperation agreement. The same yards are also responsible for producing the new Columbia class nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Those boats have to be delivered on a tight schedule to ensure there is no gap in the ability of the leg of America’s nuclear triad to meet operational requirements, and there is little, if any, margin left.

The Navy has other shipbuilding plans, as well. Naval shipyard capacity in the United States, or the lack thereof, has been an increasingly worrisome issue for years now, and remains concerning despite U.S. government efforts to reverse the trend in recent years. The Navy’s new shipbuilding plan does underscore the service’s determination to avoid past shipbuilding pitfalls with the new battleships.

“Learning from the lessons of prior shipbuilding programs, the Battleship acquisition plan is a prime example of how we are changing the way the Navy does business. This will be the first clean-sheet surface combatant designed in more than 30 years, and we are deliberately incorporating modern digital engineering, advanced production practices, and AI [artificial intelligence] enabled design tools to reduce cost and schedule risk from the outset,” the shipbuilding plan states. “To strengthen this approach, we are adopting proven best practices from foreign partners with advanced shipbuilding techniques. This includes front loading production engineering to ensure high design maturity before construction begins, using precision modular construction methods, and tightly integrating design, planning, and production teams to minimize rework and accelerate throughput.

“We are also applying long term production planning, rigorous process control disciplines, and deeper supplier integration to stabilize the industrial base and improve quality across distributed construction sites. Modeled on commercial shipbuilding, this digital-first approach will accelerate design, reduce manual rework, and create a direct link between design and production,” it continued. “The Battleship will employ a highly modular architecture that enables distributed construction across the industrial base while allowing U.S. shipyards to focus on final assembly, integration, and testing. This strategy strengthens workforce stability, increases industrial base resilience, and delivers a more predictable, affordable path to fielding the capability.”

As it stands now, the Navy is still planning to order the first Trump class warship, set to be named USS Defiant, in Fiscal Year 2028. The current expectation is that it will not enter service until Fiscal Year 2036. This underscores an additional point that the program will carry over into the next presidential administration (and potentially beyond). Further major changes could well be made to its scale and scope, or it could be outright cancelled, in that timeframe.

For now, at least, the Navy has settled on its future Trump class battleships being powered by nuclear reactors.

Trump Class Battleships Will Be Nuclear Powered (Updated)

Equipping the Trump class with nuclear propulsion presents benefits, but also massive challenges, and Navy officials had been pushing back against the idea.

www.twz.com

 

[Azeri441]

They gonna burn through $10 billion doing R&D, with no ship built and cancelled, and left with no ships to replace aging Arleigh Burkes and Ticonderogas, meanwhile China will probably add another 10+ destroyers/cruisers in the meantime.

US Navy procurement is an absolute disaster.

The only thing still keeping them ahead of China is the submarine fleet.

 

[Passenger]

Congress’ Proposed Trump Class Battleship Program Guardrails Met With White House Pushback​

Congress is moving ahead with a bill that would block Trump class battleship construction unless certain weapons are deemed mature.

The White House has formally registered its opposition to a move by Congress to block work on the nuclear-powered Trump class battleship unless the U.S. Navy provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.” The House Armed Services Committee has already demanded a report from the Secretary of the Navy outlining the steps the service is taking to ensure the battleship program won’t exacerbate existing construction delays on aircraft carriers and submarines.

Earlier this week, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Statement of Administration Policy regarding the latest draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for Fiscal Year 2027 that is now making its way through the House of Representatives. The document offers support for and opposition to various sections of the proposed legislation, which is also known as H.R. 8800.

“The Administration appreciates that H.R. 8800 would provide authorization of the 18 ships requested in the Budget. These ships are a direct commitment to restoring America’s maritime dominance and maritime industrial base,” OMB’s statement, which was published on July 21, declares. “In addition, the Administration appreciates the bill’s support of the Battleship program by fully authorizing the $1 billion in advance procurement necessary to accelerate the delivery to the Fleet.”

“However, the Administration opposes the bill’s excessive reporting requirements in section 131 regarding the Administration’s priority Battleship program,” it continues. “The Administration strongly opposes any reporting requirements that delay the Battleship program without supporting national security requirements.”

On July 21, USNI News also reported that OMB was pressing members of Congress to include funding to start work on the first Trump class battleship in a proposed temporary spending bill, or Continuing Resolution. A temporary funding package could be needed if legislators cannot pass a more formal budget by September 30, when the current fiscal year ends.

When it comes to Section 131 of H.R. 8800, the provision is brief, but pointed. At the time of writing, it reads, in full:

“The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work for the construction of the lead ship of the Battleship program until the date on which the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the weapon systems planned for inclusion in such lead ship are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”

The section does not name any particular weapon systems or define what level of technological readiness would be deemed sufficient. To date, the Navy has described the planned Trump class battleship as a 35,000-ton-displacement warship with a diverse array of weapons. The ship is set to be able to fire nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, from several very large Vertical Launch System (VLS) arrays. It will also have an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, various laser directed energy weapons, and additional weapon systems for close-in defense.

TWZ previously reported on this provision, which has been in the proposed legislation since at least May. As we wrote in the past:

“In terms of technological maturity, the railgun presents particular questions. Between 2005 and 2021, the Navy had an active railgun program. Despite promising developments, plans for an at-sea test were repeatedly pushed back before the entire effort was shelved. Major technical hurdles were cited as a key factor in that decision. The railgun itself was effectively placed in storage at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico.“

“However, it emerged earlier this year that the Navy had conducted a new round of testing of the railgun at WSMR in February 2025. Whether the Navy has any plans to pick up where it left off with this prototype design, which was developed by BAE Systems, or pursue a new one remains unclear. General Atomics, which previously supported U.S. Army railgun efforts, has publicly expressed interest in being involved in arming the Trump class.”

“While the Navy has been very active in developing and fielding laser directed energy weapons, this is another area where the service has faced continued challenges in expanding their operational use. The plans for the Trump class specifically call for a 300-kilowatt-class laser, which is far more powerful than any of the designs the Navy has integrated on its warships to date. The service currently has eight Arleigh Burke class destroyers with the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), as well as another one of those warships with the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS). HELIOS is a 60-kilowatt-class design, though there has been talk about scaling up its power rating to 150 kilowatts. ODIN’s power rating does not appear to be officially confirmed, but it is understood to be significantly lower than that of HELIOS. You can read more about all of this here.”

“The Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missile, another key component of the future Trump class arsenal, is also still in development. The first test launch from a warship, the stealth destroyer USS Zumwalt, is expected to come next year. IRCPS is the Navy half of a joint program with the U.S. Army, which is working to field a land-based version of the same missile. The Army refers to its complete weapon system as the Dark Eagle. The Army had suffered significant setbacks in the past with the Dark Eagle, but the service had blamed those issues on the launcher rather than the missile.”

For its part, OMB’s July 21 statement does not respond to any particular concerns that might be raised by Section 131, either.

Section 131 represents just one small portion of the questions, concerns, and criticism that members of Congress have leveled at the Trump class battleship program. The first one of these ships, currently set to be named the USS Defiant, has an estimated price tag of $17 billion. This would make the vessel more expensive than each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers. The future USS Defiant is also not currently expected to enter service until 2036. The Navy has already outlined plans to order 14 more of these battleships between Fiscal Years 2029 and 2055, as well.

With this in mind, as noted, the House Armed Services Committee has separately asked for a report from the Secretary of the Navy, to be delivered no later than March 1, 2027, on the potential industrial impacts. A particular issue is the strain that work on the Trump class could have on America’s limited nuclear shipbuilding enterprise. Currently, there are only two U.S. shipyards qualified to build nuclear-powered vessels and only one supplier of naval reactors. Currently, the only nuclear-powered ships in the Navy are aircraft carriers and submarines. The service has not operated a nuclear-powered surface combatant in decades, and it has been even longer since one was built in the United States.

TWZ has repeatedly raised questions about the basic industrial capacity to support the battleship program since it was first rolled out to the public in December 2025. It is worth noting here that third, fourth, and fifth Ford class carriers now under construction – the future USS Enterprise (CVN-80), USS Doris Miller (CVN-81), and USS William J. Clinton (CVN-82) – have all suffered delays. Concerns are also regularly voiced about potential setbacks in the construction of new Virginia class and Columbia class submarines. Navy officials have been saying for years now that there is little, if any, margin left in the Columbia class delivery timeline, which is a critical matter of national security. It is essential for those boats to be delivered on a tight schedule to ensure there is no gap in the ability of the leg of America’s nuclear triad to meet operational requirements.

The battleship effort is of particular significance to President Donald Trump and has been presented as a signature program for his administration. At the same time, the schedule that has been laid out so far means that major decisions about how to proceed in acquiring these ships, if at all, will run into the next administration. Any delays will only push that timeline further to the right at a time when there are already major competing priorities for defense spending. Some members of Congress have openly questioned whether the battleship effort is the best use of available resources already.

The annual NDAA is still far from being finalized. The House’s version will need to be reconciled with the one being advanced in the Senate before the bill can be put to a vote, let alone sent to Trump’s desk to be signed into law (or vetoed). This is a process typically marked by lengthy negotiations, and Section 131, as well as other provisions, could change in the future or be removed entirely.

Whether or not a larger political fight around the Trump class battleship emerges remains to be seen. However, OMB has now made clear publicly that the administration is against the inclusion of the guardrails around the program that the current version of H.R. 8800 proposes to establish.

Congress' Proposed Trump Class Battleship Program Guardrails Met With White House Pushback

Congress is moving ahead with a bill that would block Trump class battleship construction unless certain weapons are deemed mature.

www.twz.com