Former President Donald Trump’s proposal to build a new class of battleships for the U.S. Navy has drawn sharp criticism from military analysts and defense experts who argue the plan is outdated and financially imprudent. Despite Trump’s call for a larger and more powerful naval force, the initiative to construct “Trump class” battleships faces significant operational and budgetary challenges.
Trump, inspired by the World War II-era documentary series “Victory at Sea,” championed the construction of large battleships—vessels akin to heavily armed floating artillery platforms. However, critics note that naval warfare has evolved substantially since World War II, with aircraft carriers, destroyers, precision missiles, and unmanned sea drones now playing central roles. The battleship concept, they say, is largely obsolete and presents a strategic liability due to its large size and vulnerability.
In 2025, the Pentagon began work on the first battleship of the so-called Trump class, departing from traditional Navy practices by naming the class after the former president rather than the lead ship, which is designated Defiant. The project has experienced notable setbacks: the initial Navy estimate for the Defiant was around $15 billion, but a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report projects costs exceeding $23 billion for the first ship alone. Furthermore, the CBO indicated that each of the 14 additional planned vessels could cost at least $18 billion, far exceeding original projections of $10 billion per ship and bringing the total program expenditure to approximately $275 billion.
Complicating matters, some of the Defiant’s proposed weapons systems are still under development and have yet to be proven operational. Observers point out that investments in battleships could divert resources from more versatile and survivable platforms. Analysts suggest that for the cost of one battleship, the Navy could acquire multiple advanced guided missile destroyers, which include antisubmarine capabilities absent from the Trump class. Additional funds could also support submarines, amphibious vessels, and numerous autonomous sea drones—assets crucial to modern naval dominance.
The Trump administration’s naval strategy has faced further scrutiny over a directive last month requiring that all future aircraft carriers be equipped with steam catapults, technology developed in the 1950s. This decision reverses prior Navy moves to adopt electromagnetic catapult systems, which have become more reliable and efficient after initial challenges and are used by leading naval powers, including China. Trump reportedly based his preference on informal feedback from a sailor a decade ago, despite improvements and broader adoption of electromagnetic systems.
Support for the battleship initiative among current and former Navy officials appears limited, with few admirals publicly endorsing the program. Congressional voices have also been largely skeptical, with only one senior Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee expressing support. Many defense observers anticipate that future administrations, regardless of party, might discontinue the battleship construction if elected, citing concerns over cost-effectiveness and strategic relevance.
As the battleship program progresses, critics warn that substantial funds could be expended before any potential policy reversal occurs, emphasizing the entrenched interests that often develop around large defense contracts. Some experts have suggested that if the former president desires a namesake vessel, the Navy might consider honoring him by naming an aircraft carrier, a traditionally more strategically valuable asset.
The debate over battleships highlights broader tensions within U.S. naval modernization efforts amid evolving maritime threats and technological advances, raising questions about how best to allocate limited defense resources for future conflicts.