President Trump’s announcement of a new “Trump-class” battleship, the largest U.S. surface combatant since World War II, promises a floating arsenal of hypersonic missiles, railguns, and directed-energy weapons. Yet several of those signature technologies remain unproven or were abandoned years ago, raising a pointed question: will this warship actually dominate contested seas, or will its ambitions quietly vanish into budget overruns and engineering dead ends?
What Trump Promised at Mar-a-Lago
On December 22, 2025, Trump stood at Mar-a-Lago and described what he called the “Golden Fleet,” a naval expansion centered on a new class of guided-missile battleships he claimed would be the largest ships ever built. The prospective weapons list reads like a defense contractor’s wish list: hypersonic missiles, railguns, high-power lasers, and nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles. Trump also asserted he would be personally involved in the design process, an unusual claim for a sitting president addressing a shipbuilding program that will take years to move from concept to steel.
The Navy followed up with an official press release naming the lead vessel the future USS Defiant, hull number BBG-1, and formally designating it the first Trump-class battleship. The announcement specified two ships and framed the program as part of the broader Golden Fleet initiative. Attributable quotes from the Secretary of the Navy accompanied the release, lending institutional weight to what had initially sounded like campaign-style rhetoric. But institutional endorsement and engineering reality are two different things, and the gap between them is where this program gets interesting.
Specs on Paper vs. Weapons That Exist
Navy data reviewed by defense reporters describe a vessel carrying SPY-6 radar arrays, Mk 41 Vertical Launch System cells, conventional prompt strike tubes, and provisions for the SLCM-N nuclear cruise missile option. The ship’s displacement would make it the largest surface combatant the United States has fielded since the Iowa-class battleships, echoing their scale but with modern vertical launch architecture. On paper, the combination of proven radar and missile systems with next-generation weapons sounds formidable. The trouble is that the next-generation portion of that equation sits on shaky ground.
The Navy ended its electromagnetic railgun effort in 2021, according to Associated Press reporting, after years of testing failed to produce a weapon ready for shipboard deployment. High-power laser systems remain in early operational testing on smaller vessels and have not been scaled to the output levels a capital ship would demand. Listing these technologies on a spec sheet does not mean they will be ready when the first hull enters the water. A battleship designed around weapons that do not yet work risks becoming a very expensive platform waiting for its reason to exist.
The CRS Reality Check on BBG(X)
The Congressional Research Service published its assessment of the BBG(X) program, placing first procurement in the early 2030s and flagging technology maturity for railgun and high-power laser systems as a major unresolved issue for lawmakers. The CRS report also raised the issue of consistency with Distributed Maritime Operations, the Navy’s own strategy of spreading combat power across many smaller, harder-to-find platforms rather than concentrating it in a few large targets. A massive battleship, however well armed, runs counter to the logic of distributing risk across a fleet. If the Navy’s own doctrine favors dispersion, building the biggest possible target seems like a contradiction worth explaining.
Cost is the other pressure point. CBO estimates cited in the CRS report indicate the first ship will carry significantly higher costs due to non-recurring engineering and design expenses, a pattern familiar from every major shipbuilding program in recent decades. The Navy has already posted notices of two intended contract awards for design work, with an estimated 72-month design period for those contracts alone. Six years of design work before construction even begins means the program will consume budget and political capital long before anyone can evaluate whether the finished product delivers on its promises.
The Real Disappearing Act
The headline promise of a “ghost battleship” engineered to disappear is, based on available sources, more metaphor than engineering specification. No primary official records or direct Navy statements describe stealth features such as radar-absorbing materials or reduced cross-section design for the BBG(X). The combat systems detailed in Navy data sheets, including SPY-6 radar and large vertical launch cell counts, are optimized for offensive and defensive firepower, not for hiding. A ship this large, carrying this much weaponry, with a crew and displacement that dwarf anything currently afloat in the U.S. surface fleet, would present an enormous radar, infrared, and acoustic signature to adversaries equipped with modern sensors and anti-ship missiles.
The more likely disappearing act involves the program itself. History offers plenty of precedent. The DDG-1000 Zumwalt class was originally planned as a 32-ship program and was cut to three. The Littoral Combat Ship promised modular mission flexibility and delivered chronic maintenance problems. The BBG(X) faces the same gravitational pull: ambitious requirements, immature technology, rising costs, and a strategic environment that may not reward building a small number of very large targets. If the Navy and Congress ultimately decide that unmanned systems, submarines, and smaller surface combatants offer more survivable firepower for the dollar, the Trump-class battleship could quietly shrink in scope or vanish from future budget documents altogether.
Politics, Prestige, and the Future Fleet
Beyond the technical and budgetary questions, the Trump-class proposal is steeped in symbolism. Battleships occupy a powerful place in American political imagination, associated with World War II victory parades and Cold War gunboat diplomacy. Announcing a new battleship at a high-profile event in Florida taps into that nostalgia, promising visible proof of national strength. Yet modern naval warfare is less about towering silhouettes on the horizon and more about networks, sensors, and long-range missiles that can be launched from platforms far less glamorous than a capital ship bearing the president’s name.
Congress will ultimately decide whether the prestige of reviving a battleship fleet outweighs the risks highlighted by analysts and nonpartisan researchers. That decision will unfold over multiple budget cycles, long after the initial headlines fade. If lawmakers insist on pairing ambitious technology with realistic testing schedules, incremental capability growth, and a clear fit within existing doctrine, the Trump-class could evolve into a more modest but workable large surface combatant. If, instead, political pressure locks in the most extravagant version of the concept, the Navy may find itself repeating a familiar pattern: chasing a revolutionary ship that never quite matches its early promises, while more practical programs fight for funding in the background.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
