On December 24, 2025, President Donald Trump revealed the Navy's plans to construct a new class of battleships named the Trump class, starting with the USS Defiant (BBG-1). This new vessel is set to displace over 35,000 tons and reach speeds above 30 knots, featuring advanced weaponry including nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles, hypersonic weapons, electromagnetic railguns, and directed energy weapons. Navy Secretary John Phelan remarked that the intention is to build between 20 to 25 of these battleships, marking the first time since 1944—when the USS Missouri was delivered—that the U.S. would embark on a battleship construction plan.
Asserting that these ships will be "the fastest, the biggest, and by far 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built," Trump’s claims are met with skepticism. Historical analyses show that the American Iowa-class battleships from WWII were significantly larger, and Japan's Yamato remains the largest battleship ever launched, illustrating that size alone does not equate to effectiveness in modern naval warfare.
Historically, experts have agreed that battleships have been considered obsolete since at least 1921, following a demonstration that showcased their vulnerability to air attacks. This vulnerability has persisted through the decades, where advancements in aviation, missiles, and submarines have continuously undermined the role of battleships, making them more costly and risky to operate in contemporary conflicts.
As the Navy has learned through past conflicts, such as Pearl Harbor where battleships were effectively rendered obsolete by carrier-based aircraft, the push for new battleship construction raises pressing concerns. The shortcomings of these vessels were starkly illustrated when a limited number of carrier-based aircraft managed to cripple the U.S. battleship fleet in a matter of minutes during the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The continuing relevance of aircraft carriers was solidified in subsequent battles, emphasizing the importance of mobile, versatile naval power that modern conflicts demand.
The historical context is significant. For example, General Billy Mitchell famously advocated for the superiority of air power over battleships long before the U.S.'s engagement in WWII. His foresight proved critical during various naval encounters, where air superiority consistently triumphed over battleship engagements. The vulnerability of even the largest battleships was laid bare, underscoring how quickly technological advancements can outdate older naval strategies.
Moreover, modern threats posed by missile technology and advanced naval warfare strategies are exponentially more lethal than those encountered in earlier conflicts. As highlighted by recent developments, adversaries like China and Russia have developed capabilities—such as hypersonic missiles and advanced submarines—that threaten large surface vessels, further questioning the strategic validity of resurrecting the battleship.
The prospect of building a large-scale battleship in an era where anti-ship weapons are commonplace raises numerous concerns regarding the cost-benefit analysis of such an investment. With the U.S. Navy's current logistical challenges regarding its missile inventories and overall fleet readiness, this move may divert critical resources and funding away from more pressing technological advancements and necessary modernization efforts.
Trump's battleship initiative raises fundamental questions about the future of naval warfare and the decisions that guide military investments. As the landscape of naval engagements evolves, relying on outdated naval doctrine could jeopardize national security and effectively put sailors' lives at risk.
The announcement of a new class of battleship amid a landscape defined by advanced aerial and missile threats reflects a significant misalignment with modern strategic realities. As military resources are increasingly stretched, the priority should shift to innovations in naval technology that ensure adaptability and rapid response to emerging challenges. Early reports suggest that the move has sparked debates within military and defense circles, indicating a potential recalibration of naval strategy in light of the current geopolitical climate. The implications for the Navy, and potentially the broader military strategy, could be profound if investments are not reoriented appropriately.