Key Points and Summary – The Trump-class battleship proposal would bring back U.S. battlewagons in a very different form: smaller than the Iowas but packed with vertical launch cells, hypersonic missiles, a railgun, lasers, and layered defensive systems.
-On paper, the 39,000-ton design would trade big guns for precision strike and C2 punch inside Trump’s envisioned “Golden Fleet.”
The Iowa-class battleship USS New Jersey fires at positions near Beirut on 9 January 1984 during the Lebanese Civil War.
-But skeptics argue the ships would cost roughly $9 billion each, clash with the Navy’s focus on distributed firepower, and strain a hollowed-out shipbuilding base that already lags far behind China’s.
-Without major industrial investment and sustained political backing, the Trump class may never leave the drawing board.
Trump-Class Battleships: Are They Feasible?
The United States of America hasn’t commissioned a brand-new battleship since June 11, 1944, when those honors were bestowed upon the Iowa-class battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) on June 11, 1944. Missouri’s sister ship USS Wisconsin (BB-64) was the last completed American battlewagon to actually be *launched,* but “Mighty Mo” beat “Big Wisky” to the punch in terms of actual commissioning. These two were the last two battleships to fire their guns in anger—doing so during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, AKA Operation Desert Storm—and ‘Muddy Mo” was the last of the bunch to finally retire, doing so on March 31, 1992.
But if President Donald John Trump has his way, battleships will once again be sailing on active service for the US Navy. Not via a recommissioning of the Iowas (or the South Dakota class for that matter), mind you, but by building from scratch a whole new class of battlewagons. These Trump-class warships will hopefully have better luck materializing than the would-be Montana class did.
Trump-Class Prospective Tech Specs and Vital Stats
“Size does matter,” as the one longstanding innuendo goes. But the Trump-class battleships aren’t expected to be as big as their Iowa-class predecessors in terms of displacement, number of guns, or gun size. The latter had a fully-laden displacement of 60,000 tons and a primary armament of 9 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 caliber Mark 7 guns (two triple turrets fore, one such turret aft), whilst the former is projected to have a displacement of 39,000 tons and the following ordnance package:
–Primary Armament: Surface-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear (SLCM-N) system, a 12-cell Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missile system, and a 128-cell Mark 41 vertical launching system (VLS)
(Jan. 31, 2008) Photograph taken from a high-speed video camera during a record-setting firing of an electromagnetic railgun (EMRG) at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Va., on January 31, 2008, firing at 10.64MJ (megajoules) with a muzzle velocity of 2520 meters per second. The Office of Naval Research’s EMRG program is part of the Department of the Navy’s Science and Technology investments, focused on developing new technologies to support Navy and Marine Corps war fighting needs. This photograph is a frame taken from a high-speed video camera. U.S. Navy Photograph (Released)
–Secondary Armament: 1 x 32-megajoule electromagnetic railgun, 2 x 5-inch (127 mm) guns, and a pair of 300kW lasers
–Tertiary (Defensive) Armament: 2 x RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers, 4 x 30mm guns, 4 x Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN) lasers, and 2 x anti-drone systems
In other words, the Trump-class battlewagons will make up for in high-tech precision strike what they lack in sheer bore size.
Qingtian Hypersonic Cruise Missile. Screenshot.
Mako Hypersonic Missile. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
But Is the Trump Class Even Feasible?
Some experts have their doubts. Mike Glenn, defense reporter for The Washington Times, quotes the following critics in a Christmas Eve 2025 article:
-Retired Navy Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank: “As imagined, the battleships will likely be another two or three ship class. The Navy needs ship classes in large numbers to defray the costs of training, maintenance, and the supply chain … These ‘battleships’ will achieve none of these tactical goals.”
–Mark Cancian (Colonel, USMCR, ret.), an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): “It will take years to design, cost $9 billion each to build, and contravene the Navy’s new concept of operations, which envisions distributed firepower. A future administration will cancel the program before the first ship hits the water.”
There’s some validity to these concerns. American shipbuilding capability is a shell of its former self, with recent data showing that the US builds less than 1 percent of the world’s commercial ships. At the same time, America’s biggest maritime adversary, the People’s Republic of China, produces roughly half the world’s seagoing vessels. Many experienced American shipyard workers have retired, and new hires lack expertise.
Accordingly, back on April 9, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14269, with the self-explanatory title of “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance.” The Trump-class battleships are a follow-on to the E.O., as part of the prospective “Golden Fleet.”
But how to make this happen?
The Way Forward for the Trump-Class?
A few weeks back, this writer suggested a “BuildCarriers” recruiting campaign along the lines of the current “Build Submarines” push to address the shortage of US Navy flattops. Along those lines, perhaps the Trump-class warships could be made feasible via a “BuildBattleships” hiring push.
Besides the basic alliterative quality of such a slogan, it would also be apropos, since “BB” constitutes the alphabetic portion of the alphanumeric hull number designations of USN battleships.
That catchy advertising jingle could be even more catchy with something along the lines of “Build BBs And Help Them Shoot Some Big BBs [as in the shells and missiles, that is].”
Sounds silly, I know. But hey, you gotta grab prospective shipbuilding employees somehow. As the one MasterCard TV advert slogan of the 1980s went, “Master the Possibilities.”
About the Author: Christian D. Orr, Defense Expert
Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor. He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He is also the author of the newly published book “Five Decades of a Fabulous Firearm: Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Beretta 92 Pistol Series.”
