By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On December 22, 2025, President Donald Trump announced the Golden Fleet initiative at Mar-a-Lago, revealing plans for a new “Trump-class” battleship. The President proclaimed the ships would be the most powerful ever built and help maintain U.S. military supremacy. However, experts quickly pointed out the obsolescence of battleships, which have been eclipsed by modern naval technology. Defense analysts like Mark Cancian believe the project is unrealistic due to the costs, design timeline, and a misalignment with current naval strategies.
Read the original article here
The “Trump-class” battleship faces a large obstacle in its way: Reality, a concept that seems to elude the very premise of the project. The initial announcement, seemingly plucked from a fantasy, sparks immediate skepticism, especially when considering the lack of follow-through on past grandiose schemes. The suspicion is that this announcement, like so many others, is more about self-aggrandizement and potentially lining the pockets of allies rather than a serious military undertaking. History tells us that large-scale, headline-grabbing projects often remain just that – announcements. The Navy itself has allegedly indicated that any such project is a long-term goal, potentially not even beginning construction until the late 2030s, raising further doubts about its actualization.
The core of the problem lies in the obsolescence of battleships in modern warfare. The very idea of a slow, massive artillery platform designed for a bygone era clashes with contemporary naval doctrines centered on air power and the rapid deployment of advanced weaponry. The proposed “Trump-class” is envisioned as a “first-strike platform,” highlighting its vulnerability to modern anti-ship technologies and the swiftness of warfare. The emphasis on size and brute force ignores the realities of stealth technology, missile strikes, and the dominance of aircraft carriers.
The comparisons to the “USS Canyonero,” a fictional vehicle known for its impracticality, highlight the inherent flaws in the concept. The design appears to prioritize aesthetics over functionality, suggesting a potential disregard for critical engineering principles like radar reflection and stealth capabilities. Furthermore, the sheer scale of the project, exceeding even the dimensions of existing aircraft carriers, brings up logistical and doctrinal problems, raising questions about whether the Navy even needs such a vessel. The idea of a lavish ballroom on the high seas, while perhaps appealing to a particular aesthetic, further emphasizes the project’s disconnect from the practical demands of modern naval warfare.
The project faces significant hurdles beyond its inherent obsolescence. Building a new class of ships is an extremely expensive undertaking, and past projects such as the Zumwalt-class illustrate the potential for cost overruns and design flaws. The design, construction, and operation of a “Trump-class” battleship would require staggering sums of taxpayer money, which could arguably be better spent on other critical areas, such as healthcare or investments in more relevant military technologies. The very idea of a battleship, designed for fighting other battleships, seems absurd when it would be so vulnerable to modern weaponry.
The lack of a clear strategic purpose for the “Trump-class” further undermines its viability. The Navy already possesses a formidable arsenal of aircraft carriers, submarines, and other vessels, rendering a slow-moving battleship largely redundant. The project’s reliance on outdated tactics and technologies appears to be a costly misdirection of resources, failing to address the evolving nature of modern naval combat. Given the increasing focus on advanced drone technology and smaller, more versatile vessels, investing in a battleship seems like a step backward, an attempt to revive a concept that has long since outlived its strategic utility.
It also raises concerns about the potential damage to US naval doctrine and readiness, given the already overstretched resources and focus in the current day and age. The massive undertaking, assuming it would ever get off the ground, would likely divert resources from more pressing needs. Moreover, the project’s association with an individual known for his dubious financial dealings raises legitimate concerns about corruption and misappropriation of funds. It’s an issue of whether the funds could be put to better use, perhaps supporting projects which would be more beneficial to our society, rather than a vanity project.
The announcement of the “Trump-class” appears to be an attempt to satisfy personal desires, rather than a strategic military need. Like the Vasa, a ship built more for show than substance, the project seems doomed to fail before it even gets off the ground. The reality of modern naval warfare makes the Trump Class more like a vessel with bone spurs, in the sense that it is a liability for the Navy, unable to fulfill its purpose. Given the failures of previous shipbuilding projects, and the shifting dynamics of modern naval warfare, the “Trump-class” is likely to join the ranks of past blunders.