Haters are going to hate and I don’t give a fig or a feather. While at Mar-a-Lago for the holidays, President Trump announced a new Trump-class Golden Fleet of surface warfare ships for the Navy. The first ship will be named the U.S.S. Defiant. That name, if you ask me and you didn’t, is freaking awesome. It will be a Merry Christmas for the U.S. Navy which has been given short shrift lately. We’re looking at you, Space Force.
If you haven’t heard about the new Golden Fleet, behold this piece from the U.S. Naval Institute News:
The centerpiece of the Trump administration’s revamp of the U.S. Navy is the largest surface combatant America will build since World War II.
The U.S. Navy will buy two new “battleships” as part of the “Golden Fleet” effort, President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Navy Secretary John Phelan announced Monday at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump said the Navy will start by purchasing two ships and eventually purchase 10, with a goal of 20 to 25 in total for the class with the start of construction planned for 2030.
“The U.S. Navy will lead the design, along with me, because I’m a very aesthetic person,” Trump said.
As a triple Trump voter, I give myself permission to state that Trump is a very aesthetic person. You may think he is a douche-canoe but he does have an eye. The ships will be pleasing to the eye AND with unsurpassed lethality. More from U.S. Naval Institute News:
“The future Trump-class battleship – the USS Defiant – will be the largest, deadliest and most versatile and best-looking warship anywhere on the world’s oceans,” Phelan said during the presentation. “Now there will be work for shipyards everywhere from Philadelphia to San Diego, from Maine to Mississippi, from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast, and for manufacturers that will build components for this battleship in every state.”
AND, the sailors that will serve aboard each of these Trump-class ships will be darn proud. They loved the “Fight, fight, fight” photos:
Images of a future USS Defiant (BBG-1) were featured alongside Trump, Hegseth and Phelan, as well as a ship logo based on the July 13, 2024, Evan Vucci photo taken shortly after Trump was shot in the ear during an assassination attempt amid his presidential campaign.
Big Donald Trump fan, the late Charlie Kirk, called out the Evan Vucci photo last Spring:
Evan Vucci’s photograph of Donald Trump after last summer’s assassination attempt is iconic — maybe the single most famous photo of the past decade. But because it made Trump look good, the Pulitzer Prize committee just refused to give it the award for best breaking news… pic.twitter.com/oUJyCAAFv3
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 6, 2025
I totally agree with Johnny Maga:
Omg. The new Trump-class warship announced today — the ‘USS Defiant’ — will bear an image of Trump’s iconic “FIGHT” pose from the Butler, PA assassination attempt.
This is so metal. pic.twitter.com/QRqgZVOg2d
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) December 22, 2025
Americans, especially Republicans, have been far too self-effacing for too long. It’s about time we started naming things after ourselves, like the Trump-Kennedy Center. From USA Today:
The announcement comes a few days after Trump’s name was added to the outside of the iconic Kennedy Center building in Washington, DC, on Dec. 19, less than 24 hours after the center’s board of trustees voted to rename it the “Trump-Kennedy Center.”
Would it have been more palatable if his name would have been added a week later? Maroons!
Speaking of maroons, here are some choice bits from the New York Times:
New battleships: President Trump announced on Monday that the Navy would build two new “Trump Class” battleships, with the eventual goal of acquiring 25. The announcement by Mr. Trump was the latest example of the president rebranding an aspect of the federal government in his image. The Navy secretary, John Phelan, called the vessels “just one piece of the president’s golden fleet that we’re going to build.”
Since World War II, it’s been time for a little rebranding, in my humble opinion. More NY Times:
President Trump is emphasizing that he wants these ships constructed quickly. He said he will meet with defense contractors next week in Florida to talk about accelerating production schedules “because they’re too slow,” Trump said. “They don’t produce them fast enough,” Trump said, adding his is prepared to penalize companies who “aren’t doing a good job.” He also said the administration plans on “fixing up” the Navy’s headquarters.
Here is the announcement of the new ships. Does anyone else think Secretary Rubio looks a little hurt after America Fest announcement by Erica Kirk last week?
I love the word “lethality”.
Truly, if our military has the equipment and the leadership to start winning battles and scary the bejesus out of our enemies, I am a happy patriot. Huzzah!
Hater will still hate.
Featured Image: Naval Sea Systems Command Image/U.S. Naval Institute News/Public Domain
George V says: My opinion is that the Navy’s procurement process has to be fixed before any new ships are built. The Littoral Combat Ship, the Ford carrier, the frigate that just got cancelled that was based on an existing design from Europe all were way behind schedule, way over budget, and have design flaws that rendered them less than 100%. I’ve read that the LCS propulsion often failed and some of the ships have been decommissioned already, the Ford, at least initially, could not launch the F-35, and it’s EMALs catapults have a single point of failure that could take out all 4 catapults. Fix the procurement first, Mr. President.
Toni Williams says: The whole military procurement system wastes money and doesn’t get the best products.
This is one leg of two criticisms I have about this. First, the size is more cruiser than battleship. Second, I remain highly skeptical that a large surface ship regardless of how heavily armed with new weapons (drone swarms, rail guns, hypersonic and laser weapons) will do in the new battlefield where everything large (tanks, aircraft, boats) is now a bomb magnet.
OTOH, if this beast fixes a seriously broken procurement process for naval vessels, it will be a big, big win. Either way, Merry Christmas to one and all. Cheers –
Fen says: “in the new battlefield where everything large (tanks, aircraft, boats) is now a bomb magnet.”
To quote the illustrious Admiral Tomas Petty:
“…everything changed, then changed again”
ie. by the time you adjust for drone warfare, the battlefield will have evolved at least two more generations.
Me? I want Trump to Make Calvary Charges Great Again! Heh.
Que says: Did you consult any Navy officer before writing this fangirl drivel?
I sent an article about this latest Trump scheme from the news aggregator Ground News to a senior Navy officer I know. He has 20 years active duty experience, currently commands a crew, and is a USNA graduate to boot. So I think he knows more than “Johnny Maga.”
His reaction? “Foolish and risky.” He added that since resources are scarce, we shouldn’t be investing in something that will end up being a “lost cause.” This could set the Navy back decades, he believes.
Why is this a lost cause? Because the Navy stopped fielding battleships after the introduction of aircraft carriers. The last battleship class (Iowa) was retired in the early 1990’s after being used briefly in the Persian Gulf war. That’s 30 years ago.
What’s next for President Caligula? Massive heavy bomber groups like those flown in World War II?
Scott says: Interesting that you have no issue that the Navy moved from a battleship centric model to one centered around aircraft carriers, but at the same time seem to feel that no further evolution is ever warranted? As I recall, admirals of the time were completely against that last change.. and time has proven them wrong, so just MAYBE those that are set in the ways of how things are might NOT be the best judges of where we should go from here.. (see also the Air Force generals who decided in the 50’s -60’s that fighters wouldn’t need guns, just missiles)
It’s not like the announcements have any significant details about the proposed ships to criticize. Just a suggestion, maybe wait until more details have come out, and a better picture / justification is presented, before attacking the concept in a knee-jerk fashion…
or maybe that’s just me..
Que says: Yeah, it’s just you. You might watch this video from the military site Task & Purpose which explains the history of the battleship and why it ain’t coming back.
As the kids say, “educate yourself,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KznZKdSkUbU
Scott says: Well,
Just like I pointed out as a flaw in your previous “reasoning” you’ve doubled down, and are again twice as wrong. In that entire clip you linked, he talks about a battleship in the traditional sense. I will give you that you are both correct that a large, heavily gunned and armored behemoth designed to engage other surface ships will never be built again. Of course that also indicates that you are incapable of understanding that the next evolution of “battleship” could be something entire different, with an entirely different mission. As Tony points out, this seems to be something your tiny mind cannot fathom.
It’s great that you have a family member in the military that has also voiced their opinion on the subject. Thing is, opinions are like A$$holes, everyone has one.. I too besides having served myself, have multiple family members in the military, all likely with their own opinions on the subject, and as I mentioned above, and you conveniently ignored, without an accurate description of what the intended class actually consists of, all those opinions are equally worthless. But, you keep doing you, and don’t let facts of lack thereof slow your jumping to conclusions.
John Shepherd says: Oh dear, you watched a YouTube video!!!
The last US battleship to be decommissioned after WWII was the USS Wisconsin in 1958. The reason battleships went away in the late 50s is operating cost. The largest surface combatant fielded by the Soviet Navy was the Sverdlov Class of light cruisers. We had plenty of 8″ armed heavy cruisers that cost less to operate to deal with them.
The idea that battleships were made obsolete by aircraft carriers is also reinforced by “Bull’s Run” at Leyte Gulf. Had Halsey left Lee’s heavy surface force (TF34) behind to guard the San Bernadino Strait, Leyte Gulf would have been decided by surface action and would have changed the narrative.
In fact, The Solomon’s campaign was decided by surface action and not by aircraft carrier combat. Arguably, it was the most important naval campaign of the war.
Given the increasing threst post by cheap drones, there is need for more guns on ships and that takes displacement if you want to retain an area air defense capability. We have demonstrated that we can shoot down drones with current capability but using a $1m missile to down a $10k drone is a losing proposition. That requirement can be met by a ship in the 15-20k.displacement range.
Scott says: I think we’re essentially saying the same thing John.. Old style battleships are indeed dead, but that doesn’t mean some new class of ships, with that old name, but designed from the ground up to deal with modern roles and threats, isn’t needed.
Toni Williams says: You are kidding me, right Kim? You asked your son in law? He could not possibly have the same type of little brain as you do. Foolish and risky would be not doing a current assessment because needs of the military change. You know that, right? Trump didn’t ask the Navy what their needs might be on a go forward basis.
You just don’t learn.
Que says: So I have a “little brain.”
Bless your heart. And Merry Christmas.
Que says: Actually, Toni, I’m grateful to have a son-in-law who knows much more than either you or I do about this issue. I’m grateful that he respects me enough to answer my questions.
John Shepherd says: I have a long standing relationship with the Navy and I will add some context to general objections to building what amounts to a Washington Naval Treaty compliant Battleship. The. North Carilina class was the first battleship class built after the building holiday was over. Designed in 1936, laid down in 1938, launched in 1940 and commissioned in mid 1941. That is 5 years from preliminary design to commissioning. If design work started today the ship would be ready for active service in 2031. However, unlike the North Carolinas which were the culmination of numerous design studies, a new capital ship would start with a blank sheet of paper. The first ship would hit the fleet after 2032. The Navy is aiming to put the first small combatant in the water in 2028 and that is based on an existing high endurance Coast Guard design. President Trump probably would never live tosee his ship commissioned
There is a need for large surface combatant but not a 35kt battleship. The best bet would be to enlarge a Zumwalt Class hull.to accommodate 4 single 5″/62 mounts and multiple 57mm Bofors mounts for anti drone defense along with the usual panoply of Aegis Radar and VLS. Contrary to Que’s assertion of conventional wisdom, battleships did not go away because of aircraft carriers, they were decommissioned because of cost and the lack of Soviet large surface combatants. The Sverdlov Class light cruisers could be dealt with by three the Des Moines and our large stock of Baltimore Class heavy cruisers. The battleships were brought back in the 1980s as Tomahawk platforms. They were the only Tomahawk capable surface combatants until after The Wall fell.
.
Now for the objection based on traditional nomenclature. Its not the Trump Navy, the Royal Navy or Starfleet, it’s the US Navy. We don’t give major warships names like Defiant. Capital ships are usually named after States. However, we are naming submarines these days after States. Another naming convention is using famous ships’ names. Names like Ranger, Hartford Chesapeake, President or Congress would be appropriate.
Scott says: Well stated sir
Fen says: “accommodate 4 single 5″/62 mounts and multiple 57mm Bofors mounts for anti drone defense”
We’re already working on an anti-drone weapon that renders your specs as ineffective as 12 Trebuchets massed on the aft deck.
“Now for the objection based on traditional nomenclature -”
USNS Harvey Milk…
John Shepherd says: So all of sudden the 5″ and 57mm VT used rounds will just bounce off the target, eh?
You mean the 2,75″ rockets fitted with a seeker for use with aircraft? Guns will always be useful for air defense inside of 5 miles because the number of ready missiles is small and they are still expensive.
Weren’t you the guy on instapundit who thinks the rate of return calculation for a residence is the same as for a commercial or investment property because you took a finance class?
Old Coastie says: As a former Coast Guardsman who served aboard a Coast Guard Cutter that was a hand-me-down WWII Navy ship I find profoundly ironic that the real news is that the Navy has to come crawling to the Coast Guard for their newest ships. The design of the Coast Guard ships should work well unless the perfumed princes of the Pentagon lard it up with every conceivable shinny new thing, as is their wont, and then blame cost over runs and missing delivery dates on the ship builder.
[…] OCEANS ARE NOW BATTLEFIELDS; Golden Fleet of Trump Class Ships to be Built: […]
I am skeptical about whether or not these will be built. I have two concerns. The first is, as others have raised, the shit-show of Navy procurement. The second concern is drones. The simple fact is that right now the threat of cheapo drones is so great that pouring this much money into large surface combatants strikes me as a decidedly dubious idea until we get both effective AND cost-effective drone defense in place.
Mind you, I really do think that the “Golden Fleet” idea, i.e. restoring our naval capacity to where it should be, is a superb idea, and overdue.
John Shepherd says: Hundreds of cheap drones have been fired at US Navy ships in tbe Red Sea for exactly zero hits. Up to now the problem isn’t the inability to defend ships. It has been the inabilty to defend ships in a cost effective way.
21 Comments