Trump Unveils ‘Golden Fleet’ to Restore American Naval Dominance

Paul Riverbank, 12/23/2025Trump unveils futuristic battleships, aiming to restore naval dominance—but obstacles and symbolism loom large.

Let’s be clear—this isn’t just about adding more ships to an aging fleet. After all, the U.S. hasn’t built a true battleship since the mid-1990s. Looking at the president’s words—“100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built”—some skeptics would raise an eyebrow. Yet, official sketches show a warship that could have sailed out of the pages of speculative military journals: hypersonic missiles, electric railguns, and even high-energy lasers are apparently on the drawing board, all wrapped in a streamlined steel hull. Trump, ever the showman, also emphasized aesthetics, declaring his intent to personally oversee the design process. He described himself as “a very aesthetic person,” hinting at a vessel that’s as much statement as strategy.

Under the surface, however, lies a sense of urgency. America’s shipyards, once the pride of the nation and the backbone of victory in two world wars, are struggling. Chronic labor shortages and crumbling infrastructure have hampered new builds. The numbers, cited openly by the Navy’s own intelligence office, are stark: China is said to have a shipbuilding capacity 230 times that of the U.S. As of now, the U.S. Navy fields 294 warships; China has crossed 370 and is still growing.

Navy Secretary Phelan didn’t hesitate to sound the alarm earlier this year, warning that the private sector must shift to a war footing to keep pace. And the new battleships? They’re meant to be the vanguard of a larger fleet, potentially up to 25 strong, though initial plans only budget for two. Phelan, echoing voices from previous Pentagon shake-ups, wants to accelerate tech development—reducing bureaucratic delays so that innovations don’t spend years collecting dust before seeing the water.

But ambition alone won’t be enough. The U.S. last commissioned a battleship, the USS Missouri, in 1944; by 1992, she was retired, closing an era. Today’s shipbuilders are grappling with lost knowhow and dated tools. In fact, Trump recently signed an executive order aiming to reverse this decline, calling it a threat to national security.

Beneath the hard sell of advanced weapons and “all steel” hulls, though, there’s a thread of symbolism. Trump and his advisers often hark back to the legendary Great White Fleet, President Theodore Roosevelt’s globe-circling naval show of strength more than a century ago, as a golden age of American prowess. Even skeptics, if they’re honest, have to admit the battleship—bulky and old-fashioned as it might seem—remains an icon of American resolve.

There’s political calculation as well. At a time when tensions with Venezuela are on the rise and Washington’s appetite for a new show of strength grows louder, the prospect of launching a “Golden Fleet” serves more than just strategic needs. It’s also about projecting confidence—perhaps more than at any time since the Cold War’s final decade.

Despite the grandstanding, questions linger. Where will the crews come from, given the Navy’s recent struggles with recruitment and retention? Will these costly new ships actually reach the water before further advances in missile technology or drone warfare make them vulnerable? And, crucially, can Washington muster the bipartisan support for the sustained investment needed to reach a fleet of 20 or more?

In the coming months—even years—observers will be watching closely. For now, most everyone in Washington, from Pentagon planners to congressional skeptics, seems to agree that the symbolism matters almost as much as the steel. Investing anew in the Navy feels, for many, like turning the page on decades of drift. Whether these ships become the vanguard of a true American resurgence or another expensive experiment will depend as much on political willpower as on engineering prowess.

When President Donald Trump, flanked by his military and diplomatic advisers, informed the press from Mar-a-Lago on Monday that the U.S. Navy would be getting two brand-new battleships, the message was both nostalgic and ambitious. In one of the more unusual scenes of recent defense politics, Trump stood beside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Navy Secretary John Phelan as he outlined what’s been dubbed the “Trump class”—a vessel he promised would make American naval power unmistakable again.Let’s be clear—this isn’t just about adding more ships to an aging fleet. After all, the U.S. hasn’t built a true battleship since the mid-1990s. Looking at the president’s words—“100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built”—some skeptics would raise an eyebrow. Yet, official sketches show a warship that could have sailed out of the pages of speculative military journals: hypersonic missiles, electric railguns, and even high-energy lasers are apparently on the drawing board, all wrapped in a streamlined steel hull. Trump, ever the showman, also emphasized aesthetics, declaring his intent to personally oversee the design process. He described himself as “a very aesthetic person,” hinting at a vessel that’s as much statement as strategy.Under the surface, however, lies a sense of urgency. America’s shipyards, once the pride of the nation and the backbone of victory in two world wars, are struggling. Chronic labor shortages and crumbling infrastructure have hampered new builds. The numbers, cited openly by the Navy’s own intelligence office, are stark: China is said to have a shipbuilding capacity 230 times that of the U.S. As of now, the U.S. Navy fields 294 warships; China has crossed 370 and is still growing.Navy Secretary Phelan didn’t hesitate to sound the alarm earlier this year, warning that the private sector must shift to a war footing to keep pace. And the new battleships? They’re meant to be the vanguard of a larger fleet, potentially up to 25 strong, though initial plans only budget for two. Phelan, echoing voices from previous Pentagon shake-ups, wants to accelerate tech development—reducing bureaucratic delays so that innovations don’t spend years collecting dust before seeing the water.But ambition alone won’t be enough. The U.S. last commissioned a battleship, the USS Missouri, in 1944; by 1992, she was retired, closing an era. Today’s shipbuilders are grappling with lost knowhow and dated tools. In fact, Trump recently signed an executive order aiming to reverse this decline, calling it a threat to national security.Beneath the hard sell of advanced weapons and “all steel” hulls, though, there’s a thread of symbolism. Trump and his advisers often hark back to the legendary Great White Fleet, President Theodore Roosevelt’s globe-circling naval show of strength more than a century ago, as a golden age of American prowess. Even skeptics, if they’re honest, have to admit the battleship—bulky and old-fashioned as it might seem—remains an icon of American resolve.There’s political calculation as well. At a time when tensions with Venezuela are on the rise and Washington’s appetite for a new show of strength grows louder, the prospect of launching a “Golden Fleet” serves more than just strategic needs. It’s also about projecting confidence—perhaps more than at any time since the Cold War’s final decade.Despite the grandstanding, questions linger. Where will the crews come from, given the Navy’s recent struggles with recruitment and retention? Will these costly new ships actually reach the water before further advances in missile technology or drone warfare make them vulnerable? And, crucially, can Washington muster the bipartisan support for the sustained investment needed to reach a fleet of 20 or more?In the coming months—even years—observers will be watching closely. For now, most everyone in Washington, from Pentagon planners to congressional skeptics, seems to agree that the symbolism matters almost as much as the steel. Investing anew in the Navy feels, for many, like turning the page on decades of drift. Whether these ships become the vanguard of a true American resurgence or another expensive experiment will depend as much on political willpower as on engineering prowess.