President Trump’s December announcement that the United States will build a new “Trump-class” series of guided-missile battleships is a bold, unapologetic effort to restore American sea power. The first vessel, the USS Defiant, is slated to begin construction immediately with two ships to start and an eventual goal of 20 to 25 hulls, reported as 30,000 to 40,000 tons and armed with hypersonics, lasers, and long-range missiles. This is the kind of decisive, America-first initiative conservatives have been calling for to counter global rivals and rebuild our industrial backbone.
But let’s call the questions what they are: serious watchdogs and industry analysts warn the program risks becoming another headline-grabbing vanity project unless the hard details are fixed. Forbes and government reports point out that many of the technologies touted for these ships are still immature and that Congress will rightly demand clear cost-benefit analysis before handing over taxpayer dollars. Conservatives should welcome a stronger Navy, but we are not obligated to fund wishful thinking without accountability.
The technology promises—railguns, high-power lasers, and hypersonic weapons—sound great in a rally speech, yet the history is humbling: some programs have been scaled back or abandoned after years of chasing breakthroughs. The skeptics are not anti-strength; they are pro-victory—insisting the Pentagon prioritize systems that work today while continuing to invest wisely in tomorrow’s capabilities. Washington has a habit of funding shiny prototypes that never reach the fleet; we should not let enthusiasm for big steel and big words become another white elephant.
The price tag is the other hard truth conservatives must confront. Analysts warn a single Trump-class ship could cost as much as a carrier or multiple destroyers, and building dozens would blow up budgets and divert resources from submarines, carrier air wings, and other proven assets. If we’re serious about beating China, we need weapons that deliver operational advantage per dollar, not just headline-grabbing tonnage. Republicans and fiscal conservatives should demand rigorous cost estimates and a procurement plan that rewards performance, not political spectacle.
Make no mistake: China’s shipbuilding spree is real, and any credible American strategy must match industrial output with technology and will. The Trump plan speaks directly to that threat by insisting America reasserts dominance at sea, and that is the right instinct for any nationalist who believes in peace through strength. Still, patriotism isn’t an excuse for sloppy procurement; we can love our country and still insist our leaders use common sense in how they arm it.
There is also a political question about naming and symbolism. Turning the Navy into a stage for personal branding risks alienating career officers and rank-and-file sailors who want capability and clear leadership, not pageantry. Conservatives value institutions that work, and we should call out any move that prioritizes headlines over operational readiness while still celebrating American grit and shipbuilding know-how.
If this administration genuinely wants to rebuild our fleet, then do it the right way: use American yards, insist on fixed-price contracts when reasonable, tether executive pay and shareholder returns to performance, and prioritize systems that are mature and deployable. Demand oversight, independent cost estimates, and a timeline that rewards results instead of press conferences. A strong Navy is a conservative priority—let’s make sure our leaders turn this promising vision into real, sustainable strength that protects American lives, jobs, and interests.
