Trump wants bigger, flashier warships bearing his name

US President Donald Trump announced plans for a new line of US Navy ships named after himself, part of what he has dubbed the “Golden Fleet.” The announcement is emblematic of Trump’s governing style: strong emphasis on personal branding and aesthetics, with little attention to strategic or institutional realities.

An opinion piece by The Atlantic, describes the press conference, during which Trump said he wanted US warships to look better and claimed direct involvement in their design because “I am a very aesthetic person,”  as rambling and unfocused.

The article notes that his remarks reignited speculation about his cognitive health, pointing to his off-topic comments about Venezuela that repeated familiar claims about migrants being sent from prisons and mental hospitals.

Trump announced that the new vessels would be “battleships,” but The Atlantic argues that neither Trump nor his administration appears to understand what that term means. Battleships were massive, heavily armoured warships designed to absorb and deliver extraordinary punishment—vessels the US Navy retired decades ago. The proposed Trump-class ships, by contrast, seem to resemble greatly enlarged versions of Arleigh Burke–class destroyers. The first ship, reportedly named the Defiant, would be roughly three times the size of a Burke.

The article emphasises that destroyers and frigates serve fundamentally different purposes from battleships, prioritising speed and flexibility rather than brute endurance. Nonetheless, it suggests the naming decision was less about military doctrine than about satisfying the president’s desire for a dramatic and self-referential symbol.

Defence investors reacted positively, but the practical obstacles are enormous. The US shipbuilding industry currently lacks the capacity to rapidly produce entirely new classes of vessels. Trump’s claim that the first ship could be delivered in two and a half years is characterised as unrealistic, especially given the Navy’s troubled experience with the Zumwalt-class destroyers, a project that took years and failed to meet expectations.

The most consequential announcement, according to the op-ed, came from Navy Secretary John Phelan, who said the Trump-class ships would carry nuclear weapons. The Atlantic argues that this reverses more than 30 years of US policy. 

In 1991, President George H. W. Bush ordered the removal of nuclear weapons from surface ships, a decision that many Navy officers welcomed. Today, the article contends, placing nuclear weapons on large, exposed surface vessels is strategically unnecessary and introduces avoidable risks.

Quoting retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery, The Atlantic says that the plan is “exactly what we don’t need,” adding that naval priorities are distorted because “they are focused on the president’s visual that a battleship is a cool-looking ship.” Phelan, the article adds, promised the new ships would inspire “awe and reverence” in foreign ports.

By Sabina Mammadli