Trump announces plans for new Navy ‘battleship’

President Donald Trump arrives to announce the creation of the “Trump-class” battleship. (Getty Images/AFP)
Short Url
Updated 23 December 2025
Follow

Trump announces plans for new Navy ‘battleship’

  • The ship, according to Trump, will be longer and larger than the World War II-era Iowa-class battleships

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump has announced a bold plan for the Navy to build a new, large warship that he is calling a “battleship” as part of a larger vision to create a “Golden Fleet.”
“They’ll be the fastest, the biggest, and by far 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built,” Trump claimed during the announcement at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
The ship, according to Trump, will be longer and larger than the World War II-era Iowa-class battleships and will be armed with hypersonic missiles, rail guns, and high-powered lasers — all technologies that are still being developed by the Navy.
Just a month ago, the Navy scrapped its plans to build a new, small warship, citing growing delays and cost overruns, deciding instead to go with a modified version of a Coast Guard cutter that was being produced until recently. The sea service has also failed to build its other newly designed ships, like the new Ford-class aircraft carrier and Columbia-class submarines, on time and on budget.
Historically, the term battleship has referred to a very specific type of ship — a large, heavily armored vessel armed with massive guns designed to bombard other ships or targets ashore. This type of ship was at the height of prominence during World War II, and the largest of the US battleships, the Iowa-class, were roughly 60,000 tons.
After World War II, the battleship’s role in modern fleets diminished rapidly in favor of aircraft carriers and long-range missiles. The US Navy did modernize four Iowa-class battleships in the 1980s by adding cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles, along with modern radars, but by the 1990s all four were decommissioned.
Trump has long held strong opinions on specific aspects of the Navy’s fleet, sometimes with a view toward keeping older technology instead of modernizing.
During his first term, he unsuccessfully called for the return to steam-powered catapults to launch jets from the Navy’s newest aircraft carriers instead of the more modern electromagnetic system.
He has also complained to Phelan about the look of the Navy’s destroyers and decried Navy ships being covered in rust.
Phelan told senators at his confirmation hearing that Trump “has texted me numerous times very late at night, sometimes after one  in the morning” about “rusty ships or ships in a yard, asking me what am I doing about it.”
On a visit to a shipyard that was working on the now-canceled Constellation-class frigate in 2020, Trump said he personally changed the design of the ship.
“I looked at it, I said, ‘That’s a terrible-looking ship, let’s make it beautiful,’” Trump said at the time.
He said Monday he will have a direct role in designing this new warship as well.
“The US Navy will lead the design of these ships along with me, because I’m a very aesthetic person,” Trump said.


House votes to slap back Trump’s tariffs on Canada in rare bipartisan rebuke

Updated 12 February 2026
Follow

House votes to slap back Trump’s tariffs on Canada in rare bipartisan rebuke

WASHINGTON: The House voted Wednesday to slap back President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada, a rare if largely symbolic rebuke of the White House agenda as Republicans joined Democrats over the objections of GOP leadership.
The tally, 219-211, was among the first times the House, controlled by Republicans, has confronted the president over a signature policy, and drew instant recrimination from Trump himself. The resolution seeks to end the national emergency Trump declared to impose the tariffs, though actually undoing the policy would require support from the president, which is highly unlikely. It next goes to the Senate.
Trump believes in the power of tariffs to force US trade partners to the negotiating table. But lawmakers are facing unrest back home from businesses caught in the trade wars and constituents navigating pocketbook issues and high prices.
“Today’s vote is simple, very simple: Will you vote to lower the cost of living for the American family or will you keep prices high out of loyalty to one person — Donald J. Trump?” said Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who authored the resolution.
Within minutes, as the gavel struck, Trump fired off a stern warning to those in the Republican Party who would dare to cross him.
“Any Republican, in the House or the Senate, that votes against TARIFFS will seriously suffer the consequences come Election time, and that includes Primaries!” the president posted on social media.
The high-stakes moment provides a snapshot of the House’s unease with the president’s direction, especially ahead of the midterm elections as economic issues resonate among voters. The Senate has already voted to reject Trump’s tariffs on Canada and other countries in a show of displeasure. But both chambers would have to approve the tariff rollbacks, and send the resolution to Trump for the president’s signature — or veto.
Six House Republicans voted for the resolution, and one Democrat voted against it.
From Canada, Ontario, Premier Doug Ford on social media called the vote “an important victory with more work ahead.” He thanked lawmakers from both parties “who stood up in support of free trade and economic growth between our two great countries. Let’s end the tariffs and together build a more prosperous and secure future.”
Trump recently threatened to impose a 100 percent tariff on goods imported from Canada over that country’s proposed China trade deal, intensifying a feud with the longtime US ally and Prime Minister Mark Carney.
GOP defections forced the vote
House Speaker Mike Johnson tried to prevent this showdown.
Johnson insisted lawmakers wait for a pending Supreme Court ruling in a lawsuit about the tariffs. He engineered a complicated rules change to prevent floor action. But Johnson’s strategy collapsed late Tuesday, as Republicans peeled off during a procedural vote to ensure the Democratic measure was able to advance.
“The president’s trade policies have been of great benefit,” Johnson, R-Louisiana, had said. “And I think the sentiment is that we allow a little more runway for this to be worked out between the executive branch and the judicial branch.”
Late Tuesday evening, Johnson could be seen speaking to holdout Republican lawmakers as the GOP leadership team struggled to shore up support during a lengthy procedural vote, but the numbers lined up against him.
“We’re disappointed,” Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council, told reporters at the White House on Wednesday morning. “The president will make sure they don’t repeal his tariffs.”
Terminating Trump’s emergency
The resolution put forward by Meeks would terminate the national emergency that Trump declared a year ago as one of his executive orders.
The administration claimed illicit drug flow from Canada constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat that allows the president to slap tariffs on imported goods outside the terms of the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
The Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, said the flow of fentanyl into the US is a dire national emergency and the policy must be left in place.
“Let’s be clear again about what this resolution is and what it’s not. It’s not a debate about tariffs. You can talk about those, but that’s not really what it is,” Mast said. “This is Democrats trying to ignore that there is a fentanyl crisis.”
Experts say fentanyl produced by cartels in Mexico is largely smuggled into the US from land crossings in California and Arizona. Fentanyl is also made in Canada and smuggled into the US, but to a much lesser extent.
Torn between Trump and tariffs
Ahead of voting, some rank-and-file Republican lawmakers expressed unease over the choices ahead as Democrats — and a few renegade Republicans — impressed on their colleagues the need to flex their power as the legislative branch rather than ceding so much power to the president to take authority over trade and tariff policy.
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, said he was unpersuaded by Johnson’s call to wait until the Supreme Court makes its decision about the legality of Trump’s tariffs. He voted for passage.
“Why doesn’t the Congress stand on its own two feet and say that we’re an independent branch?” Bacon said. “We should defend our authorities. I hope the Supreme Court does, but if we don’t do it, shame on us.”
Bacon, who is retiring rather than facing reelection, also argued that tariffs are bad economic policy.
Other Republicans had to swiftly make up their minds after Johnson’s gambit — which would have paused the calendar days to prevent the measure from coming forward — was turned back.
“At the end of the day, we’re going to have to support our president,” said Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said he doesn’t want to tie the president’s hands on trade and would support the tariffs on Canada “at this time.”