--- title: "Congress’ Proposed Trump Class Battleship Program Guardrails Met With White House Pushback" description: "Congress is moving ahead with a bill that would block Trump class battleship construction unless certain weapons are deemed mature." date: "2026-07-23" modified: "2026-07-23" authors: - name: "Joseph Trevithick" job_title: "Deputy Editor" link: "https://www.twz.com/authors/joseph-trevithick.md" url: "https://www.twz.com/sea/congress-proposed-trump-class-battleship-program-guardrails-met-with-white-house-pushback" categories: - "Navies" - "News & Features" - "Sea" - "U.S. Navy" --- # Congress’ Proposed Trump Class Battleship Program Guardrails Met With White House Pushback ![The White House has formally registered its opposition to a move by Congress to block work on the nuclear-powered Trump class battleship unless the U.S. Navy provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.”]() *USN* The White House has formally registered its opposition to [a move by Congress]() to block work on the [nuclear-powered *Trump* class battleship]() unless the U.S. Navy provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.” The House Armed Services Committee [has already demanded a report]() from the Secretary of the Navy outlining the steps the service is taking to ensure the battleship program won't exacerbate existing construction delays on [aircraft carriers]() and [submarines](). Earlier this week, the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) [issued a Statement of Administration Policy]() regarding the latest draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for Fiscal Year 2027 that is now making its way through the House of Representatives. The document offers support for and opposition to various sections of the proposed legislation, which is also known as [H.R. 8800](). ![]() *A model of the Trump class design on display at the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) annual symposium in January 2026. A model of the FF(X) frigate is also seen in part at the left. *Eric Tegler** "The Administration appreciates that H.R. 8800 would provide authorization of the 18 ships requested in the Budget. These ships are a direct commitment to restoring America's maritime dominance and maritime industrial base," OMB's statement, which was published on July 21, declares. "In addition, the Administration appreciates the bill’s support of the Battleship program by fully authorizing the $1 billion in advance procurement necessary to accelerate the delivery to the Fleet." "However, the Administration opposes the bill’s excessive reporting requirements in section 131 regarding the Administration’s priority Battleship program," it continues. "The Administration strongly opposes any reporting requirements that delay the Battleship program without supporting national security requirements." On July 21, [*USNI News* also reported]() that OMB was pressing members of Congress to include funding to start work on the first *Trump* class battleship in a proposed temporary spending bill, or Continuing Resolution. A temporary funding package could be needed if legislators cannot [pass a more formal budget by September 30](), when the current fiscal year ends. ![]() *A rendering of the *Trump* class battleship, the first of which is set to be named USS *Defiant*. *White House/USN** When it comes to Section 131 of H.R. 8800, the provision is brief, but pointed. At the time of writing, it reads, in full: *"The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work for the construction of the lead ship of the Battleship program until the date on which the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the weapon systems planned for inclusion in such lead ship are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level."* The section does not name any particular weapon systems or define what level of technological readiness would be deemed sufficient. To date, the Navy has described the planned *Trump* class battleship as a 35,000-ton-displacement warship with a diverse array of weapons. The ship is set to be able to fire [nuclear]() and [conventional missiles](), including hypersonic types, from several very large Vertical Launch System (VLS) arrays. It will also have an [electromagnetic railgun](), a pair of [traditional 5-inch naval guns](), various [laser directed energy weapons](), and additional weapon systems for close-in defense. ![]() *An annotated graphic highlighting various capabilities set to be found on the *Trump* class design. Note that the mention here of “28 Mk 41 VLS” cells appears to be a typo, as other official information from the US Navy says the ships will have 128 such cells. *USN via USNI News** *TWZ* previously reported on this provision, which has been in the proposed legislation since at least May. As we wrote in the past: "*In terms of technological maturity, the railgun presents particular questions. Between 2005 and 2021, the Navy had an active railgun program. Despite [promising developments](), plans for an at-sea test were repeatedly pushed back [before the entire effort was shelved](). Major [technical hurdles]() were cited as a key factor in that decision. The railgun itself was effectively placed in storage at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico.*" *"However, it emerged earlier this year that the Navy had [conducted a new round of testing of the railgun]() at WSMR in February 2025. Whether the Navy has any plans to pick up where it left off with this prototype design, which was developed by BAE Systems, or pursue a new one remains unclear. General Atomics, which previously supported [U.S. Army railgun efforts](), has publicly [expressed interest in being involved]() in arming the Trump class."* ![]() *A picture showing the Navy’s prototype railgun being fired at WSMR. *USN** *"While the Navy has been very active in developing and [fielding laser directed energy weapons](), this is another area where [the service has faced continued challenges]() in expanding their operational use. The plans for the Trump class specifically call for a 300-kilowatt-class laser, which is far more powerful than any of the designs the Navy has integrated on its warships to date. The service currently has eight Arleigh Burke class destroyers with the [Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy]() (ODIN), as well as another one of those warships with the [High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance]() (HELIOS). HELIOS is a 60-kilowatt-class design, though there has been talk about scaling up its power rating to 150 kilowatts. ODIN’s power rating does not appear to be officially confirmed, but it is understood to be significantly lower than that of HELIOS. You can read more about all of this [here]()."* ![]() *The Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Preble fires its HELIOS laser directed energy weapon during a test. *US Military** *"The [Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike]() (IRCPS) hypersonic missile, another key component of the future Trump class arsenal, is also still in development. The first test launch from a warship, the stealth destroyer [USS Zumwalt](), is expected to come next year. IRCPS is the Navy half of a joint program with the U.S. Army, which is working to field a land-based version of the same missile. The Army refers to its complete weapon system as [the Dark Eagle](). The Army [had suffered significant setbacks in the past]() with the Dark Eagle, but the service [had blamed those issues on the launcher]() rather than the missile."* ![]() *The hypersonic missile common to the Navy’s IRCPS and Army’s Dark Eagle systems seen being test fired from a launch pad on land. *US military** For its part, OMB's July 21 statement does not respond to any particular concerns that might be raised by Section 131, either. Section 131 represents just one small portion of [the questions](), concerns, and [criticism]() that members of Congress have leveled at the *Trump* class battleship program. The first one of these ships, currently set to be named the USS *Defiant*, has [an estimated price tag of $17 billion](). This would make the vessel more expensive than each of the next three [*Ford* class aircraft carriers](). The future USS *Defiant* is also not currently expected to enter service until 2036. The Navy has already outlined plans to order 14 more of these battleships between Fiscal Years 2029 and 2055, as well. With this in mind, as noted, the House Armed Services Committee [has separately asked for a report]() from the Secretary of the Navy, to be delivered no later than March 1, 2027, on the potential industrial impacts. A particular issue is the strain that work on the *Trump* class could have on America's limited nuclear shipbuilding enterprise. Currently, there are only two U.S. shipyards qualified to build nuclear-powered vessels and only one supplier of naval reactors. Currently, the only nuclear-powered ships in the Navy are aircraft carriers and submarines. The service has not operated a nuclear-powered [surface combatant in decades, and it has been even longer]() since one was built in the United States. ![]() *Naval nuclear reactor components for the future *Ford* class aircraft carrier USS *Doris Miller*. *BWXT** [*TWZ* has repeatedly raised questions]() about the basic industrial capacity to support the battleship program [since it was first rolled out]() to the public in December 2025. It is worth noting here that third, fourth, and fifth *Ford* class carriers now under construction – the future USS *Enterprise* (CVN-80), USS *Doris Miller* (CVN-81), and USS *William J. Clinton* (CVN-82) – [have all suffered delays](). Concerns [are also regularly voiced about potential setbacks]() in the construction of new *Virginia* class and *Columbia* class submarines. Navy officials have been saying for years now that [there is little, if any, margin left]() in the *Columbia* class delivery timeline, which is a critical matter of national security. It is essential for those boats to be delivered on a tight schedule to ensure there is no gap in the ability of the leg of America’s nuclear triad to meet operational requirements. The battleship effort is of particular significance to President Donald Trump and has been presented as a signature program for his administration. At the same time, the schedule that has been laid out so far means that major decisions about how to proceed in acquiring these ships, if at all, will run into the next administration. Any delays will only push that timeline further to the right at a time when there are already major competing priorities for defense spending. Some [members of Congress have openly questioned]() whether the battleship effort is [the best use of available resources]() already. The annual NDAA is still far from being finalized. The House's version will need to be reconciled with the one being advanced in the Senate before the bill can be put to a vote, let alone sent to Trump's desk to be signed into law (or vetoed). This is a process typically marked by lengthy negotiations, and Section 131, as well as other provisions, could change in the future or be removed entirely. Whether or not a larger political fight around the *Trump* class battleship emerges remains to be seen. However, OMB has now made clear publicly that the administration is against the inclusion of the guardrails around the program that the current version of H.R. 8800 proposes to establish. **Contact the author: joe@twz.com** ## Author Joseph is *TWZ’s* Deputy Editor, helping to oversee the site’s highly experienced and dedicated team, while also writing informative and impactful defense and national security content. He lives right in the thick of it in the Washington, D.C. area. ### Author social links [Twitter]() [Bluesky]()