{"id":134422,"date":"2026-06-04T23:19:21","date_gmt":"2026-06-04T23:19:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/uncategorized\/2026\/06\/04\/the-us-needs-drones-not-trump-class-battleships-democrats-argue\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T20:22:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T20:22:34","slug":"the-us-needs-drones-not-trump-class-battleships-democrats-argue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/news\/pentagon-congress\/2026\/06\/04\/the-us-needs-drones-not-trump-class-battleships-democrats-argue\/","title":{"rendered":"The US needs drones, not Trump-class battleships, Democrats argue"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

House Democrats expressed frustration with the U.S. military for seeking funding for a $17 billion battleship instead of investing more in cheaper autonomous weapons systems as warfare continues to change rapidly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During a House Armed Services Committee markup<\/a> of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, lawmakers said that investing in Trump-class battleships would mean ignoring lessons learned from past Navy mistakes in which the service invested billions of dollars in ill-conceived procurement programs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, lawmakers wanted the military to invest in the future, incorporating lessons about the importance of uncrewed systems that other conflicts, such as the war in Ukraine, have laid bare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is the most expensive sitting duck in world history,\u201d said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass. \u201cThis battleship is a boondoggle.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moulton referenced an op-ed<\/a> by retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis in which he argued battleships are entirely obsolete in the face of hypersonic missiles, drone swarms and a litany of modern weapons systems. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The battleship was a \u201cvanity project\u201d that would inevitably fall by the wayside and vanish once Trump left office and Republicans came to their senses, Moulton said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussion revolved around the allocation<\/a> of $1 billion for the Trump-class battleship included in the House\u2019s version of the NDAA. An amendment proposed by Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking Democrat on the committee, sought to void that allocation completely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amendment failed on a 26-30 vote, but lawmakers were defiant in their rejection of the Trump-class battleship program, and more broadly, of what it meant fiscally and strategically for the military.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

President Donald Trump\u2019s $1.5 trillion fiscal 2027 Defense Department budget request listed the cost of the first Trump-class battleship at $17 billion, but a Congressional Budget Office report assessed<\/a> that the ship could cost closer to $20 billion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Construction on the first Trump-class battleship is slated to begin in 2028, with delivery scheduled for the 2030s, according<\/a> to Navy budget estimates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhere we need to be going is smaller more attritable autonomous systems,\u201d Smith said. \u201cThe capabilities of these systems are growing by leaps and bounds from one iteration to the next and they cost pennies compared to what something like this battleship would cost.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump announced<\/a> his desire in December 2025 to build several Trump-class battleships. It would mark the first time the Navy would pursue building a battleship since 1944, when the Iowa-class USS Missouri was launched.<\/p>\n\n\n\t