U.S. Navy's Trump-Class Nuclear Battleships Could Cost $275 Billion, CBO Says

CBO Estimates $275 Billion for the 15-Ship Trump-Class Nuclear Battleship Fleet

The U.S. Navy’s plan to build a new fleet of 15 nuclear-powered battleships, formally known as the Golden Fleet and publicly branded by the Trump administration as the "Trump" class, would cost an estimated $275 billion in total, according to a Congressional Budget Office report released this week. The lead vessel, to be named USS Defiant, would cost around $23.4 billion, while each subsequent ship is projected at roughly $18 billion.

Announced by President Donald Trump in September 2025, the program marks the first American return to battleship construction in decades. The CBO report envisions a build schedule of roughly one ship every two years from 2028 through 2056, while the Navy would continue producing two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers annually. The ships are designed to carry an unprecedented arsenal: anti-air, anti-ship, and long-range missiles, hypersonic weapons, nuclear-propelled cruise missiles, high-energy lasers, and an electromagnetic railgun.

At $23.4 billion for the first hull, the new battleship would be more than $10 billion more expensive than the lead ship of the Ford-class aircraft carriers, which cost about $13.3 billion. The CBO does note that nuclear propulsion would eliminate the need for conventional refueling over the ship’s lifetime, reducing long-term operating costs.

The cost estimate lands as the American shipbuilding industrial base faces severe headwinds. A March report by the Government Accountability Office found that Navy ship programs over the past two decades have suffered chronic schedule delays, rising costs, and disappointing performance, with many vessels delivered roughly three years late and the current production pace falling short of service goals.

Inside the Ambition: Budget, Industrial, and Political Challenges of the Golden Fleet

The $275 Billion Question for Navy Shipbuilding

The CBO’s three-quarter-trillion-dollar projection immediately reshapes the fiscal debate in Congress. At an average of $18 billion per follow-on hull, the program would consume a significant share of the Navy’s shipbuilding budget for three decades. That pressure could crowd out other major surface combatant or amphibious programs unless the topline budget grows sharply—a politically contentious prospect given competing demands for national defense, space, and cyber capabilities.

Can the Industrial Base Build Them?

The GAO’s stark assessment of the shipbuilding sector raises fundamental questions about feasibility. Even maintaining two DDG-51 destroyers per year has proven difficult; adding an entirely new, vastly more complex battleship class would stress an already fragile supplier base and skilled workforce. The plan’s one-every-two-years cadence assumes a rate of battleship production the U.S. has not achieved for any large surface combatant in the modern era, making the schedule highly vulnerable to further delays.

A Battleship’s Price Tag vs. a Carrier’s Capability

Pitting the $23.4 billion battleship against a $13.3 billion aircraft carrier invites questions about naval effectiveness per dollar. While the battleship’s offensive and defensive armament is formidable on paper, the carrier—with its embarked air wing—projects power over a far larger area. Proponents argue the nuclear battleship offers a survivable, multi-mission strike platform that can operate independently in contested waters; critics will note that the Navy has not operated a battleship since the 1990s for reasons that include vulnerability to modern anti-ship missiles.

The Political Weight of a Name

Labeling the class after a sitting president—and one who will no longer be in office when the first ship is built—adds an unusual political dimension. Supporters may frame it as a tribute to a defense revitalization; opponents could use the branding to argue the program is a vanity project. Any cost growth or technical failure risks becoming not just a procurement debacle but a political liability tied to the former president’s legacy.

The CBO numbers are realistic cost estimates based on the Navy’s own design parameters and historical cost growth factors. However, the inherent uncertainty in a program of this scale, with technology that has never been integrated on a single hull, means final costs could easily exceed even these towering figures.

What the $275 Billion Battleship Estimate Means for Congress, the Navy, and Industry

For defense contractors: The program would represent a generational industrial opportunity, but its sheer scale and technical risk demand careful alignment with the Navy’s evolving requirements. Shipyards capable of large combatant production—primarily Huntington Ingalls Industries and Bath Iron Works—must assess whether their facilities and workforces can simultaneously sustain existing DDG-51 production and a new battleship line without quality or schedule erosion.

For Congress: The CBO report provides a concrete benchmark for upcoming budget hearings. Lawmakers will weigh the battleship against other naval priorities like the next-generation destroyer (DDG(X)), the Columbia-class submarine, and fleet readiness. The decision point is not immediate, but early funding requests for design and long-lead items will test political support.

For the Navy: The service now has a public, independent cost figure that will frame every discussion of the program’s affordability. It must demonstrate how the battleship complements—rather than duplicates—carrier strike group capabilities, and how the industrial base will be revived to meet the schedule.

For taxpayers: The $275 billion estimate is a gross number spread over decades, not an immediate budget spike. However, if funding is approved, it will represent one of the largest single weapons programs in U.S. history, influencing Navy spending well into the 2050s.