Mallory Shelbourne – June 4, 2026 4:48 PM
House authorizers want a Navy study that assesses how pursuing the nuclear-powered Trump-class battleship program could affect the shipbuilding and nuclear industrial base.
The House Armed Services Committee adopted an amendment from Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) that would require both the Secretary of the Navy and the admiral leading the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to submit a report by March explaining the acquisition plans for the BBG(X) and how the service will avoid negative impacts to the Ford-class aircraft carriers.
Courtney proposed the amendment, which would go in report language accompanying the House’s draft of the Fiscal Year 2027 defense authorization bill, as part of the annual mark up process on Thursday.
The amendment language says that only two shipyards can build nuclear-powered vessels in the U.S. and that one of them – HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding – is facing delays on all of the Ford-class aircraft carriers. The battleship’s final assembly would happen at Newport News, a Navy official told Congress last month.
“The committee is concerned that these factors, coupled with a lack of physical shipbuilding capacity, could be further exacerbated by a new nuclear-powered surface vessel program and without careful planning could jeopardize Ford-class delivery,” reads the amendment. “Further, the committee is concerned by the BBG(X)’s program’s impact to the U.S. naval nuclear reactor industrial base.”
There is currently only one supplier – Virginia-based BWX Technologies – for the reactors that go on the Navy’s nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers.
“The committee notes that the procurement of naval nuclear reactors typically occurs 2-to-3 years ahead of procurement of a respective vessel and reactor production timelines typically range from 6-to-8 years,” reads the language. “The committee is concerned that the accelerated procurement timeline for the BBG(X) program will result in a negative impact on this supply chain.”
The report would require the Navy to explain the acquisition timeline for the battleship and the reactors the program would need and how it will minimize the delays facing the Ford-class program. Last month, Navy officials told the HASC seapower and projection forces subcommittee that the service plans to assemble the battleships in Dry Dock 12 at Newport News Shipbuilding, where the Ford-class carriers are built. The battleships are set to use the same A1B reactors that power the Ford-class.
The future USS Doris Miller (CVN-81) is facing a two-year delay, meaning it’s expected to take about 15 years to build the carrier, USNI News recently reported. The delivery of the future USS Enterprise (CVN-80) is also delayed by eight months, stretching the construction timeline to just over 12 years.
Courtney’s amendment would also mandate the service to evaluate the capacity of the yards that can accommodate nuclear-powered ships, the supply chain that supports nuclear-powered shipbuilding and other parts of the industrial base.
Meanwhile, Democrats unsuccessfully offered an amendment that would have removed $1 billion in advance procurement funding for the battleship from the authorization bill. Support for the amendment, proposed by HASC ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), fell along party lines. The amendment failed in a 26-30 vote.
During the debate, multiple Democrats voiced concern about the battleship program, while HASC chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) suggested members oppose the measure removing the funding authorization.
“The battleship is not a new concept,” Rogers said during the debate.”There has been a requirement for a large surface combatant for decades.”
The chairman reiterated a justification Navy officials previously offered, saying the battleship grew out of the requirements for DDG(X) and is necessary because the service is out of space, weight, power and cooling on the Arleigh Burke-class Flight III design.
“We all agree that the Navy needs a large surface combatant for distributed … maritime operations,” Rogers said. “This amendment would compromise the delivery of future large surface combatant by preventing procurement of long lead time materials and stalling critical advancements in the Navy’s ship design process.”
After the Trump administration announced the battleship program in December, Navy officials sought to justify the need for the platform by citing DDG(X). But the Fiscal Year 30-year shipbuilding program released last month said the battleship “is not a destroyer replacement.”
Courtney noted the Navy has not completed any studies or designs for the battleship, even though the $1 billion in advance procurement funding would be split between $390 million for the detail design and $610 million for long lead items.
“They’re ordering actually fabricated parts and steel for a ship that does not even exist in terms of a design concept,” Courtney said during the debate.
“It is the exact opposite of what every lesson that we’ve learned in terms of failures of shipbuilding and ship construction, whether it’s the Zumwalt class – which again, construction started before design was complete – Littoral Combat Ship, same thing, and the cruiser CG(X) program, which also collapsed,” he continued. “So again, from just purely shipbuilding, sequential, intelligent approach, this proposal before us again is way premature and unvetted.”
The House’s debate on the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act is ongoing. The Senate Armed Services Committee has yet to release its draft of the NDAA. The two chambers will work out the differences during a conference process later this year.
Mallory Shelbourne
Mallory Shelbourne is a reporter for USNI News. She previously covered the Navy for Inside Defense and reported on politics for The Hill.
Follow @MalShelbourne