Trump signs shipbuilding order as Navy leaders call for 381-ship fleet
President Donald Trump on April 9 signed into law a new policy aimed at revitalizing an American shipbuilding industry that has fallen well behind production levels of its rivals from the People's Republic of China.
Language in the executive order, which cites the need to strengthen a 'commercial shipbuilding capacity and maritime workforce,' mirrors many concerns expressed among the industry's defense counterparts.
In an April 8 hearing of Navy leadership before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower, service officials voiced concerns regarding stagnant shipbuilding and what that could mean for success in great power conflicts.
Navy officials in March 2024 stated the service's goal of growing its fleet of battle force ships to 381 over the next 30 years, a plan that would require investing at least $40 billion each year over the duration of the effort, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
There are currently fewer than 300 battle force ships in the fleet — and that number is expected to drop. Current projections indicate the Navy will retire close to a dozen more ships through 2027 than it expects to commission.
In a policy statement in February, officials from the nonprofit Navy League echoed the need to expand the service's fleet while calling on Congress to increase funding for public shipyards and Coast Guard ice breakers.
An estimated 250,000 skilled or well-compensated workers must be hired over the next decade to accomplish shipbuilding and vessel maintenance goals, according to Matthew Sermon, the direct reporting program manager for the Navy's maritime industrial base program.
Sermon, who spoke at the April 9 hearing, added the Navy is looking to expand supply chain capacity, partner with government and private organizations and address workforce challenges in what he described as an 'all-hands-on-deck effort that will attract, train and retain American manufacturing and engineering workers.'
'Simply put, we need more ships delivered on time and on budget, and we are challenged in both of these arenas,' Dr. Brett Seidle, acting assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. 'Costs are rising faster than inflation and schedules on multiple programs are delayed one to three years.'
The same day as Seidle's testimony, the Government Accountability Office released a report calling for sweeping changes to U.S. shipbuilding if the 381-ship goal is ever to be realized.
The Navy failed to increase its fleet over the previous 20 years despite a shipbuilding budget that doubled during that period, the report said. Meanwhile, the Navy's frigate program is running three years behind on delivery.
'We found that Navy ships cost billions more and take years longer to build than planned while often falling short of quality and performance expectations,' Shelby Oakley, a director at the GAO, said in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Discussing in his order an industry the GAO described as lingering in a 'perpetual state of triage,' President Trump decried 'decades of government neglect, leading to the decline of a once strong industrial base while simultaneously empowering our adversaries and eroding United States national security.'
In response to the April 9 mandate, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Mike Waltz has been instructed to submit an action plan to the president within 210 days. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is also expected to review different avenues for investing private capital in commercial and defense shipbuilding capabilities, supply chains, port infrastructure, workforce strength and ship repair.
Navy leaders assessing the shipbuilding aspirations, meanwhile, are pushing for, among other items, a robust annual output of ballistic and fast attack submarines to counter near-peer threats in potential conflict areas like the Indo-Pacific and Arctic.
At present, the state of U.S. shipbuilding is impacting not only the delivery of U.S. vessels but also the demand for Virginia-class submarines by Australia as part of the trilateral AUKUS — Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. — security agreement.
While the Navy aims to deliver one Columbia-class and two Virginia-class submarines per year, AUKUS commitments increase the annual demand for Virginia-class boats to 2.33, Rear Adm. Jonathan Rucker, program executive officer for attack submarines, said during the April 8 hearing.
Those demands coincide with the Navy's ongoing production issues with the future USS District of Columbia, the Navy's first Columbia-class submarine — slated to replace Ohio-class boats — which has been floundering in production and is currently delayed by up to 18 months.
'While this delay is due to a variety of factors, it is unacceptable,' said Rear Adm. Todd Weeks, the Navy's program executive officer for strategic submarines. 'The Columbia class is the Navy's No. 1 acquisition priority and a critical once-in-a-generation recapitalization effort for this foundational leg of the nation's nuclear triad.'
The sluggish rate of producing U.S. submarines and surface vessels has ignited concern over whether the U.S. would even be able to replace disabled or sunken ships in a near-peer combat environment.
'When it's a ... conflict and we're losing ships — i.e., they're destroyed and sunk — our ability to replace those at a rate higher than the adversary [is vital],' Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) said during the hearing. 'Two things ... have to happen — one or both: We have to be eminently survivable under any combat conditions or we have to be able to replace [vessels]. And right now, we can't replace.'
The Navy recently commissioned the Virginia-class attack submarine Iowa. Two additional Virginia-class submarines, Massachusetts and Idaho, are expected to be delivered this year, officials said at the hearing.
Additionally, the Coast Guard in December added its first polar ice breaker in a quarter-century, a critical development for use in an Arctic region that has yielded a surge in military activity.
The U.S. has for years been pushed by military officials and lawmakers to devote more resources to the rapidly evolving Arctic environment, but it is recent regional collaboration between China and Russia that is giving rise to an all-new sense of urgency.
Beijing is increasingly eyeing the Arctic as a domain that would further China's power assertions and economic resources, Pentagon officials warned in December. Those concerns were amplified by a swarm of military activity in the region. Despite Russia being in its third year of war following its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it has remained committed to directing military and economic resources to the region — at times with China by its side.
In its 2024 Arctic Strategy, the Pentagon noted the 'increasingly accessible region is becoming a venue for strategic competition, and the United States must stand ready to meet the challenge alongside allies and partners.'
Military Times editor Nikki Wentling contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
How An Unassuming Geologist Cracked The Global Fertilizer Cartel
The eureka moment came in 2012, when professor emeritus William Harrison of the University of Western Michigan invited Ted Pagano, then a 35-year-old freelance geologist, to his 27,000-square-foot geological repository in Kalamazoo. A rock nerd's heaven, the warehouse's heavy-duty shelves feature crates of minerals from across the state. But Pagano was there to see something specific: the 80 pallets of rock cores donated in 2008 by the Mosaic Company, a large ($11.1 billion in 2024 sales) NYSE-listed potash specialist. Cores are standardized cylinders of rock, three feet long and four inches in diameter. These were recovered from some 75 wells drilled back in the early 1980s to depths 8,000 feet beneath Osceola and Mecosta counties, a sparsely populated swath of central Michigan, into a layer of rock rich in minerals deposited by an ocean that evaporated millions of years ago. Those minerals include salt (sodium chloride) and potash (mostly potassium oxide), which farmers prize as a fertilizer. It's a critical mineral—the U.S. uses 5.3 million tons annually and imports 95% of it, mostly from Canada. jamel toppin for forbes Pagano was excited to see these cores because he hoped they would prove his hunch: that Mosaic had been sitting on a potash motherlode in Michigan far bigger than anyone realized. He suspected that the deposit, if properly developed, could provide 1 million tons of fertilizer per year for American farmers. That would be nearly seven times the volume that Mosaic's little 150,000-ton-per-year plant in Hersey, Michigan, was producing. Putting up $70,000 of his own money, Pagano had formed Michigan Potash & Salt Company and was already leasing up mineral rights from ranchers and farmers in the area. Even so, Pagano says, 'I went to the core lab with skepticism.' Harrison and Pagano cut open sealed plastic bags to extract rock wrapped in newspapers from 1984. Testing revealed thick deposits of some of the highest-purity potash deposits ever discovered. They were especially excited when they opened the cores from a well called Stein 1-7. It had been drilled miles from the area considered the sweet spot, so Pagano thought the odds were high that these cores would show low concentrations of potash. Instead, they were just as good. This was proof that the actual extent of the Michigan potash deposit was considerably larger than even experts like Harrison had expected. Pagano began leasing like crazy: Soon he had a position covering 15,500 acres (about 24 square miles) of what has proven to be one of the biggest potash deposits in the United States. 'I was certain the Stein well would be a poor showing. Seeing it was just as good as the best well was astounding,' says Pagano, now 49. His Michigan Potash is on the cusp of closing on $1.8 billion of financing for a new mine, including a $1.3 billion loan from the Department of Energy and $500 million in equity being arranged by JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs. If all goes well, the mine will be churning out 1 million tons per year of potash (worth $350 million) and 1.3 million tons of salt (worth $80 million) by the end of the decade. With a resource base proven to be 130 million tons, they could keep that up for a century or more—and make Pagano, who owns 65%, very rich. Even now his stake is worth at least $300 million. Potash Stash: Core samples extracted from 1.5 miles beneath central Michigan reveal high-purity potassium oxide, marketed as premium 'white potash.' Pagano grew up in Greeley, Colorado, the son of a tax preparer and an assistant librarian. After graduating from Notre Dame in 1997, he earned a master's degree in petroleum engineering from the Colorado School of Mines. He got his start in the oil industry as a roustabout in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, then worked as a geologist for Alaska's Bristol Bay Native Corporation. (He is part Aleut, the indigenous people of the Aleutian Islands.) From there he worked at Texaco, Chevron and Anadarko drilling shale oil wells in Colorado. In 2008, at age 33, he struck out on his own, initially planning to lease prospective oilfields in North Dakota's Bakken shale region, but land prices—which reached thousands of dollars per acre with a 20% royalty and five-year term—were too steep. Looking at other mineral trends in the northern Midwest, Pagano became fascinated with potash and puzzled by Mosaic's little Hersey operation. Why hadn't it expanded?[IMAGE] Despite being based in Florida, Mosaic mines nearly all its potash in Saskatchewan, and sells it via Canpotex (Canadian Potash Exporters) through its 50/50 partnership with Canadian fertilizer giant Nutrien (2024 sales: $26 billion). Canpotex, alongside Belarusalki of Belarus and Russia's Uralki, make up an oligopoly that controls more than 70% of global supply. After exhausting his own funds, Pagano raised $250,000 more from friends and family in exchange for 13% of his company. Since then, the only outside money Michigan Potash has taken is a $50 million grant from Michigan's state agriculture department in 2023 and a new $80 million grant from the USDA, crucial to getting through permitting. When Pagano initially approached the U.S. Department of Energy for funding in 2021, he got the cold shoulder. Michigan Potash was tiny and unproven. But he and his team persisted—and in 2025, as the war in Ukraine dragged on, the DOE agreed to a 15-year, $1.3 billion loan. But it came with conditions: Pagano must raise $500 million in equity, and to reduce risk Michigan Potash will outsource construction under a lump-sum, turnkey contract. 'Now [the DOE] look like geniuses,' says Cory Christofferson, Michigan Potash's chief development officer. Illustration by Patrick Welsh for forbes By William Baldwin What if we run short of potassium or phosphorus? That would be bad news for farmers and, by extension, the human race. It's an element—two elements—of the coming environmental doom postulated by the accomplished, but perhaps too pessimistic, money manager Jeremy Grantham. If you share his pessimism, it would make sense to acquire a stake in a potash and phosphate producer. Two of the big ones are Nutrien and Mosaic, both trading on the Big Board and both paying above-market yields. They are priced, respectively, at 23 and 19 times what Value Line sees for earnings this year. William Baldwin is Forbes' Investment Strategies columnist. To extract the potash, Pagano will use a form of 'in-situ,' or solution mining. He'll drill 8,000-foot-deep wells in pairs. One is the injection well, down which Michigan Potash will send hot water to dissolve potash and salt in place. The second is the production well; the solution travels up that well to the processing plant for separation and drying. The water is reclaimed, heated and sent back down the hole. From the surface the mine will hardly be noticeable and should be eligible for green tax credits. 'There's no hair on this project that we're ashamed of,' says chief operating officer Aric Glasser. In all, Forbes estimates that costs should come to about $140 per ton; potash sells for about $350 a ton today. Global giant Mosaic can produce potash for less—about $80 a ton—but Midwestern farmers are still on the hook for another $80 per ton in rail shipping costs from Saskatchewan, 1,200 miles away, plus any tariffs that President Trump might choose to impose (currently 10% on Canadian potash). Agricultural giant ADM has already agreed to buy nearly all of Pagano's yearly potash production. Mosaic rejected Pagano's offers to buy some or all of its remaining Hersey plant and, citing high costs, shut down its potash operation there in 2013. It sold the remaining salt processing operation to Cargill for $55 million. 'They thought they didn't have to worry about competition,' Christofferson says. Vladimir Putin's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine changed that thinking. The EU banned the import or even transit of Russian and Belarussian fertilizers. China banned potash exports to conserve supply for its domestic market. Prices soared to $1,200 per ton. To keep a lid on costs, neither President Biden nor Trump has banned or sanctioned imported Russian potash. Every ton Pagano can supply domestically should make more potash available outside the U.S. in international markets including sub-Saharan Africa, whose farmers desperately need fertilizer. 'It takes a crisis to wake people up out of complacency,' Pagano says. And it takes an intrepid contrarian to challenge an oligopoly.
Washington Post
26 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump's new crypto business is a religion
You could hardly expect President Donald Trump to hear about something called an 'infinite money glitch' and not want to try it. Eric Trump announced at a crypto conference in Las Vegas this week that the family business is raising $2.5 billion from investors for its latest crypto project: a 'bitcoin treasury.' (Company executives had denied the plan just days earlier, when they called the Financial Times reporters who broke the story 'dumb writers listening to even dumber sources.')
Newsweek
26 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Mike Pence Accuses Donald Trump of Ignoring Constitution
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Former Vice President Mike Pence has accused President Donald Trump of supplanting Congress' constitutional authority over trade and commerce, following a federal court ruling that sought to void the majority of his tariffs. "The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs," Pence wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "Article 1, Section 8 provides that the Congress 'shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.'" "The president has no authority in the Constitution to unilaterally impose tariffs without an act of Congress," he added. Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment outside regular hours. Why It Matters The potential economic effects of Trump's tariffs, such as high consumer prices on foreign goods and increased overheads for import-reliant businesses, have drawn scrutiny from Democrats and members of the president's own party. Trump has announced numerous tariffs since returning to office in January, including a 10 percent "baseline" tariff on almost all U.S. imports, arguing that the duties were necessary to fix trade imbalances and revive American manufacturing. However, critics have questioned the constitutionality of the president's trade policies, saying tariffs are fundamentally a legislative power granted to Congress and that their unilateral imposition represents an example of executive overreach. What To Know "To restore the power to levy Tariff's back to the American people, Congress should take immediate steps to reclaim their Constitutional authority On Tariffs," Pence wrote on Thursday. The former vice president has made similar arguments in the past. In April, he told attendees at a Grove City College event, "Wherever you come down on the risks or merits associated with tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration, the president has no authority in the Constitution to unilaterally impose tariffs without an act of Congress," the National Review reported. Pence has also criticized the tariffs on economic grounds, arguing that resultant price increases on foreign-made goods—specifically dolls—run counter to the "American dream." Former Vice President Mike Pence at the Jerusalem Post's New York conference on June 3, 2024. Former Vice President Mike Pence at the Jerusalem Post's New York conference on June 3, Pence highlighted on Thursday, Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the structure and powers of the legislative branch and grants Congress authority over taxes and duties. However, Congress has ceded certain tariff powers to the presidency over the years, primarily through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962; Sections 122, 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974; Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930; and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. Wednesday's ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade concerned Trump's invocation of the latter. The Manhattan federal court argued that neither the fentanyl crisis—which Trump used to justify tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico—nor the unfair trading relationships that his reciprocal tariffs were intended to fix constituted sufficient emergencies to override Congress' constitutional powers. "Because of the Constitution's express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President," the three-judge panel wrote in its decision. "We instead read IEEPA's provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers." The administration called the decision a "judicial coup" and swiftly filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which has now paused the lower court's ruling, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday: "The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power—The Presidency would never be the same! … The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm." Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, told CNN: "Under the Constitution, Congress has tariff authority. We gave—for better or worse, Congress gave some of that authority to the presidency. The president has been exercising that authority. The issue before the courts—and it's appropriate for them to decide—is whether he has exceeded that authority. I don't think he has, but that's up to the courts to tell us. In the meantime, nothing's going to change. These [trade] talks are not going to stop, nor should they." Political economist Veronique de Rugy said in comments shared with Newsweek: "The president's power is limited, even in emergencies. Declaring a trade deficit isn't an emergency; it's economics 101. Trump's tariffs weren't just economically destructive, they were legally baseless. Courts rightly refused to hand over unlimited power to a single person. This ruling drew from conservative judicial doctrines like nondelegation and major questions, these philosophies embraced by Trump's own judicial nominees. The ruling restores constitutional order by reminding everyone, including Trump, that tariff power belongs to Congress, not to the president's whims." What Happens Next The appeals court's decision means Trump's tariffs remain in place while the case is considered. It has ordered the plaintiffs to respond by June 5 and given the government until June 9 to issue a reply. White House adviser Peter Navarro has said the administration is prepared to take the appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. He told reporters on Thursday, "Even if we lose, we will do it another way."
