The U.S. Navy is considering a major redesign of its newest aircraft carriers to better match President Donald Trump’s preferred aesthetic for the warships, according to seven current and former U.S. officials familiar with the matter. The service is evaluating whether it is feasible to move the multistory tower that serves as each carrier’s command center — known as the “island” — farther forward toward the middle of the ship, so that it more closely resembles carriers that served during World War II. The review has not been previously reported.
The evaluation is a direct response to concerns Trump has raised about the appearance of the Navy’s Ford-class carriers, on which the island sits closer to the rear of the flight deck. Current and former officials said the timing and scope of the Navy’s assessment remain unclear, and that the service is concerned any redesign would require substantial time and money to carry out. Officials described Trump’s preference as being for the carriers to resemble the vessels that fought in the Pacific and Atlantic during World War II, when islands were positioned nearer the center of the ship.
A Preference Dating Back to Trump’s First Term
The Navy previously examined moving the island during Trump’s first term, according to a former senior U.S. official. A study conducted at that time found that relocating the structure could cost billions of dollars and significantly delay the shipbuilding program. “It came back that the cost and time to do so would just be extraordinary,” the former official said.
Trump’s fixation on the appearance of the Ford-class carriers is longstanding. His former defense secretary, Mark Esper, wrote in his memoir “A Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times” that Trump regularly complained the USS Gerald R. Ford — the lead ship of its class — was “overpriced” and “broken,” and repeatedly fixated on “the look” of the vessel. According to Esper, Trump said the island was positioned too far back and not close enough to the middle of the carrier, calling the design “stupid” and saying it “looks really bad.”
Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa also documented Trump’s preoccupation with the island’s placement in their book “Peril.” According to that account, Navy officers attempted to explain to Trump that the island’s position was chosen to better facilitate flight deck operations, but Trump was unmoved, telling aides “it just doesn’t look right” and that he had “an eye for aesthetics.”
Experts Warn of Steep Costs
Bryan Clark, a defense analyst at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., told The Washington Post that relocating a carrier’s island is technically achievable but would come with significant disruption to the shipbuilding process. “You could change it but it’s very disruptive,” Clark said.
The Navy currently has three Ford-class carriers either in development or nearing completion, with plans to build ten more over the coming decades at a projected cost of roughly $22 billion apiece over 40 years, according to the Post’s reporting. The USS John F. Kennedy is closest to joining the fleet, while the USS Enterprise and the future USS Doris Miller remain under construction.
Part of a Broader Shipbuilding Overhaul
The review of the island’s placement comes just days after Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing the Navy to abandon the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, in favor of the steam-powered catapults used on older carrier classes. The directive, first reported by The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by USNI News, also calls for replacing the Ford class’s Advanced Weapons Elevators with hydraulic systems. Under the memo, the Defense Secretary and Secretary of the Navy have two months to submit a plan for implementing the change beginning with the future USS Doris Miller, designated CVN-81.
The memorandum opens by stating that “the United States Navy has experienced a series of shipbuilding setbacks stemming from overly complex designs and iterative design change procedures, which have resulted in cost growth, delays, and cancellations.” The same memo also directs the Pentagon to consider foreign-built warships and auxiliary vessels for the fleet, citing what it describes as an atrophied domestic shipbuilding industrial base.
Trump has criticized EMALS publicly for years. Speaking at a defense conference in Pennsylvania last month, he said of the electromagnetic system: “Billions of dollars more they spent on electric catapults, and they’re not good. They’re not nearly as good, too complex.”
Congressional Democrats Push Back
The steam catapult order drew immediate criticism from Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., a former Navy combat pilot and NASA astronaut who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee. In a post on social media, Kelly wrote: “I’ve launched off the front of aircraft carriers hundreds of times, have a Master’s degree in aeronautical engineering, and am a test pilot and even I wouldn’t suggest to the Navy how to engineer specific systems on its ships. Donald Trump should stick to what he knows best — ballrooms, bankruptcy, and bulls***.”
Kelly expanded on his criticism in a subsequent interview with MS NOW, questioning Trump’s qualifications to weigh in on carrier engineering. “He’s a marginally failed real estate developer with multiple bankruptcies,” Kelly said. “He shouldn’t be weighing in on systems, on aircraft carriers.” He continued: “Donald Trump knows nothing about this stuff. Not in any world would I suggest to the Navy to change the design of some system on a ship at this point.” Kelly added, “I mean, does the guy know nothing about the way our government is supposed to work and how it’s supposed to be managed?”
Navy Had Signaled Confidence in EMALS
The steam catapult directive comes despite the Navy’s own recent assessments of the electromagnetic system. Earlier this year, the service indicated that preliminary testing had shown improved performance from EMALS and the Advanced Arresting Gear system used to recover aircraft aboard the Ford-class carriers, a contrast to Trump’s long-standing criticism of the technology.
Defense analysts have noted that reversing course on a system as deeply integrated into the Ford class’s design as EMALS would carry significant cost and schedule risk. One defense-focused commentary noted that Navy and shipbuilding industry leaders had resisted Trump’s push to return to steam propulsion during his first term for the same reason, and that any redesign would likely delay construction of the Doris Miller while the changes are evaluated.
A Pattern of Presidential Involvement in Ship Design
Together, the two reviews — one focused on the carriers’ launch systems and one on the physical placement of their command towers — represent an unusually detailed level of presidential involvement in naval architecture. Both changes, if implemented, would add to the already substantial cost of the Ford-class program, which is expected to produce a fleet of thirteen carriers over the coming decades.
Officials cautioned that no final decision has been made on relocating the island, and that the Navy continues to weigh the operational and financial tradeoffs of altering a design that has already been finalized for ships currently under construction. The outcome of the review is likely to shape not only the appearance of the Navy’s next generation of carriers, but also the timeline and price tag attached to a shipbuilding program already central to the service’s long-term modernization plans.