Trump Mandates Return to Steam Catapults on New Aircraft Carriers, Citing Billions in Costs

What Happened

On Thursday, August 13, 2026, President Donald Trump issued a directive ordering the U.S. Navy to remove the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) from its newest type of aircraft carrier, specifically mandating a return to older steam catapults. This directive targets the Ford-class carriers, with the USS Doris Miller designated as the first ship to undergo these significant changes. The memo also explicitly calls for the replacement of the Ford-class carrier’s electromagnetic weapons elevators. The Pentagon and the Navy have been given a two-month deadline to present President Trump with detailed plans for implementing these system removals and replacements. This decision follows years of President Trump's public criticism of the EMALS technology, dating back to at least 2017 when he stated in a Time magazine interview that the new system was “not good” and “doesn’t have the power” of steam systems, famously adding, “You’re going to goddamned steam.”

The directive specifies that while the USS Doris Miller will be the first to incorporate these changes, the USS Gerald R. Ford, along with the forthcoming USS John F. Kennedy and USS Enterprise, will remain unaffected by this particular mandate. This implies a split in the technological configuration across the Ford-class fleet. The order comes at a critical juncture for the U.S. military, which is actively seeking substantial funding from Congress for various equipment needs and is grappling with significant personnel shortages, with approximately 20,000 unfilled posts across the Navy fleet at the start of the year. The move represents a direct intervention into naval engineering and procurement decisions by the executive branch.

What the Evidence Establishes

The evidence establishes that President Trump's directive will likely incur billions of dollars in additional costs for the U.S. Navy. General Atomics, the manufacturer of EMALS, stated in an email to The Associated Press that the decision not to proceed with the system on the USS Doris Miller “warrants careful reconsideration” and that “changing course now would introduce significant cost, schedule, and integration risks.” The company further noted that work on the Doris Miller’s catapults and arresting gear was already halfway complete, indicating substantial rework will be required. This financial burden comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth estimated the cost of the ongoing Iran war grew to $37.5 billion last month, with Congress preparing a $95 billion package for military funding and other White House priorities.

Furthermore, the evidence indicates that reverting to steam catapults will necessitate more sailors to operate the launch systems and will be more difficult to maintain compared to EMALS. The electromagnetic system on the USS Ford reduced the required operating crew from about a dozen sailors to just two. This increased manpower requirement directly conflicts with the Navy's current struggle to fill its ships, having reported 20,000 unfilled posts at the beginning of the year despite recent recruiting successes. A February Navy press release had previously touted EMALS for enabling the USS Ford to achieve higher aircraft launch and recovery rates than its Nimitz-class predecessors, highlighting the operational advantages of the technology that the directive now seeks to abandon for new builds.

Where the Accounts Conflict

The primary conflict in accounts centers on the efficacy and strategic value of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) versus traditional steam catapults. President Trump has consistently expressed a preference for steam systems, claiming EMALS “doesn’t have the power” and is “not good,” a stance he has maintained since at least 2017 and frequently reiterated at rallies. This perspective suggests a belief that the older technology is more reliable or robust for military operations, despite its known drawbacks in terms of manpower and maintenance.

Conversely, the U.S. Navy and the system's manufacturer, General Atomics, have presented evidence supporting EMALS's superior performance and operational benefits. A Navy press release in February highlighted EMALS's ability to facilitate higher aircraft launch and recovery rates on the USS Ford compared to Nimitz-class ships. General Atomics explicitly warned that changing course on the USS Doris Miller would introduce “significant cost, schedule, and integration risks,” implicitly arguing against the President's directive. Moreover, international naval powers like China and France are actively adopting or planning to use electromagnetic catapults on their newest carriers, suggesting a global consensus among military strategists that EMALS represents the cutting edge of naval aviation technology. This divergence underscores a fundamental disagreement between the executive's stated preference and the technical assessments from military and industry experts.

Context and Stakes

The directive to revert to steam catapults is issued within a broader context of significant defense spending debates and evolving geopolitical dynamics. The Trump administration is currently pushing for a substantial $1.5 trillion defense budget, described as a

Context and Stakes

The directive to revert to steam catapults is issued within a broader context of significant defense spending debates and evolving geopolitical dynamics. The Trump administration is currently pushing for a substantial $1.5 trillion defense budget, described as a “generational investment in the military.” This proposed expenditure includes a $95 billion package to fund the military and other White House priorities, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth estimating the cost of the ongoing Iran war at $37.5 billion. The House has narrowly adopted these funding bills, but the Senate still needs to act when it reconvenes in September. Introducing billions in additional costs for a technological rollback could complicate these already contentious budget negotiations, potentially diverting funds from other critical military needs or increasing the overall defense burden on taxpayers.

The stakes extend beyond mere financial implications. The decision to abandon EMALS on new carriers places the U.S. Navy at odds with the technological trajectory of major global competitors and allies. China's newest aircraft carriers already employ electromagnetic catapults, and France has announced plans to integrate the system into its new carrier. By reverting to older technology, the U.S. risks falling behind in naval aviation capabilities, potentially impacting its strategic advantage and interoperability with key allies. Furthermore, the Navy's ongoing struggle to recruit and retain sufficient personnel, with 20,000 unfilled posts, makes the increased manpower requirements of steam catapults a significant operational challenge. This directive could exacerbate existing personnel issues, affecting fleet readiness and operational capacity at a time of heightened global tensions.

What to Watch Next

The immediate focus will be on the Pentagon and the Navy's response to President Trump's directive. They are mandated to present plans for the removal of EMALS and electromagnetic weapons elevators within two months. This period will likely involve internal assessments of the feasibility, cost, and timeline for such a significant redesign, particularly for a ship like the USS Doris Miller, where work is already halfway complete. Watch for any public statements or leaks from defense officials regarding the challenges or implications of this order, as well as any potential pushback or requests for reconsideration from within the military establishment or defense industry.

Another critical area to monitor is Congressional reaction, particularly as the Senate prepares to act on the $95 billion military funding package and the broader $1.5 trillion defense budget in September. The estimated billions in additional costs associated with this directive will undoubtedly become a point of contention during these budget debates. Lawmakers may question the financial prudence of such a move, especially given the ongoing need for Iran war funding and the Navy's existing budget pressures. Furthermore, observe General Atomics' next steps; their initial statement expressed concern, and they may engage in further lobbying efforts or public advocacy to highlight the risks and costs involved. The long-term impact on the USS Doris Miller's construction schedule and overall naval modernization strategy will also be a key development to track.

Bottom Line

President Trump's directive to replace advanced Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch Systems (EMALS) with older steam catapults on the USS Doris Miller and future Ford-class carriers represents a significant and costly reversal in naval technology policy. This mandate, driven by the President's long-standing personal preference, is projected to cost billions of dollars, increase the Navy's manpower requirements at a time of personnel shortages, and potentially delay the delivery of new warships. The decision places the U.S. at odds with the technological advancements being pursued by rivals like China and allies such as France, who are adopting electromagnetic launch systems.

The move will force the Pentagon and Navy to devise a complex and expensive redesign plan within two months, while simultaneously navigating contentious Congressional budget negotiations. The directive highlights a tension between executive preference and established military procurement processes, with industry experts like General Atomics warning of substantial risks to cost, schedule, and integration. Ultimately, this decision could have profound implications for the U.S. Navy's operational readiness, technological superiority, and financial stability for years to come, potentially diverting critical resources from other strategic priorities.