U.S. Navy News Archives - Americans for a Stronger Navy

May 22, 2026May 22, 2026

The Navy Built This Nation. Now Let’s Fund It Right.

Today is National Maritime Day — May 22 — and for the first time since Richard Nixon sat in the Oval Office, there is genuine presidential attention on reviving America’s maritime and naval power. A 30-year Navy shipbuilding plan. Executive orders. Legislative proposals. And now, a compelling call from one of Washington’s sharpest naval analysts for the President himself to break the legislative logjam.

The vision is finally taking shape. The ambition is real. But a bold maritime revival still has a critical gap at its center: how do you sustain it?

Sadler’s TRUMP Act: The Right Diagnosis

On May 20 — two days before National Maritime Day — Brent Sadler, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Defense, published a powerful op-ed in The Washington Times calling for President Trump to invoke his constitutional authority under the Recommendation Clause (Article II, Section 3) to personally propose legislation to Congress.[1]

Sadler’s argument is straightforward: the SHIPS for America Act — a bipartisan, bicameral bill first introduced in December 2024 — has stalled in Congress. Again. Presidential sponsorship, he argues, is the only force capable of breaking that logjam before Congress heads into summer recess and political attention fractures.

He proposes calling it the Transformative Revival and Urgent Maritime Program — the TRUMP Act. The branding is deliberate, and Sadler knows exactly what he’s doing.

His three modifications to the existing SHIPS Act framework are sound:

Adjusted incentives for workforce and shipbuilding infrastructure reinvestment
Regulatory relief through Maritime Prosperity Zones to accelerate industrial investment
A new Maritime Department consolidating the Coast Guard, MARAD, FMC, and NOAA into a unified commercial maritime revival body

“More navel-gazing in Washington is unacceptable. With Congress’ summer recess fast approaching, national political attention will shift from bipartisan endeavors, such as a national maritime revival, to vote-seeking.” — Brent Sadler, The Washington Times, May 20, 2026 [1]

He’s right. And the constitutional argument is well-constructed. James Madison’s Federalist No. 47, FDR’s first 100 days, Eisenhower’s Congressional Relations office — Sadler lays the groundwork for a president who likes to move fast.

Notably, Sadler elaborated further on the Lunch Hour Podcast this week, framing the entire challenge as an engineering problem first, a business problem in the middle, and an engineering problem again at the end. On the Jones Act debate consuming Washington, he was direct: the real problem is that “leadership and industry have not had the appropriate focus or incentive structures.”[2] That is a precise diagnosis — and it points directly to the gap this article addresses.

The Navy’s 30-Year Plan: The Ambition Is There

Sadler’s op-ed lands against a significant backdrop. On May 11, the Navy published its 2026 Shipbuilding Plan — a 30-year vision for what it calls the “Golden Fleet.”[3] The fiscal year 2027 request alone is $68.5 billion, a 57 percent increase over the prior year.[4]

The plan explicitly acknowledges what advocates have been saying for years: decades of inconsistent demand and misaligned priorities left the fleet smaller, the shipyards atrophied, and American workers facing unacceptable risk.[3] Executive Order 14269, “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance,” and the February 2026 Maritime Action Plan are cited as the catalyst for a long-overdue reindustrialization.[3]

That’s the right framing. The harder question is whether the funding architecture can sustain the ambition across political cycles.

The Pier Review: Even Navalists Are Sounding the Alarm

On the same day Sadler published his TRUMP Act proposal, the Center for Maritime Strategy — the Navy League’s policy arm — released a landmark 141-page report titled Pier Review: Leveraging the Allied Maritime Industrial Base for U.S. Shipbuilding.[5] Authored by a team including Steve Wills, Admiral James Foggo, and Nick Weising, with a foreword by 77th Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite, the report delivers a sobering conclusion: the United States cannot rebuild its maritime industrial base alone.

The Pier Review examined allied shipbuilding nations — South Korea, Italy, Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom — and returned with a frank assessment. The domestic industrial base is so severely hollowed that a bridge strategy involving allied yards, allied supply chains, and allied skilled workers may be necessary while American capacity is rebuilt.

These are not critics of American seapower. These are its most dedicated advocates. That they felt compelled to reach this conclusion is itself a measure of how deep the hollowing runs.

The Pier Review cites Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy as the model worth emulating — a multi-decade, consistent demand signal that ended the boom and bust cycle and gave the industrial base something durable to build around. The report calls for the United States to create a similar structure.

What neither the Pier Review nor the TRUMP Act provides is the funding mechanism that makes that structure mandatory and durable across administrations. That is the gap the SEAS Act is designed to close.

The Sustainability Gap No One Is Talking About

Here is what every current maritime proposal — the SHIPS Act, the TRUMP Act, the 30-year plan — has in common: they are all dependent on annual congressional appropriations. Fund it one year, gut it the next. That is precisely the cycle that produced the hollow fleet we are now trying to rebuild.

The last time sustained naval investment actually worked was 1982 to 1992 — a decade of consistent political will, consistent funding, and consistent production signals to the industrial base. Shipyards plan in decades, not fiscal years. They hire and train workforces over years, not budget cycles. The industrial base doesn’t respond to hope or headlines. It responds to durable, multi-year demand signals it can build a business around.

Presidential legislation — even landmark presidential legislation — does not by itself solve that problem. A bill passed in one Congress can be defunded by the next. The SHIPS Act stalled once. The TRUMP Act, if passed, could face the same gravitational pull the moment political attention shifts, a budget fight erupts, or a new administration arrives with different priorities.

That is the sustainability gap. And it is the one gap that no current proposal directly addresses.

The SEAS Act: Closing the Sustainability Gap

The Strategic SEAS Act — Shipbuilding Economic Acceleration and Security Act — is designed to do precisely that.

Rather than competing for annual appropriations against entitlements, healthcare, and every other priority in the federal budget, the SEAS Act proposes a 2 percent Strategic Technology Responsibility Contribution from U.S. companies with significant revenue from China operations, directed into a dedicated Naval Modernization account.[6]

This is a structural funding mechanism, not a budget line item. It creates the kind of durable, mandatory investment signal that the shipbuilding industrial base can actually plan around — the modern equivalent of the sustained commitment that made 1982 to 1992 work, and the American answer to the Canadian model the Pier Review recommends.

The logic behind the contribution is grounded in history. The “Triple Whammy” — the End of History complacency after 1989, the responsible stakeholder framework that opened WTO access in 2001, and the mass migration of American corporate manufacturing to China — created the conditions for naval hollowing.[7] American companies that benefited from that migration helped create the problem. The SEAS Act creates a mechanism for them to contribute to the solution.

Sadler himself named the core problem on the Lunch Hour Podcast: the wrong incentive structures. The SEAS Act corrects that — not through legislation alone, but through a mandatory funding architecture that changes the calculus permanently.

Former House Select Committee on China Chairman Mike Gallagher documented the PRC’s systematic exploitation of U.S. export control gaps and argued that Commerce consistently prioritized industry revenue over national security.[8] Palantir’s “The Technological Republic” — currently a national conversation — makes a parallel argument about Silicon Valley’s moral debt to the hard power that underwrites its commercial freedom.[9]

The SEAS Act turns that argument into a funding architecture.

National Maritime Day 2026: Vision Needs Architecture

Brent Sadler is right that presidential action is needed, and the constitutional case he makes is compelling. The TRUMP Act framework — if it moves — will be the most significant maritime legislation in a generation. The Pier Review is right that the industrial base crisis is deep and requires a generational commitment to fix.

But a generational commitment cannot be built on an annual appropriation. The 30-year shipbuilding plan requires a 30-year funding architecture. Presidential legislation opens the door. The SEAS Act keeps it open regardless of which party controls Congress or who sits in the Oval Office.

National Maritime Day has a theme each year. This year’s should be simple: build the vision, build the architecture to sustain it.

The SEAS Act is not a competitor to Sadler’s proposal or the Pier Review’s recommendations. It is the missing piece that makes them last.

Americans for a Stronger Navy will continue to advocate for all three pillars: the presidential legislative action Sadler rightly calls for, the allied cooperation framework the Pier Review recommends, and the structural funding mechanism that makes both durable. That is the complete architecture a generational maritime revival requires.

References

[1] Brent D. Sadler, “National security demands that White House act on maritime legislation,” The Washington Times, May 20, 2026.

[2] Brent D. Sadler, Lunch Hour Podcast with Andrew Langer, May 2026.

[3] U.S. Navy, 2026 Shipbuilding Plan, May 11, 2026.

[4] “U.S. Navy unveils 30-year plan to rebuild American shipbuilding,” The Washington Times, May 12, 2026.

[5] Matt Reisener, ed., Pier Review: Leveraging the Allied Maritime Industrial Base for U.S. Shipbuilding, Center for Maritime Strategy, Navy League of the United States, May 2026. Foreword by Secretary of the Navy Kenneth J. Braithwaite.

[6] Americans for a Stronger Navy, Strategic SEAS Act framework, StrongerNavy.org.

[7] Americans for a Stronger Navy, “The Triple Whammy,” StrongerNavy.org.

[8] House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, Export Control Enforcement Reports, 2023–2024.

[9] Alex Karp and Nicholas Zamiska, The Technological Republic, 2025.

March 8, 2026March 8, 2026

Understanding the U.S. Navy’s Industrial Challenge

The Questions Americans Deserve Answered (Part 1 of 8)

I served as a blue-water destroyer sailor in the 1970s, and like many veterans, I’ve spent the years since trying to understand how America maintains the naval strength that protects our country, our allies, and the global sea lanes we all depend on.

The charts and analysis below help tell part of that story.

This article is part of Charting the Course: Voices That Matter, our ongoing educational series exploring the future of American sea power and the policies, people, and industrial strength that sustain the U.S. Navy.

If you’re new to the series, you can start with the introduction here:
Inside the Navy’s Future: The Questions Americans Deserve Answered.

This article also launches a focused 8-part series within Charting the Course examining some of the most important questions facing the Navy today — from shipbuilding capacity and fleet readiness to workforce challenges and the future of maritime deterrence.

We’re calling it The Questions Americans Deserve Answered.

For most Americans, the Navy is something we think about only in moments of crisis. A conflict erupts, a carrier group deploys, or a headline mentions tensions in the Pacific or the Middle East.

But the strength of the U.S. Navy is not decided during those moments. It is determined years — sometimes decades — earlier in shipyards, classrooms, industrial plants, research labs, and congressional hearings.

Today the United States faces serious questions about shipbuilding capacity, industrial readiness, and long-term naval strategy. China is building ships at a pace the world has not seen in generations. Russia continues to challenge Western stability at sea. Critical maritime infrastructure and supply chains are increasingly vulnerable to disruption.

And yet many Americans remain understandably disconnected from the decisions shaping the future of our fleet.

The strength of the U.S. Navy is determined long before ships sail into crisis—it is built in shipyards, sustained by skilled workers, and shaped by decisions made years earlier in industry, technology, and national policy.

Why Americans Should Care

America is, and has always been, a maritime nation.

Nearly 90 percent of global trade moves by sea. The global economy depends on secure shipping lanes. Energy markets, supply chains, and the stability of democratic alliances all rely on freedom of navigation.

The U.S. Navy has quietly safeguarded those sea lanes for generations.

But maintaining that advantage requires more than ships — it requires people, industry, technology, and public understanding.

Chart: Global Operational Demand on the U.S. Navy

This Heritage Foundation chart illustrates the geographic reach of U.S. naval operations across multiple regions. Carrier Strike Groups and Amphibious Ready Groups are routinely deployed worldwide, highlighting the constant global demand placed on the fleet.

The Questions Americans Deserve Answered

Over the coming weeks, this series will explore several critical questions about the future of U.S. sea power.

Can America rebuild the shipbuilding capacity required to compete in a new era of great power competition?

Do we have enough skilled workers — engineers, welders, and naval architects — to sustain fleet growth?

How serious is the maintenance backlog affecting submarines and surface ships?

Are current procurement processes helping or hurting the Navy’s ability to modernize?

How should the United States balance aircraft carriers, submarines, uncrewed systems, and logistics platforms?

What role do civilian shipyards and maritime infrastructure play in national security?

Can the United States scale submarine production fast enough to match emerging threats?

And perhaps most importantly: how do we ensure the American public remains engaged in decisions that affect the future of the fleet?

These are not partisan questions. They are national questions.

Understanding the Industrial Challenge

Much of the discussion about naval power focuses on ships already at sea. But the true story begins on land — in America’s shipyards and industrial base.

Chart: Age Distribution of Chinese and U.S. Naval Fleets

This chart compares the age distribution of Chinese and U.S. naval fleets. China’s fleet contains a larger number of relatively new ships, reflecting rapid shipbuilding expansion in recent years.

China now possesses the world’s largest shipbuilding industry by a wide margin.

Meanwhile, American shipyards face workforce shortages, supply chain constraints, and unpredictable funding cycles.

Chart: U.S. Navy Ships Nearing or Exceeding Service Life

This chart shows the growing number of U.S. Navy ships approaching — or exceeding — their expected service life, placing additional strain on fleet readiness and modernization timelines.

The Human Factor

Ships and technology matter — but ultimately the Navy is built on people.

From sailors standing watch at sea tonight to the skilled workers building submarines and carriers at home, the strength of the fleet depends on the dedication and expertise of thousands of Americans.

Implications for Our Allies

America does not operate alone at sea.

Alliances with countries such as Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and NATO partners form a critical part of global maritime stability.

These partnerships reinforce an important truth: deterrence is strongest when democracies stand together.

Public Engagement Matters

The U.S. Navy ultimately belongs to the American people.

Yet the complexity of defense planning can make it difficult for citizens to understand how decisions about shipbuilding, budgets, and strategy affect national security.

That is one of the reasons we created StrongerNavy.org.

Our goal is simple: help Americans better understand the challenges facing the fleet, the industrial base that supports it, and the people who serve at sea and in shipyards across the country.

The Questions Americans Deserve Answered — Series Guide

Part 1 – Understanding the Industrial Challenge (this article)

Part 2 – Can America Rebuild Shipbuilding Capacity?

Part 3 – The Submarine Production Challenge

Part 4 – Maintenance and Fleet Readiness

Part 5 – Workforce and the Maritime Industrial Base

Part 6 – The Role of Allies in Sea Power

Part 7 – Procurement, Policy, and the Future Fleet

Part 8 – Why Public Engagement Matters

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — an ongoing
educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next.

Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

January 27, 2026January 27, 2026

Fighting Invisible Threats: How Navy Medicine is Leading the Charge Against Superbugs

While we focus on ship counts, readiness percentages, and hull maintenance, there’s another critical battle being fought in Navy Medicine laboratories that directly impacts our fleet’s combat power: the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The Naval Medical Research Command (NMRC) just completed a six-year research program that could revolutionize how we protect our sailors and Marines from one of the most insidious threats they face—bacterial infections that laugh at our best antibiotics.

The Invisible Enemy

Here’s the reality: our warfighters aren’t just exposed to enemy fire. They face bacteria through combat injuries, deployments to overseas locations, and the close-quarters environment of shipboard life. And increasingly, these bacteria are resistant to the antibiotics we’ve relied on for decades.

Four bacterial villains are the focus: Acinetobacter baumannii (nicknamed “Iraqibacter” from the early Iraq war days), Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus. All can cause fevers, fatigue, swelling—and in severe cases, death.

When a sailor or Marine is fighting a multidrug-resistant infection, they’re not mission-ready. They’re not protecting their shipmates. They’re fighting for their life.

The Navy’s Secret Weapon: Bacteriophages

Navy Medicine Research & Development has a solution that sounds like science fiction but is brilliantly simple: use viruses that naturally hunt and kill bacteria.

Bacteriophages—or phages—are viruses that target specific bacteria with surgical precision. Unlike antibiotics that carpet-bomb your body’s bacterial ecosystem (killing both good and bad bacteria), phages are smart weapons. They go after only the harmful bacteria you want eliminated.

Over six years of focused research funded by Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDRMP), NMRC has developed approximately 2,500 phage cocktails. Think of these as personalized medicine—specific combinations designed to attack specific bacterial threats.

From Wastewater to Warfighter

The collection process is global and fascinating. Navy researchers harvest phages from wastewater—bogs, sewers, rivers—across multiple continents. These microscopic hunters are everywhere. In fact, if you strung together all the phages on Earth, they could wrap around the Milky Way Galaxy three times.

Each collected phage goes through rigorous purification and characterization. As Dr. Biswajit Biswas, chief of NMRC’s Bacteriophage Science Division, explains: “We collect these phages, purify them and grow them in large quantities. Then, we extract DNA, sequence its genome and analyze the phage very carefully to understand if it carries any toxins, since we cannot push something in the human systems if the phage carries toxins.”

This is meticulous work. This is Navy excellence.

Proof of Concept: The Tom Patterson Story

In 2015, NMRC achieved something historic. Dr. Tom Patterson fell critically ill from Acinetobacter baumannii, slipped into a coma, and remained ill through multiple treatments. Nothing worked. Until he was administered an NMRC-developed phage cocktail intravenously.

He survived.

As Dr. Biswas notes: “It should be understood that before Tom Patterson’s case, nobody used phage to treat systemic bacterial infection in the United States.”

NMRC didn’t just save a life. They opened a door.

Why This Matters for Naval Readiness

Commander Mark Simons, director of NMRC’s Infectious Diseases Directorate, gets straight to the point: “Navy and Marine Corps warfighters are often first to the fight as expeditionary units, and thus will experience early casualties in a potentially prolonged-care setting. This will require novel antimicrobial countermeasures to be used early and throughout the continuum of care to treat antibiotic-resistant infections which are rising globally and highly prevalent in developing countries and high-conflict regions.”

Read that again. First to the fight. Early casualties. Prolonged-care settings.

When we deploy our carriers to the Indo-Pacific, when we send Marines into contested environments, when we operate in regions where medical evacuation isn’t guaranteed—our people need every medical advantage we can give them.

A sailor fighting a superbug infection can’t stand watch. A Marine with a resistant wound infection can’t complete the mission. Medical readiness is operational readiness.

Joint Innovation at Its Best

This research demonstrates something we don’t celebrate enough: when Navy Medicine and Army Medicine researchers work together with focused priorities, incredible things happen. NMRC collaborated seamlessly with Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.

WRAIR’s Forward Labs collected phages in Thailand, Kenya, and Georgia. Naval Medical Research Unit (NAMRU) SOUTH provided phage isolates from South America. This global network, coordinated across services, created a phage library that will serve warfighters for years to come.

This is how you build combat advantage.

Next Mission: FDA Approval

NMRC’s next objective is clear: Investigational New Drug applications with the FDA to move the most promising cocktails into phase one safety and immune response studies.

“Navy Medicine R&D is a leader in bacteriophage research so that we can bring this promising technology to clinicians and corpsman to improve battlefield survival for Sailors and Marines,” Commander Simons states.

That’s the goal. Not publications. Not academic prestige. Battlefield survival..

The Bigger Picture

We talk often about the “hollow Navy” of the 1970s—rusting ships, deferred maintenance, degraded readiness. But readiness isn’t just hull numbers and operating budgets. It’s whether our people can fight and survive when called upon.

This bacteriophage research represents the same commitment to readiness that we demand in ship maintenance, training, and logistics. It’s the Navy refusing to accept that warfighters should die from infections we could prevent or treat.

It’s innovation driven by mission necessity.

It’s medical capability that directly enables combat power.

It’s the kind of work that happens when national will, proper funding, and talented professionals align toward a clear objective: keeping our sailors and Marines ready, healthy, and lethal.

What This Teaches Us

For 250 years, Navy Medicine has delivered healthcare to warfighters “on, below, and above the sea and ashore.” This bacteriophage research continues that legacy with 21st-century tools.

But it also demonstrates something broader about naval strength: readiness is a system. Every piece matters. From hull coatings that prevent rust to phage cocktails that prevent death from resistant bacteria, it all connects.

When we advocate for a stronger Navy, we’re advocating for all of it. The ships, yes. But also the medicine, the logistics, the training, the innovation, the global partnerships that make American naval power possible.

NMRC and its partner commands have shown what’s possible when the mission is clear and the resources are provided. They’ve built a library of 2,500 phage cocktails, established processes that could save countless lives, and positioned the U.S. military to lead in a crucial medical technology.

That’s not just good science. That’s good strategy.

That’s a stronger Navy.

FREDERICK, Md. (April 11, 2025) Researchers with Biological Defense Research Directorate (BDRD), pose for a group photo after conducting bacteriophage therapy research to combat multidrug resistant bacteria that could impact warfighter readiness. Phages are viruses that target and kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Navy Medicine Research & Development (NMR&D) is engaged in bacteriophage therapy research to protect the warfighter from these threats, keeping U.S. forces ready and lethal. NMRC, headquarters of NMR&D, is engaged in a broad spectrum of activity from basic science in the laboratory to field studies in austere and remote areas of the world to investigations in operational environments. In support of Navy, Marine Corps and joint U.S. warfighter health, readiness and lethality, researchers study infectious diseases, biological warfare detection and defense, combat casualty care, environmental health concerns, aerospace and undersea medicine, operational mission support and epidemiology. For 250 years, Navy Medicine, represented by more than 44,000 highly-trained military and civilian healthcare professionals, has delivered quality healthcare and enduring expeditionary medical support to the warfighter on, below, and above the sea and ashore.

Americans for a Stronger Navy advocates for the transparent reporting, proper resourcing, and strategic innovation necessary to maintain U.S. naval superiority. Medical readiness is operational readiness. Support the sailors and Marines who stand the watch.

January 24, 2026January 27, 2026

Zumwalt’s Second Life: What a Hypersonic Destroyer Really Tells Americans About Naval Power

Abstract

USS Zumwalt has returned to sea after one of the most radical ship conversions in modern naval history. Its guns are gone. In their place: the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic weapon system. On the surface, this looks like a story about cutting-edge weapons and futuristic warfare. But the deeper story is about something far more important for Americans to understand: how naval power is evolving from platforms to systems—and how design decisions, industrial capacity, and national alignment determine whether innovation becomes usable combat power.

This is not just a story about a destroyer. It is a story about whether the United States can adapt fast enough to a changing era of warfare.

What Actually Happened

After entering the yard in 2023, Zumwalt was taken out of the water, structurally modified on land, stripped of its twin 155mm Advanced Gun Systems, and rebuilt to host large-diameter launch infrastructure for hypersonic missiles. Builder’s sea trials in January 2026 validated propulsion, power generation, hull integrity, and ship systems after this extraordinary redesign.

This was not a maintenance period. This was a repurposing of a warship’s entire combat identity.

The Navy took a class originally built for precision naval gunfire support and turned it into the first surface ship designed to deliver hypersonic strike.

That decision tells us a lot.

Why This Matters Beyond the Headlines

Hypersonic weapons are impressive. Speeds above Mach 5. Maneuverability. Minimal warning time. Ability to penetrate advanced defenses.

But the more important question is this:

What does it take to put a weapon like this to sea?

The answer is uncomfortable.

It required removing the original mission.
It required structural redesign.
It required years in the yard.
It required extraordinary industrial effort.
It required a ship with unusual power capacity and internal space.

In other words:

You can’t just bolt hypersonics onto any ship.

You need design margin.
You need electrical power.
You need internal volume.
You need shipyards capable of radical modification.
You need a Navy and an industrial base that can adapt.

That is the real story.

A Ship as a System, Not a Platform

For years, Americans have been taught to think of naval strength as “how many ships we have.”

Zumwalt shows the flaw in that thinking.

Naval power is not a hull count.
It is whether your ships can evolve when the fight changes.

This ship was able to change because of how it was originally designed:

Integrated electric propulsion
Excess power generation
Internal growth space
Signature management for survivability

Most of our fleet does not have that kind of design margin.

And that is where this story becomes national.

The Hidden Constraint No One Talks About

Hypersonic missiles are huge.

The launchers are huge.

Magazine depth is limited.

This is not a “volume of fire” weapon. It is a high-impact, precision, strategic signaling weapon.

Which means the value of Zumwalt is not how many missiles it carries.

The value is what it does to an adversary’s planning.

A mobile, hard-to-target, forward-deployed ship that can strike time-sensitive targets with almost no warning from unpredictable sea locations forces an adversary to defend everything.

That is naval maneuver used as a weapon.

And that is a concept most Americans have never been taught.

What Others Will Focus On

Many analysts will talk about:

The cost of the Zumwalt program
The failure of the original gun system
Whether hypersonics belong at sea
Magazine limitations
Strategic signaling risks

All valid discussions.

But they miss the bigger lesson.

The question is not whether Zumwalt was worth it.

The question is whether we are designing today’s ships so they can adapt tomorrow.

Because wars between major powers are not decided by what we start with.

They are decided by what we can modify, replace, and evolve after the fighting begins.

Why Americans Should Care

This story is about far more than a destroyer.

It is about:

Shipyard capacity
Industrial skill
Design philosophy
Electrical power margins in ships
Flexibility in fleet architecture
The ability to change missions without building a new class of ship

That is national strength.

That is governance.

That is whether budgets, priorities, and industry are aligned with the realities of modern warfare.

Most Americans think innovation happens in labs.

Zumwalt shows that innovation must be built into the steel of ships years before it is needed.

Implications for the Navy

The Navy now has proof that:

Large-scale mission conversion is possible
Integrated electric ships have enormous future value
Hypersonic strike can be distributed across surface platforms
Ship design margin is not a luxury—it is a warfighting requirement

The remaining two Zumwalts will follow.

But the real question is whether future ship classes are being designed with this lesson in mind.

Implications for Our Allies

Allies watching this are learning something important:

The U.S. Navy is not just adding new weapons.

It is learning how to adapt existing platforms into new roles.

That flexibility is a form of deterrence.

Because it signals that the fleet they see today is not the fleet they will face tomorrow.

The Governance Lesson Hiding in Plain Sight

This did not happen because of a single weapon.

This happened because:
National will → budgets
Budgets → priorities
Priorities → ship design
Ship design → adaptability
Adaptability → readiness

That chain is what turns technology into combat power.

Break that chain anywhere, and innovation stays on paper.

The Bigger Takeaway

USS Zumwalt is no longer a story about a controversial ship.

It is now a case study in how naval power must be built for change.

And that is a lesson Americans need to understand if we want a Navy that can fight—and adapt—in the decades ahead.

Because the future of naval warfare will not be decided by what ships were built to do.

It will be decided by what they can become.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

January 9, 2026January 9, 2026

When Sanctions Need Ships: How Two U.S. Destroyers Chased a Dark Fleet Tanker Across the Atlantic

Introduction

Two U.S. Navy destroyers just spent weeks tracking, shadowing, and supporting the seizure of a runaway oil tanker in the North Atlantic.

This was not a combat mission.
It was not a press event.
It was not symbolic.

It was enforcement.

USS Bulkeley (DDG-84) and USS Paul Ignatius (DDG-117) helped support an operation that ultimately boarded and seized a Russian-flagged tanker that had been actively evading authorities across thousands of miles of open ocean.

This is what maritime power looks like in 2026. And most Americans never see it.

What Happened
The vessel—initially named Bella 1—was operating as part of what U.S. officials describe as a “dark fleet,” a network of tankers designed to evade sanctions through deceptive practices.

Over the course of its escape, the tanker:
• Changed its name
• Reflagged as Russian
• Painted a new national tricolor on its hull
• Altered its identity
• Evaded a U.S. naval blockade
• Attempted to disappear into the Atlantic

After weeks of pursuit, U.S. forces—supported by Navy destroyers, Coast Guard assets, special operations forces, and allied surveillance—seized the vessel in waters between the UK and Iceland.

The UK provided support. NATO was not involved.

This was a multinational, multi-domain enforcement operation.

Not war. Not peace. Enforcement.

Why This Matters
Sanctions do not enforce themselves.

Every time a government announces new sanctions, it implies something most people never think about:

Someone has to physically enforce them.

That means:
• Ships
• Crews
• Surveillance
• Boarding teams
• Legal frameworks
• Sustainment
• Allies
• Weeks of continuous presence

Sanctions without maritime power are just words on paper.

The Rise of the Dark Fleet
So-called “dark fleet” vessels use identity laundering to move oil, weapons, and sanctioned goods across the world.

They:
• Reflag repeatedly
• Change names
• Operate under shell companies
• Transmit false data
• Disable tracking systems
• Exploit legal gray zones

This is modern maritime gray-zone warfare.

And the U.S. Navy is now its primary counterforce.

Attrition Isn’t Just Combat
A Navy captain once wrote: “Wars at sea are wars of attrition.”

What most people miss is that attrition doesn’t only happen during wars.

It happens during:
• Blockades
• Sanctions enforcement
• Freedom of navigation patrols
• Counter-smuggling missions
• Persistent surveillance
• Shadowing operations

Weeks of pursuit burn:
• Fuel
• Maintenance cycles
• Crew endurance
• Parts
• Readiness margins

Every ship tied up on one mission is unavailable for another. Presence has a cost.

Why Americans Should Care
This mission protected more than a legal principle.

It protected:
• The credibility of sanctions
• The integrity of maritime law
• The security of global trade routes
• The idea that rules still matter

If the U.S. Navy cannot enforce order at sea, someone else will rewrite the rules. And they will not do it in our favor.

This Is What Presence Looks Like
Destroyers aren’t just warfighting platforms.

They are:
• Law enforcement tools
• Diplomatic signals
• Deterrence mechanisms
• Economic stabilizers
• Crisis responders

This mission never trended. But it kept the system from breaking.

The Bigger Picture
The Navy is being asked to do more:
• With fewer ships
• With aging hulls
• With shrinking margins
• With rising global demand

This operation was a success. But success should not blind us to strain.

December 24, 2025December 27, 2025

Year-End Message: The Pentagon’s China Report and What It Means for 2025

The 2027 Countdown: What the Pentagon’s Delayed China Report Reveals

2025 U.S. Navy Year in Review Report Cover

Hello friends, and fellow supporters of America’s Navy. Bill Cullifer here with Americans for a Stronger Navy.

On December 23rd, the Pentagon released its annual China Military Power Report. This assessment had been missing all year while Congress debated budgets. Now that it’s here, we understand the delay. The report contains the most direct warning yet: China expects to be able to fight and win a war over Taiwan by the end of 2027. That’s less than three years away.

Why Taiwan Matters to You

As Elbridge Colby, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, wrote in TIME Magazine:

“Defending far-off Taiwan and our allies… is rooted in a practical, hard-nosed assessment of what is in Americans’ concrete economic and political interests. It is about defending Americans’ security, liberties, and prosperity from a very real, and in terms of China’s gigantic scale, unprecedented danger.”

Your Phone. Your Car. Your Hospital Equipment.

Taiwan produces 60% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. A Chinese blockade or invasion would cost the global economy at least one trillion dollars per year.

What the Pentagon Report Reveals

Nuclear Expansion: Stockpile reached 600+ in 2024, on track to exceed 1,000 by 2030.
Space Surveillance: 359+ satellites now track U.S. ships in near real-time.
Cyber Weapons: Operations like Volt Typhoon have burrowed into U.S. power grids for wartime sabotage.
Taiwan Pressure: 3,067 air incursions in 2024—nearly double the previous year.

The Timeline Should Terrify You

The Western Pacific is becoming a “Kill Zone.” As one naval officer put it: “We no longer build the Navy the Navy needs. We build the Navy the accountants will tolerate.”

America is not outmatched; we are under-mobilized. The decisions we make in 2025 determine whether deterrence holds in 2027. Visit StrongerNavy.org to request your copy of our 2025 U.S. Navy Year in Review.

Thank you for caring about America’s maritime strength.

Fair winds and following seas,

Bill Cullifer
Founder, Americans for a Stronger Navy
StrongerNavy.org

November 12, 2025November 12, 2025

Welcome Home, Captain Scheurich: A 57-Year Watch Ends

This week, one of our own — Captain Thomas Edwin Scheurich Sr., a U.S. Navy aviator from Norfolk, Nebraska — finally returns home after more than five decades listed as missing in action. On November 14, 2025, he will be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors

The End of a Long Wait

For 57 years, Captain Scheurich’s name stood among the missing. A dedicated Naval Aviator, he was lost on a night mission over Vietnam on March 1, 1968. For over half a century, his family waited, remembered, and honored his memory with unwavering strength.

The notification this past May that his remains had been identified brought not just closure, but the sacred opportunity to welcome him home with the honor he has always deserved—a moment for the nation to formally thank a hero.

The Price of Freedom

Captain Scheurich represents the very best of naval service: courage under fire, dedication to mission, and unwavering commitment to shipmates and country. He flew into harm’s way, fully aware of the risks involved.

At just 34 years old, he gave everything. He never came home to see his children grow, to meet his grandchildren, to build boats or play his banjo in the years that should have been his. He made the ultimate sacrifice for the liberties we enjoy today.

To the Scheurich Family: We Never Forgot
To the Scheurich family: your father, grandfather, and loved one embodied the warrior spirit that has protected this nation for generations. His sacrifice was not in vain. Because of sailors like Captain Scheurich, America remained free. And because of families like yours, who carried on with grace and strength, we never forgot what was owed to those who did not return.

As we work every day to ensure today’s Navy has the resources, readiness, and support it needs, we are constantly reminded why this mission matters:

It matters because of sailors like Captain Scheurich.
It matters because the watch must continue.
It matters because freedom is never free—it is earned by those willing to stand in the gap.

Welcome home, Captain Scheurich. Your courage endures. Your sacrifice will never be forgotten.Fair winds and following seas, sir.
With profound respect and gratitude,
Americans for a Stronger Navy

October 26, 2025October 26, 2025

Maritime Security and the Shifting Strategic Landscape: Why the Caribbean Still Matters

What held true in the 1970s when I served in the U.S. Navy remains true today: the sea—its lanes, chokepoints, and often hidden logistics networks—is where national power meets commerce and security. As founder of Americans for a Stronger Navy, I’ve watched the Caribbean region shift from a legacy theater of interdiction to something far more strategic and volatile. The United States must stay anchored to its enduring maritime interests, while soberly recognizing how the threat environment has evolved. The piece that follows lays out those stakes and changes in straightforward terms.

The security of the United States has always been tied to the sea. From the earliest days of the Republic, American prosperity has depended on open waterways, secure maritime trade routes, and the prevention of hostile powers establishing influence near U.S. shores. These principles are not abstractions. They are the foundation of American national strategy.

Recent naval actions in the Caribbean, including the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford and the use of lethal force against suspected drug-trafficking vessels, have reopened a debate about the role of the U.S. Navy in the Western Hemisphere. Some see decisive action against destabilizing criminal networks. Others see a dangerous shift away from established maritime law and precedent.

This post does not seek to argue either side. Instead, it lays out the strategic facts that Americans must understand before forming an opinion.

I. Enduring U.S. Interests in the Western Hemisphere

For more than two centuries, American maritime strategy in the Caribbean has centered on three core objectives.

Freedom of Navigation
The Caribbean connects the Atlantic and Pacific trade systems. The majority of U.S. trade, energy transit, and commercial shipping depends on unobstructed access through these waters.

Security of Strategic Chokepoints
The Panama Canal remains a critical artery of global commerce. Any disruption—whether from instability, coercion, or foreign control—would have immediate and far-reaching economic consequences.

Prevention of Adversarial Influence Near U.S. Shores
From the Monroe Doctrine through the Cold War, American policy has consistently sought to prevent rival powers from establishing military or strategic footholds in the region. Today, this concern increasingly centers on the growing presence of the People’s Republic of China in ports, telecommunications, and financial networks throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, China Merchants Port now holds full ownership of Jamaica’s Kingston Freeport Terminal, one of the region’s key shipping hubs, and Beijing has invested billions in dual-use maritime infrastructure across the hemisphere.

These interests are longstanding. They are not partisan. They are structural.

II. The New Strategic Landscape: Crime, State Actors, and Maritime Security

What has changed is the nature of the threat.

The Synthetic Drug Crisis as a National Security Issue
The U.S. is experiencing a mass-casualty public-health emergency, with tens of thousands of deaths annually attributed to synthetic opioids. Major criminal organizations responsible for production and distribution have developed transnational financing, manufacturing, and logistics networks.

The China Connection
Multiple U.S. agencies have identified two critical dependencies.

Chemical Precursors and Equipment
Key components used to manufacture synthetic opioids are sourced overwhelmingly from Chinese firms.

Financial Networks
Laundering operations linked to PRC-based intermediaries move cartel funds through international markets at scale.

Strategic Presence in the Region
Simultaneously, the PRC has invested heavily in dual-use ports, intelligence-collection infrastructure, and economic footholds across the Caribbean and South America. By 2023, direct Chinese investment in island nations reached $3.3 billion, while infrastructure contracts totaled $32 billion.

As one recent illustrative example, the U.S. guided-missile destroyer USS Gravely docked in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago on 26 October 2025 as part of joint exercises with regional partners near Venezuela—a vivid symbol that U.S. maritime posture in the Caribbean is expanding from interdiction to forward presence.

The issue is no longer purely criminal. It is geopolitical.

III. The Question Before the Country: Method, Law, and Strategic Consequence

The central debate is not whether the United States should defend its interests in the region. It should and always has. The debate is how that defense should be conducted.

Argument for Military Kinetic Action
Supporters argue that the scale of the synthetic-drug crisis qualifies as a national-security threat, enabling the use of military force in self-defence. They contend that criminal networks operating with state-linked support may be treated under the laws of armed conflict.

Argument for Maintaining Traditional Maritime Law and Interdiction Precedent
Legal scholars and military ethicists warn that conducting lethal strikes against vessels without warning may erode long-standing maritime norms. Precedent matters. If the U.S. asserts the right to destroy vessels at sea based on national-security claims, adversaries could use the same justification in other contested waters—potentially including the South China Sea.

The strategic risk is that a short-term response to an urgent threat may weaken the very system of maritime stability the United States has spent generations defending.

Conclusion: The Need for Strategic Clarity

The United States cannot afford to lose stability, access, or influence in the Caribbean. The region matters today for the same reasons it mattered in 1823, 1947, and 1989: geography does not change. What has changed is the strategic environment, the nature of violence, and the actors capable of shaping the maritime domain.

As Americans, we now face a difficult question:
How do we defend our interests in the Western Hemisphere without undermining the maritime rules and partnerships that underpin global stability?

The answer requires seriousness, informed public understanding, and national unity.

That’s why we launched Charting the Course: Voices That Matter — a 24-part educational series breaking down how we got here, what went wrong, and what must happen next. Our goal is simple: educate the public, connect the dots, and build the support needed to close the readiness gap before it’s too late.

Let’s roll.

October 8, 2025October 8, 2025

Happy 250th: Celebrating America’s Navy Amid Challenge

A Quarter Millennium of Service
On October 13, 1775, the Continental Congress resolved to establish a swift sailing vessel armed with carriage guns to defend American commerce from British forces. From that moment, the United States Navy was born. Two and a half centuries later, the Navy remains at the heart of American security and prosperity.

This week, despite a government shutdown that has paused some ceremonies, the Navy will celebrate its 250th birthday in Philadelphia — the city where both the Navy and Marine Corps trace their roots. Ships will parade on the Delaware River, bands will play, and the public will tour vessels new and old, from USS Arlington to the historic battleship New Jersey. Flyovers, displays, football, and fireworks will honor the sailors who have stood the watch in times of peace, crisis, and war.

Heritage and Resilience
The Navy’s legacy is rich with examples of ingenuity and determination. We’ve told the story of USS R-14, whose crew in 1921 literally sailed their submarine home when fuel ran out. We’ve revisited Midway, where pilots flew through chaos and confusion to deliver a decisive victory. We’ve remembered Cold War destroyer sailors who carried out missions day after day with little fanfare but enormous consequences.

These stories remind us that the Navy’s strength lies not only in steel, but in sailors — their resilience, creativity, and courage.

Doing More With Less
Today, we ask much of those sailors. The U.S. Navy remains the most powerful in the world by tonnage and capability, but it is no longer the largest by sheer numbers. Our adversaries are building at speed, while we face strained shipyards, aging infrastructure, and stretched resources.

As Vice Adm. John Gumbleton said ahead of the 250th celebrations, the heritage of “mighty warships and service members who sailed proudly at sea” continues today. But heritage and resilience are not enough without investment. Our sailors are doing more with less — and that cannot remain the strategy for America’s future.

Why Americans Should Care
The oceans are lifelines of trade, energy, and security. A strong Navy keeps those lifelines secure and deters those who would threaten them. Philadelphia may be the birthplace of the Navy, but the mission it carries belongs to all Americans.

A Call to Action
Happy 250th, U.S. Navy. We honor your past, salute your sailors, and celebrate your legacy. But the best way to mark this anniversary is to ensure the next 250 years are just as strong. That means supporting shipbuilding, revitalizing industry, and giving our sailors the tools they need to prevail.

Let’s roll.

September 11, 2025September 11, 2025

U.S. Marines Expand Presence on Strategic Pacific Islands

Overview
The United States is increasing its forward military presence near China by deploying Marine forces aboard the expeditionary sea base ship USS Miguel Keith. This afloat platform extends the reach of the Marine Rotational Force-Darwin (MRF-D), based in northern Australia, across the contested island chains of the western Pacific. This move underscores Washington’s commitment to countering Beijing’s growing influence and military footprint in the Indo-Pacific.

The Island Chain Strategy
At the heart of this deployment lies the U.S. island chain strategy: three north-south defensive lines stretching across the Pacific. By leveraging allied territory and naval access points, the U.S. can project power, deter aggression, and defend against potential Chinese military action. The second island chain, where the USS Miguel Keith is homeported in Saipan, plays a pivotal role in supporting operations deeper into the Pacific.

Why This Matters
Operating from a sea base offers the Marines flexibility and unpredictability. Unlike fixed land bases, the Miguel Keith allows U.S. forces to maneuver rapidly across archipelagic terrain and forward locations ashore, complicating adversary planning. This is especially important at a time when Chinese forces are building out anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities designed to push U.S. forces farther from contested waters.

Recent Exercises
The deployment follows recent exercises across the first and second island chains:

Exercise Alon 25 in the Philippines (August 15–29).
Exercise Super Garuda Shield 25 in Indonesia (August 25–September 4).

These multinational drills reinforced cooperation with allies, improved readiness, and signaled a unified front in the region.

Implications for the Navy
The Navy’s role in enabling sea-based expeditionary operations is central. With amphibious ships like the USS New Orleans temporarily out of service due to fire damage, expeditionary sea bases provide a critical stopgap. They allow Marines and sailors to continue distributed operations, demonstrating the Navy’s adaptability in keeping forward presence credible.

Implications for Our Allies
For Australia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, U.S. deployments reinforce security guarantees. The Marines’ message, as articulated by Colonel Jason Armas, was clear: America and its allies “stand ready to maneuver, sustain and fight as one force.” This is reassurance at a time of rising Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea and beyond.

Why Americans Should Care
This is not simply a faraway deployment. The Pacific is a lifeline for U.S. trade, energy, and global communications infrastructure. Securing these waters ensures that Americans at home continue to benefit from stable supply chains and open sea lanes. A failure to hold the line in the Pacific would ripple into our economy and national security alike.

Closing Call
As the U.S. strengthens its presence in the Indo-Pacific, the question is not whether we can afford to maintain this posture, but whether we can afford not to. A stronger Navy and Marine Corps presence ensures deterrence, protects trade, and preserves peace.

Let’s roll.