President Donald Trump wants steam—and he’s not joking.
During a speech on Monday aboard the USS George Washington at Yokosuka Naval Base, Trump announced plans for an executive order to revert to steam catapults and hydraulic elevators on Navy carriers, as reported by Newsweek. This statement reflects his ongoing frustration with the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) used on the newer Gerald R. Ford-class carriers.
Trump’s critique centers on the complexity and cost of electric systems, which he claims require elite experts from MIT to fix when they fail. “The problem [with electric] is when it breaks, you have to send up to MIT to get the most brilliant people in the world. Fly them out—it’s ridiculous,” he told the crowd.
Steam Power Wins Crowd Cheers
The president didn’t shy away from engaging his audience, asking them directly, “Which is better, electric or steam?” While silence greeted the mention of electric, cheers erupted for steam, signaling a nostalgia for the old ways that Trump clearly shares.
He doubled down with vivid imagery, praising the visual of “beautiful steam pouring off that deck” compared to the sterile electric systems. His affection for the simplicity of steam repair—“they said they can fix it with a hammer and blowtorch”—paints a picture of rugged reliability over fragile high-tech.
This isn’t a new stance for Trump, who has long criticized EMALS as overpriced and impractical since at least 2017. His consistent pushback suggests a belief that not all progress is worth the price tag or the headache.
Modern Tech Under Fire
Trump also took aim at magnetic elevators, questioning their resilience with a quip about lightning strikes. His skepticism extends to a broader rejection of tech for tech’s sake, a sentiment that resonates with those wary of endless defense spending on unproven systems.
At an Iowa rally earlier this year, he mocked the concept of magnets in military use, saying, “Think of it, magnets. Now all I know about magnets is this, give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets, that’s the end of the magnets.”
His rhetorical jab at why John Deere wasn’t consulted instead of tech experts underlines a preference for practical, grounded solutions over academic experiments. It’s a pointed reminder that taxpayer dollars shouldn’t fund what he sees as needless complexity.
Navy’s Defense of Innovation
The Navy, however, hasn’t been silent on the benefits of EMALS, with officials like Rear Admiral Patrick J. Hannifin arguing for its long-term value. Hannifin told Trump in 2018, “The electromagnetic catapults they’re running there [on the Ford] offer some great benefits,” acknowledging bugs but emphasizing reduced stress on aircraft.
This defense highlights a core tension: while newer systems promise efficiency and extended aircraft life, early hiccups and staggering costs fuel doubts about their readiness. Trump’s push for steam sidesteps these promises, favoring what’s tried and true over what’s theoretically better.
Yet, the Navy’s position isn’t without merit, as transitioning back to steam would demand billions to redesign ships and resurrect obsolete production lines. Such a move could disrupt fleet readiness at a time when global threats demand peak performance.
What Lies Ahead for Navy Tech
Whether Trump’s executive order materializes remains uncertain, but the implications are massive for defense spending and naval strategy. Reverting to steam isn’t just a nostalgic whim; it’s a potential budgetary sinkhole that could rival the very cost overruns he critiques.
Analysts note that steam catapult production ceased long ago, meaning a return would require starting from scratch at an exorbitant expense. This clash of old-school grit versus modern necessity frames a larger question about how we equip our forces for the future.
In the end, Trump’s steam crusade taps into a frustration many feel with overcomplicated, overpriced systems that seem to prioritize innovation over reliability. While his heart may be with the billowing clouds of steam, the path forward will test whether sentiment can outweigh the hard realities of military logistics.
