1. United States
2. N.C.
3. Letter

I am writing to urge you to exercise Congress's constitutional authority over defense spending and procurement by placing appropriate limits on recent changes to U.S. Navy shipbuilding programs directed by President Trump. I strongly support maintaining a powerful, technologically superior American Navy. Precisely because of that, I believe Congress must prevent changes that are likely to increase costs, disrupt vessels already under construction, delay delivery of desperately needed capabilities, and weaken rather than strengthen our naval forces. The recent decision to abandon the Navy's electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) in favor of traditional steam catapults is a particularly troubling example. The USS Doris Miller is already under construction, and significant work on the electromagnetic launch system has reportedly already been completed. Reversing course at this stage risks wasting money that has already been spent while introducing new engineering, integration, testing, and scheduling requirements. That is not modernization. It is redesigning a ship after construction has already begun. The United States cannot afford to treat billion-dollar warships as experimental projects that can be repeatedly redesigned according to changing political preferences. Every major design change consumes resources, occupies scarce shipyard capacity, requires additional engineering and testing, and potentially pushes delivery dates further into the future. That matters because America's naval shipbuilding problem is not simply that we need more ships. We need the ships we have already authorized and paid for to enter service on time. The Congressional Budget Office has documented the Navy's longstanding difficulty delivering ships according to planned schedules and has warned about the consequences of instability in shipbuilding programs. History also demonstrates that changing direction between ship classes can disrupt shipyard production and delay the development of replacement capabilities. At a time when the United States faces increasingly capable naval competitors, we should be concentrating our resources on putting effective ships and weapons into the hands of American sailors as quickly as possible. I therefore respectfully ask Congress to: Block or restrict funding for major redesigns of ships already under construction unless the Department of Defense can demonstrate a clear, independently validated military advantage that justifies the additional cost and schedule impact. Require an independent cost and schedule analysis before replacing mature technologies already incorporated into vessels under construction. Protect funding and production schedules for ships already authorized and under construction from being disrupted to finance newly proposed programs. Require the Navy to demonstrate that proposed new ship classes will not reduce production of existing, proven platforms until replacement capabilities are actually available. Strengthen congressional oversight of major changes to Navy shipbuilding requirements, particularly changes that could delay delivery of aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines, or other critical combatants. Prioritize combat capability delivered to the fleet over politically attractive announcements about future fleets. I am not asking Congress to oppose modernization. Quite the opposite. I am asking Congress to make certain that modernization actually produces greater military capability rather than simply producing larger bills. The United States has a finite defense budget, a limited number of major shipyards, a constrained pool of skilled shipbuilding workers, and an adversary that does not have the luxury of waiting while we repeatedly redesign our fleet. Every year of delay is a year in which an American ship is not available to deter conflict, protect sea lanes, support our allies, or defend American interests. Fiscal responsibility and military readiness are not competing objectives. They are inseparable. Wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary redesigns means fewer resources available for additional ships, weapons, maintenance, training, personnel, and emerging technologies. Congress should support the President when his policies strengthen American naval power. But Congress also has a responsibility to say no when executive decisions threaten to make that power more expensive, less capable, and slower to arrive. This is ultimately not a partisan issue. It is a question of whether we are going to build the Navy America needs or continue allowing changes in direction to consume the time and resources that our sailors and national security cannot afford to lose. I urge you to use your authority to protect the Navy's existing shipbuilding programs, demand rigorous independent cost-benefit analysis of proposed changes, and prevent unnecessary disruptions to vessels already under construction. America needs a Navy that is larger, more capable, technologically superior, and ready on schedule. We should not sacrifice those objectives for the sake of changing course after the ship has already left the dock. Thank you for your service and for your attention to this critical national-security issue. Sincerely,