By Michael Sharpe
President Trump has given the U.S. Navy 120 days to come back with a plan for a fifth public Navy Yard.
That sounds straightforward.
It isn’t.
The August 13 memorandum is much more significant than simply adding another shipyard to a list. The fifth yard is intended to increase nuclear-powered submarine and aircraft-carrier readiness, provide enough dry-dock capacity to support the planned growth of the fast-attack submarine fleet over the next two decades, and potentially include up to three new dry docks capable of accommodating current and projected submarine classes. The memorandum also specifically calls for consideration of locations proximate to the U.S. Pacific Fleet and opens the door to innovative financing, including public-private partnerships.
The question is therefore not simply:
Where is there enough waterfront?
It is:
Where can America create a new submarine industrial ecosystem?
That changes the competition completely.
The United States currently has four public naval shipyards: Norfolk, Portsmouth, Puget Sound and Pearl Harbor. The Trump memorandum would establish the first new public Navy Yard in more than 80 years. The White House describes the objective as increasing submarine and aircraft-carrier repair capacity, while the memorandum specifically links the fifth yard to the future growth of the fast-attack submarine fleet.
And there is a very important geographical clue.
The memorandum does not simply say that the new yard can be anywhere in the United States. It specifically directs consideration of locations proximate to the U.S. Pacific Fleet, including the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii and U.S. territories.
That makes the West Coast particularly interesting.
Mare Island immediately deserves serious consideration
Mare Island is not a theoretical shipyard site.
It is a former U.S. Navy shipyard with a long history of submarine construction and repair, including nuclear-powered submarines. The U.S. Naval Institute’s 2024 analysis of the case for a fifth naval shipyard specifically identified the San Francisco Bay/North Bay region as one of the most compelling possibilities.
The historical infrastructure is extraordinary.
Mare Island sits within the broader San Francisco Bay maritime complex that once included Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Naval Air Station Alameda and the Kaiser shipyards at Richmond. During the Second World War, Kaiser Shipbuilding produced hundreds of Liberty and Victory ships, while Mare Island supported the Navy’s fleet.
That history matters because the Bay Area is not simply a former naval location.
It is a maritime industrial region with a huge workforce, engineering capability and technology base.
The U.S. Naval Institute identified the Bay Area’s population, UC Berkeley, Stanford, NASA Ames and the region’s broader engineering workforce as advantages in establishing a modern shipyard. It also identified Alameda as a potential greenfield location with substantial available space and existing carrier-capable piers.
There is another interesting possibility.
A subsequent comment published by the Naval Institute suggested Hunters Point Shipyard across San Francisco Bay, noting that the former naval facility retains large dry docks, a major gantry crane and rail infrastructure that could potentially be restored.
So even within the Bay Area, there are multiple potential pieces of the puzzle.
But Mare Island has just become even more interesting
Something has changed since the original 2024 fifth-yard debate.
Mare Island is now being positioned within a much larger private-sector maritime redevelopment effort.
The Nimitz Group owns the Mare Island maritime assets, and in January 2026 it joined with California Forever in proposing that the broader California Delta be designated a Maritime Prosperity Zone. The proposition links Mare Island with a proposed new greenfield shipbuilding complex at Collinsville and a broader regional workforce, technology and industrial ecosystem.
And this week there is an even more tangible development.
JLL announced that it has been retained by The Nimitz Group to reposition the Mare Island Maritime Campus, describing it as approximately 350 acres, two million square feet of existing buildings and four operational dry docks. JLL says the site is the only privately controlled West Coast shipyard with existing infrastructure purpose-built for defense and commercial operations.
That is extraordinary timing.
The Trump memorandum calls for a fifth public Navy Yard.
Mare Island already has naval history, submarine history, waterfront, industrial buildings and operational dry docks.
And a private owner is now actively marketing the property around the growing demand for domestic ship and submarine manufacturing.
That does not mean Mare Island will become the fifth Navy Yard.
But it means it deserves very serious attention.
There is a bigger question about what “fifth Navy Yard” means
The memorandum says the fifth yard should include up to three new dry docks designed and built to hold the range of every current and projected submarine class.
That is a substantial requirement.
Mare Island’s existing infrastructure is an advantage, but the question would be whether the site can accommodate the new dry-dock capacity, security requirements, nuclear-certified infrastructure, workforce and supporting facilities required for a modern submarine maintenance enterprise.
That could lead to an interesting model.
Mare Island doesn’t necessarily have to be the entire answer.
It could be part of the answer.
A modern fifth Navy Yard could potentially combine an existing maritime industrial campus with new dry-dock infrastructure and a broader regional supply chain.
That is exactly why the California Delta proposal is interesting. California Forever and the Nimitz Group are already talking about connecting Mare Island with a much larger new shipbuilding operation, rather than treating the two as competing facilities.
What about the other candidates?
Alameda remains a serious theoretical candidate. The Naval Institute’s analysis argued that its former Naval Air Station provides an opportunity to design a modern facility around the workforce and technology of the Bay Area.
Hunters Point has also been suggested because of its existing maritime infrastructure.
And there are other possibilities along the West Coast and in the Pacific.
Hawaii has an obvious strategic advantage because Pearl Harbor is already central to the Pacific Fleet, although adding a completely new nuclear-capable public yard in Hawaii would present enormous cost, land, workforce and infrastructure challenges.
Alaska and U.S. territories are explicitly within the geographical scope of the memorandum, but their inclusion does not necessarily mean they are likely to win the competition. The language gives the Navy flexibility to consider the Pacific strategically rather than restricting the search to California or Washington.
There is also an argument for looking east.
The Naval Institute’s 2024 analysis identified Sparrows Point in Baltimore as another potential location because of its industrial history, workforce and proximity to the I-95 corridor. But the memorandum’s explicit emphasis on proximity to the Pacific Fleet makes a West Coast solution particularly compelling.
The workforce may ultimately decide it
This is perhaps the most important part of the debate.
You can build a dry dock.
You can build cranes.
You can buy land.
But you cannot manufacture an experienced submarine workforce overnight.
The earlier fifth-yard analysis made exactly this point. It argued that a new shipyard needs to be near a growing metropolitan region capable of attracting young workers, students and professionals. Its proposed locations were Alameda and Baltimore, largely because of their access to major population and talent pools.
That should be taken very seriously.
The fifth Navy Yard isn’t simply a civil-engineering project.
It is a 20- to 50-year workforce project.
The winning location will need welders, electricians, pipefitters, engineers, nuclear specialists, designers, logisticians, project managers, machinists and thousands of people working throughout the surrounding supply chain.
It will need universities.
It will need technical colleges.
It will need housing.
It will need transport.
It will need suppliers.
It will need private industry.
And it will need an industrial culture capable of supporting submarine maintenance for generations.
Which brings us back to the Trump memorandum
The most revealing part of the memorandum may be the combination of the fifth yard, the Component Repair Center and NAVSEA reform.
The administration isn’t treating these as separate problems.
It is trying to address the physical capacity to maintain submarines, the supply chain for submarine components and the organizational processes that govern naval shipbuilding and repair. The memorandum calls for a Component Repair Center with sufficient spare equipment for the Los Angeles, Virginia, Seawolf, Ohio and Columbia classes, alongside the fifth-yard proposal.
That suggests the administration understands something fundamental:
A submarine industrial base is much bigger than a shipyard.
The fifth yard could become the physical anchor of a much larger ecosystem.
And that is why I don’t think the competition should be viewed simply as a search for three dry docks.
The real competition is:
Who can offer America the most complete submarine industrial ecosystem?
Land.
Water.
Dry docks.
Workforce.
Supply chain.
Transport.
Engineering.
Technology.
Repair.
Manufacturing.
Education.
Private capital.
And the ability to expand.
There is no decision yet
This is important.
The memorandum does not select Mare Island, Alameda, Baltimore, Hawaii or anywhere else. It directs the Secretary of War, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, to submit the plan within 120 days. The plan must include site options, dry-dock requirements, financing mechanisms and timelines and resources.
So, the clock is running, but the competition is still open.
And that makes the next few months potentially fascinating.
For the first time in more than eight decades, America is seriously considering where to put another public Navy Yard.
It will not simply be a decision about geography.
It will be a decision about where America wants to build the next generation of its submarine industrial base.
And if the Trump administration is serious about increasing the size of the submarine fleet, repairing the boats already in service and creating enough capacity for the future, the fifth Navy Yard may ultimately become one of the most important industrial decisions of this presidency.
So where will it be?
Mare Island?
Alameda?
Another West Coast location?
Hawaii?
Alaska?
Or somewhere nobody is seriously discussing it yet?
The 120-day clock is running.
Michael Sharpe is CEO of the AUKUS Forum. With a boots-on-the-ground perspective from factory floors across Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, he leads efforts to strengthen industrial collaboration, accelerate capability delivery, and build the AUKUS alliance from the ground up.