If you are talking about the battleship, she was taken out of mothballs in 2006, when she became a museum ship. I have not heard anything about Wisconsin going into dry dock. I know New Jersey was in dry dock in the spring of 2024. Wisconsin is owned by the city of Norfolk which operates her as a museum

Periodically, the organisations that own and operate museums ships will take their ships into dry dock to get repainted and clean up any corrosion. Even though there is a clause in the contract that the Navy can reclaim museum ships and a couple of months back I know Trump mentioned something about wanting to see the US operate battleships.

For the sake of argument, lets say Trmps statements about battleships is not just Trump being Trump and running off at the mouth and is in fact based on actual discussions with-in the department of the Navy. That is no reason to assume that any musem ship is going to get reactivated.

Any serious discussion wound need to go through Congress, as they set the budget. Now for the sake of argument let’s say Trump literally means bringing back big-gunned battleships there is still no reason to assume he is thinking about reactivating any museum.

First there is the issue of shells. From my understanding the US military no longer has any 16-inch shells. If this is the case then there is no reason to make the new guns compatible with the old 16-inch guns. Even if there are shiploads of old shells lying around, I’d still be reluctant to reactivate the Iowas.

Another possibility is that the term battleship is being kicked around because the Department of the Navy is considering a new class of warships that would fill the same mission set. In this case it would a variant of the arsenal ship.

The aresnal ship was proposed in the late 1980s/90s they were designed to carry over 500 cruise missiles. A lot of depictions show the hull number 72 becuse the advocates saw them as at least the spritual successors to the battleship. In terms of size the closest thing to a modern battleship would be the Kirov-class battlecruisers (Russian designation Sea Eagle-class nuclear powered heavy guided missile curisers)

A lot of people have brought up the engines which I ignored because I think guns alone and the cost of the shells would be reason not to reactivate them.

As others in the comments have pointed out the engines are 80 years old and the US Navy hasn’t operated operated oil fired steam turbines since 2015. I’ll also point out that when the Iowas were reactivated in the 1980s the US Navy had to strip parts off musem ships to get them operational.

You don’t have that option so you would have to rebuild replacement parts. So if these hypothetical super 16-inch shells could actually get built then it would be cheaper to build new battleships which feature modern engines (probably something from an LHA) a modern gun system that uses automation to reduce the crew size, as well as a new defensive suite.