I suppose I should at least thank the original poster for getting me to go and read up on icebreakers. This is the second time he's mentioned them, so I decided to get acquainted with the topic.

Upon study, the USCG currently has a much greater icebreaking fleet--and role--in FRESH water icebreaking operations. Primarily, on the Great Lakes, a border we share with Canada, and--according to a 2021 USNI opinion piece (those are paywall protected. I can't link them) by a USCG Lt. jg--one where it is claimed we do more of the overall icebreaking work.

So, given that he was on the subject of Canada when he came out with his remarks, there is reason to believe he was thinking and speaking about icebreaking on the Great Lakes. Of course, he said "big" icebreakers. However, it would be reasonable to question his understanding of a big icebreaker.

We are so "strapped" for icebreakers--fresh and salt water--that "the industry" has for around a decade felt that dual-purpose icebreakers are the solution to our needs. So, it would be important to understand that for about a decade the USCG has been talking about TWO future icebreaker programs: the POLAR icebreaker program, and the ARCTIC PATROL icebreaker program. Important distinction.

The Polar program has been touched on here. This program is underway, and under construction after long delays and cost overruns. These will be heavy icebreakers for polar use.

However, the Arctic Patrol program is nothing more than a concept at this point, and has been for nearly a decade. In fact, I can find only a couple articles on them, neither having much substance since this is currently only talk, not action. These would be the dual-use icebreakers the industry recommends. They would be medium icebreakers with shallow draft, suitable for the Great Lakes, but also able to supplement/assist the Polar breakers, and even replace them in the Summer season.

The backbone of the USCG fresh water icebreaker program currently is a 140-foot vessel. A dual-use replacement would need to be considerably bigger.

It is my belief, after finding all this out, that Trump was likely telegraphing the intention to at least start doing more than talking about the Coast Guard's Arctic Patrol icebreaker idea. They would have been described to him--and everyone else--as big. Certainly bigger than the existing vessels we have in use. We currently have a rag-tag collection of 33 fresh water capable breakers. 40 dedicated dual-use vessels is then an exciting sounding number of replacements, though likely over optimistic.

So, I will go with "free association," especially in light of the fact that most of those posting here are clearly doing the same.