From the Department of Defense to the Department of War Implications and Messages of Changing the Name of the US Military
In early September, US President Donald Trump sparked widespread domestic and international controversy after signing an executive order renaming the US Department of Defense to the "Department of War." This historical name has been associated with the military since its inception in 1789 until it was changed after World War II under the National Security Act of 1947, passed by President Harry Truman. Although the executive order does not have the force of law, as a formal name change requires legislation passed by Congress, the Trump administration has already used the new term in internal correspondence and official signage, including placing a prominent sign at the entrance to the Pentagon bearing the phrase "War Room" in gold. This change was not merely a cosmetic change in name; rather, it was a step charged with political and intellectual symbolism, reopening a profound debate about the identity of American power, the nature of its military doctrine, and the limits of overlap between political discourse and institutional reality in a period marked by domestic polarization and international turmoil.
Back in History: From the War Department to the Department of Defense
Historically, the American military establishment has been known since its founding under George Washington as the War Department, responsible for organizing and managing the land forces, while the separate Department of the Navy managed the naval fleet. This division persisted throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, reflecting the nature of the wars fought by the United States, both as part of its westward expansion and in its battles against foreign powers such as Britain and Spain. In 1947, with the end of World War II and the rise of the United States as a superpower, the military system was restructured under the National Security Act. The War Department and the Department of the Navy were merged into a unified framework called the "Department of Defense," with the Air Force being created as an independent branch. The goal at the time was for the new name to reflect a different philosophy: one based on deterrence, protection, and maintaining international balance, rather than waging direct wars under the guise of attack or conquest.
However, Trump believes that this historical shift was not merely a reorganization, but rather the beginning of a strategic and bureaucratic decline that weakened the "warrior" spirit of the military establishment. In his speech signing the resolution, he invoked a series of wars the United States had entered without achieving clear victory, from the Korean War to Vietnam, through Iraq and Afghanistan. He argued that since the name change, the military establishment has been fighting "endless wars" without the ability to resolve the conflict. In this sense, reviving the name "Department of War" represents—in the view of Trump and his supporters—a return to the original logic of the military as a tool for fighting and achieving victory, rather than as a tool for crisis management or engaging in protracted conflicts with no tangible outcomes.
The Political Symbolism of the Naming
Trump's move reveals a deep awareness of the power of linguistic symbols in shaping doctrine and behavior. Words are not merely neutral descriptions; they carry connotations that translate into mental perceptions and practical policies. For Trump's supporters, the return to "Department of War" expresses clarity and frankness in defining the military's role, moving away from the "watered-down language" that suggests the United States is on the defensive. This frankness, they argue, restores the concept of force-based deterrence and sends a deterrent message to adversaries that the US military exists to fight and win, not to be run like a hesitant bureaucracy.
However, opponents argue that the militarization of political language is not merely a symbolic change, but a step that carries profound political and intellectual risks. The new designation could be universally understood as a declaration of aggressive intent, especially in a world experiencing explosive crises from Ukraine to the South China Sea and the Middle East. It could also be exploited by the United States' adversaries to reinforce the image of a "warlike empire" that seeks only hegemony by force. This critical reading warns that reviving the "War Department" designation could contribute to undermining the moral legitimacy that Washington has sought for decades to build as a "defender of the international order."
Domestic Political Dimensions: Trump and the "Madman" Theory
On the domestic front, this move cannot be separated from Trump's broader political orientations. Since returning to the White House, he has been keen to reshape state institutions with a discourse that challenges bureaucratic and political norms. According to analysis by major newspapers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times, the renaming move is not read as an administrative decision, but rather as a political message with an electoral and populist dimension. It seeks to evoke the "heroic past" in American popular memory and to cement Trump's image as a "strong" president unafraid of clashing with the traditional political establishment.
Some have likened this move to what is known in political literature as the "Madman Theory," adopted by President Richard Nixon during the Cold War. This theory portrays the president as someone willing to make extreme and unexpected decisions, thus intimidating opponents into retreating. Similarly, Trump employs this linguistic symbolism to send messages of strength abroad while simultaneously mobilizing domestically by stirring feelings of nostalgia and national pride among his base.
A Battle in Congress: The Limits of the Executive Order
Despite the uproar over Trump's decision, the executive order does not have the force of law to officially change the name of the Department of Defense. That would require congressional legislation, which seems unlikely given the sharp division between Republicans and Democrats. Democratic opponents described the move as "political theater," arguing that what matters most is not the name of the department, but rather the preservation of a military institution subject to the Constitution and operating beyond partisan calculations. Senator Jack Reed, for example, emphasized that the military must remain a professional institution with no room for symbolic bargaining.
Even in practice, any complete change, including redesigning official logos, updating documents, modifying websites, and reprinting millions of copies of administrative regulations and rules, could cost billions of dollars. This raises further controversy about the merits of spending huge resources on a symbolic change at a time when the country is facing pressing economic and social challenges.
External Implications: Between Deterrence and Isolation
In the external dimension, the move poses a real dilemma between strengthening deterrence on the one hand and deepening isolation on the other. Trump supporters believe the new designation sends a deterrent message to adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran that the United States is no longer ashamed to define itself as a war power. But critics warn that this language could complicate Washington's relations with its European and Asian allies, who believe the current situation requires calm and balance rather than rhetorical escalation. The move could also be used by Russian or Chinese propaganda to portray the United States as an aggressive state that legitimizes war as an official language of its policies.
Global Comparisons: The Militarization of Symbols in Russia and China
To understand the profound symbolic dimension of this move, it can be compared to the experiences of other countries that have used language as a political tool. In Russia, the symbols of "Great Motherland" and "Great Patriotic War" have been reclaimed to bolster the Kremlin's legitimacy and rally the public behind an expansionist policy in Ukraine. In China, the Communist Party has relied on terms such as "national rejuvenation" and "liberation army" to justify a massive military modernization that reflects an offensive doctrine disguised as a defensive one. This demonstrates that the use of linguistic symbols in the military sphere is not merely a luxury, but rather a deliberate strategy to shape collective consciousness and send deterrent messages at home and abroad. Thus, Trump's renaming of the Department of Defense to the "War Department" aligns with this global pattern of militarizing language as an instrument of power.
Between Military Identity and Global Diplomacy
This move reveals the renewed tension within the identity of the United States, and whether it embraces a war power and military hegemony based on the logic of intervention and deterrence, or a defense and protection force for the international order as a guarantor of stability and a seeker of alliances. This debate has accompanied Washington since its rise after World War I, and became more pronounced during the Cold War, when it combined nuclear deterrence and military interventions on the one hand, and diplomacy, the Marshall Plan, and NATO on the other.
Renaming the Department of Defense to the "War Department" symbolically tilts the balance in favor of hard power, sending a message that Washington prefers direct confrontation over consensus-building. This may worry European and Asian allies, who see it as a guarantor of stability rather than a driver of escalation. This shift also revives the debate about the United States' "imperial identity," weakening the veneer of moral legitimacy that rested on the slogans of "protecting democracy" and "defending freedom," and projecting its image as an overt war power.
Thus, the move is not merely symbolic; it may undermine America's diplomatic appeal and limit its ability to build broad alliances, while giving its adversaries, such as China and Russia, additional space to portray it as an aggressive power seeking to impose hegemony rather than protect international stability.
Ultimately, Trump's move has revealed a deeper conflict over the nature of America's role in the twenty-first century. For his supporters, it represents a return to clarity, decisiveness, and a restoration of the warrior spirit. For his critics, it represents a dangerous rhetorical escalation that further militarizes American policy and threatens to isolate the United States from its allies. Between these two assessments, the question remains: Will the term "Department of War" become entrenched as part of the American military establishment's future identity, or will it quickly fade away with the end of Trump's term, remaining merely a symbolic stop on a turbulent and polarized political trajectory?