Executive Order and Historical Reversion
President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on Friday directing the Department of Defense to adopt "Department of War" as a secondary title, reverting to the agency’s pre-1949 name . The order authorizes Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and subordinate officials to use designations like "Secretary of War" in official communications, marking a symbolic shift to emphasize what Trump calls a "warrior ethos" . The change echoes the agency’s historical identity under figures like Henry Knox and George Marshall, though it requires congressional approval for permanent implementation.
Political and Financial Implications
The renaming effort faces criticism for its potential cost and perceived provocation. Democrats note that similar initiatives, like the Biden-era base renaming project, cost $39 million, while updating global Pentagon assets could reach billions. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) condemned the move as a political stunt, arguing funds should support military families or conflict prevention. Despite Republican congressional majorities, legal scholars emphasize that Trump lacks authority to unilaterally rename executive departments without legislative action.
Ideological Motivations and Global Perceptions
Trump and Hegseth defend the change as a rejection of "political correctness," citing World War victories under the "War Department" title. Hegseth stated the goal is to prioritize "lethality on the enemy" over bureaucratic caution. However, historians note the 1949 renaming reflected Cold War deterrence strategy, not weakness. The move coincides with heightened global tensions, including U.S. deployments near Venezuela and Chinese military displays, potentially amplifying perceptions of American aggression.
Administration Precedents and Reactions
This effort aligns with Trump’s broader pattern of symbolic rebranding, including renaming the Gulf of Mexico and reversing base name changes. Internal supporters like FBI Director Kash Patel have long used "War Department" references, viewing it as a tribute to institutional heritage. Critics warn the change could undermine diplomatic credibility and alienate allies, while proponents argue it projects strength in an era of strategic competition.