That's just a marketing name this administration is using.
The POTUS doesn't have the authority to rename the Dept. of Defense, as it was created by the Congress and would require both the House and the Senate to rename it.
I can't. It appears to be just "look fierce", or "make it so the public won't complain when we invade somebody". As if the problem with invading, say, Canada was ever that it was called "Department of Defense".
> The Founders chose this name to signal our strength and resolve to the world. The name “Department of War,” more than the current “Department of Defense,” ensures peace through strength, as it demonstrates our ability and willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our Nation at a moment’s notice, not just to defend. This name sharpens the Department’s focus on our own national interest and our adversaries’ focus on our willingness and availability to wage war to secure what is ours.
> The Founders chose this name to signal our strength and resolve to the world.
Meanwhile the folks that had just finished winning WW2 chose "Department of Defence". From Tom Nichols (a now-retired prof at the US Naval War College):
> It is almost impossible to overstate the inanity of this move. The United States has a Department of Defense for a reason. It was called the “War” Department until 1947, when the dictates of a new and more dangerous world required the creation of a much larger military organization than any in American history. Harry Truman and the American leaders who destroyed the Axis, and who now were facing the Soviet empire, realized that national security had become a larger undertaking than the previous American tradition of moving, as needed, between discrete conditions of “war” and “peace.”
> These leaders understood that America could no longer afford the isolationist luxury of militarizing itself during times of threat and then making soldiers train with wooden sticks when the storm clouds passed. Now, they knew, the security of the country would be a daily undertaking, a matter of ongoing national defense, in which the actual exercise of military force would be only part of preserving the freedom and independence of the United States and its allies.
> That name was good enough for Truman, who served in combat in World War I and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. And it was good enough for President Dwight Eisenhower, the former supreme allied commander, who oversaw the largest military operations ever undertaken in all of human history.
> It was also good enough for John F. Kennedy, who served his country as a naval officer and nearly got killed during World War II. It was good enough for Lyndon B. Johnson, who won the Silver Star for his military service, and then, as commander in chief, embroiled the United States in a decade-long war in Southeast Asia. It was good enough for Naval Reserve officer Richard Nixon, who took over Johnson’s war and unleashed the fury of American bombers overseas. It was good enough for Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, both former Navy officers. It was good enough for Ronald Reagan, a former Army officer who as president pushed through a huge program of military expansion and modernization. It was good enough for his successor, George H. W. Bush, a decorated naval aviator who was shot down during combat in the Pacific.
* Ibid
And Cullen Roche:
> I like Department of War.
> But only if we change the Fed to Bigly Bank and Dept of Treasury to Ministry of Moolah.
The only people who would notice the name change are people in the US, not its enemies. The previous name clearly hasn't stopped the US from initiating wars, nor would other countries notice the difference.
I'm pretty sure China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran, and Venezuela noticed, and noticed hard.
After all we noticed Venezuela's Jets encroaching on our navel vessels, and the China exhibition of might and technology w/ sidecars of Russia, N. Korea, and India. And Iran's distributed re-building post their nuclear facility setbacks.
It was named the DoD under Truman, who served in WW1 and was involved (at the tail end) of WW2 and the initial stages of the Cold War. After which the following Presidents had no problem with it Eisenhower (SCHAEF), JFK (WW2 veteran; Purple Heart), LBJ (WW2 veteran; Silver Star), Nixon (WW2 veteran), Ford and Carter and Bush 41 (veterans).
> The White House is yet to say how much a rebrand would cost, but US media expect a billion-dollar price tag for the overhaul of hundreds of agencies, emblems, email addresses and uniforms.
Yeah, gotta love how they're "eliminating waste and saving taxpayer dollars" by actively wasting taxpayer dollars on the frivolous whims of yet another geriatric lunatic and his many petty little tinfoil hat crusades.
Their statements make it clear it’s about projecting the image of strength – c.f. Hegseth talking about winning wars – but I would say it’s more honest. The last time our ability to defend the mainland was really in question was the civil war, so calling it the department of war is more accurately reflecting the more voluntary nature of conflict since then.
The best I could posit was to further the Trump plan to force US allies and not allies to team up together, isolating America from the taint of globalism.
For a more informed opinion, US Historian Heather Cox Richardson had much to say; an excerpt being:
…
In 1949, Congress replaced the National Military Establishment name, whose initials sounded unfortunately like “enemy,” with Department of Defense. The new name emphasized that the Allied Powers of World War II would join together to focus on deterring wars by standing against offensive wars launched by big countries against their smaller neighbors. Although Trump told West Point graduates this year that “[t]he military's job is to dominate any foe and annihilate any threat to America, anywhere, anytime, and any place,” in fact, the stated mission of the Department of Defense is “to provide the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation’s security.”
…
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has pushed the change because he sees it as part of his campaign to spread a “warrior ethos” at the Pentagon. Today he said the name change was part of “restoring intentionality to the use of force…. We’re going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality, violent effect, not politically correct. We’re going to raise up warriors, not just defenders. So this War Department, Mr. President, just like America, is back.”
In 1947, when the country dropped the “War Department” name, the chief of staff of the U.S. Army—the highest-ranking officer on active duty—was five-star general Dwight D. Eisenhower. It is unusual for anyone to suggest that Eisenhower, who led the Allied troops in World War II, was insufficiently committed to military strength. Indeed, the men who changed the name to “Defense Department” and tried to create a rules-based international order did so precisely because war was not a game to them. Having seen the carnage of war not just on the battlefield but among civilians who faced firebombing, death camps, homelessness, starvation, and the obscenity of atomic weapons, they hoped to find a way to make sure insecure, power-hungry men could not start another war easily.
…
Renaming like this is kind of dumb. Historically, Department of War governed the US Army. This rename does an injustice to the US Navy, Air Force and Space Force, lumping them all under "war". It's pretty clearly done on the whim of Trump, which is no way to run a republic.
Admitting that would ruin the facade, so there will be some advanced hermeneutics pushed to justify the rename.
Up next: rebranding Basic Training to "Alpha Male Bootcamp of Virility", brought to you by UFC and Bluechew.
All that's left now is to rename the Nobel peace prize:
The Nobel war prize.
That's just a marketing name this administration is using.
The POTUS doesn't have the authority to rename the Dept. of Defense, as it was created by the Congress and would require both the House and the Senate to rename it.
Because Department of pillage and plunder will be too obvious.
actually...
I thought this was a joke. Until I started reading the other comments. I still think it's a joke.
Will subdomains be added as conflicts occur?
iran.war.gov
venezuela.war.gov
drugs.war.gov
nato.war.gov
:) :) :)
Come on, they'll prefer sub directories, so the "slash" :)
war.gov/iran
war.gov/venezuela
They prefer HEADers to be honest.
Can anyone steelman a reason for this rename?
I can't. It appears to be just "look fierce", or "make it so the public won't complain when we invade somebody". As if the problem with invading, say, Canada was ever that it was called "Department of Defense".
This is the explanation from the White House:
> The Founders chose this name to signal our strength and resolve to the world. The name “Department of War,” more than the current “Department of Defense,” ensures peace through strength, as it demonstrates our ability and willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our Nation at a moment’s notice, not just to defend. This name sharpens the Department’s focus on our own national interest and our adversaries’ focus on our willingness and availability to wage war to secure what is ours.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest...
> The Founders chose this name to signal our strength and resolve to the world.
Meanwhile the folks that had just finished winning WW2 chose "Department of Defence". From Tom Nichols (a now-retired prof at the US Naval War College):
> It is almost impossible to overstate the inanity of this move. The United States has a Department of Defense for a reason. It was called the “War” Department until 1947, when the dictates of a new and more dangerous world required the creation of a much larger military organization than any in American history. Harry Truman and the American leaders who destroyed the Axis, and who now were facing the Soviet empire, realized that national security had become a larger undertaking than the previous American tradition of moving, as needed, between discrete conditions of “war” and “peace.”
> These leaders understood that America could no longer afford the isolationist luxury of militarizing itself during times of threat and then making soldiers train with wooden sticks when the storm clouds passed. Now, they knew, the security of the country would be a daily undertaking, a matter of ongoing national defense, in which the actual exercise of military force would be only part of preserving the freedom and independence of the United States and its allies.
* https://archive.today/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arch...
And on previous presidents opinion of the name:
> That name was good enough for Truman, who served in combat in World War I and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. And it was good enough for President Dwight Eisenhower, the former supreme allied commander, who oversaw the largest military operations ever undertaken in all of human history.
> It was also good enough for John F. Kennedy, who served his country as a naval officer and nearly got killed during World War II. It was good enough for Lyndon B. Johnson, who won the Silver Star for his military service, and then, as commander in chief, embroiled the United States in a decade-long war in Southeast Asia. It was good enough for Naval Reserve officer Richard Nixon, who took over Johnson’s war and unleashed the fury of American bombers overseas. It was good enough for Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, both former Navy officers. It was good enough for Ronald Reagan, a former Army officer who as president pushed through a huge program of military expansion and modernization. It was good enough for his successor, George H. W. Bush, a decorated naval aviator who was shot down during combat in the Pacific.
* Ibid
And Cullen Roche:
> I like Department of War.
> But only if we change the Fed to Bigly Bank and Dept of Treasury to Ministry of Moolah.
* https://twitter.com/cullenroche/status/1964068303715913843#m
Cullen Roche does not belong anywhere near that list
> Cullen Roche does not belong anywhere near that list
I threw him in because his second paragraph is a hoot.
The name doesn't ensure anything. But all right, it's intended (at face value) to say "we will attack, not just defend". Interesting.
The only people who would notice the name change are people in the US, not its enemies. The previous name clearly hasn't stopped the US from initiating wars, nor would other countries notice the difference.
I'm pretty sure China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran, and Venezuela noticed, and noticed hard.
After all we noticed Venezuela's Jets encroaching on our navel vessels, and the China exhibition of might and technology w/ sidecars of Russia, N. Korea, and India. And Iran's distributed re-building post their nuclear facility setbacks.
> I'm pretty sure China, Russia, N. Korea, Iran, and Venezuela noticed, and noticed hard.
LOL. I'm sure they also noticed that the VP and SECDEF did operational planning on commercial phones:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_group...
It was named the DoD under Truman, who served in WW1 and was involved (at the tail end) of WW2 and the initial stages of the Cold War. After which the following Presidents had no problem with it Eisenhower (SCHAEF), JFK (WW2 veteran; Purple Heart), LBJ (WW2 veteran; Silver Star), Nixon (WW2 veteran), Ford and Carter and Bush 41 (veterans).
This is immature posturing.
In another word, performative
It diverts the attention of the public from other notable topics.
> The White House is yet to say how much a rebrand would cost, but US media expect a billion-dollar price tag for the overhaul of hundreds of agencies, emblems, email addresses and uniforms.
--BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgr9r4qr0ppo
Just another way to rob the country.
One billion for a childish change name. Great use of public money.
> "Just another way to rob the country."
Yeah, gotta love how they're "eliminating waste and saving taxpayer dollars" by actively wasting taxpayer dollars on the frivolous whims of yet another geriatric lunatic and his many petty little tinfoil hat crusades.
This name is much more accurate. The US isn't invaded, they invade.
Their statements make it clear it’s about projecting the image of strength – c.f. Hegseth talking about winning wars – but I would say it’s more honest. The last time our ability to defend the mainland was really in question was the civil war, so calling it the department of war is more accurately reflecting the more voluntary nature of conflict since then.
Nothin projects strength like groveling "Vladimir, STOP!" and constant TACOs.
I'm guessing it's the response to the recent Chinese military expression of might celebrating the new "axis of evil"
You got me.
The best I could posit was to further the Trump plan to force US allies and not allies to team up together, isolating America from the taint of globalism.
For a more informed opinion, US Historian Heather Cox Richardson had much to say; an excerpt being:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-5-2025It's worth revisiting a prime example of day drinker Hegseth personally demonstrating "restoring intentionality to the use of force…"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMrVdFnjEjs
Renaming like this is kind of dumb. Historically, Department of War governed the US Army. This rename does an injustice to the US Navy, Air Force and Space Force, lumping them all under "war". It's pretty clearly done on the whim of Trump, which is no way to run a republic.
Admitting that would ruin the facade, so there will be some advanced hermeneutics pushed to justify the rename.
Ministry of Silly Pocket Squares