Dear Editor,
On September 5, President Trump signed an executive order that gives a new “secondary name” to our Defense Department, renaming it the Department of War. The stated aim is to better project strength and resolve, reflecting the current administration’s new “wartime ethos” being instilled throughout our armed forces.
Since the responsibility for creating executive departments rests with the U.S. Congress, the name change is technically unofficial. Yet Trump’s executive order allows Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to use the titles of Secretary of War and Department of War in official government communications and correspondence, while all executive departments and agencies are required to recognize the change.
President Trump has further instructed Secretary Hegseth to recommend legislative actions that would result in permanently renaming the DOD as the U.S. Department of War. Hegseth has said, “It’s not about renaming... It’s restoring intentionality to the use of force.”
The Trump administration has not provided a cost estimate for updating references throughout the government, but the cost of changing signage, official documentation, and other assets may reach $1 billion. Some critics feel that money would be better spent supporting military families or employing additional diplomats, whose role is to prevent conflicts from starting.
The original Department of War was established in 1789. It was dissolved in 1947 following WWII and subsequently reconstituted by Congress as the Department of Defense in 1949 — a name intended to signal the U.S. priority of both defending itself and preventing wars in the emerging nuclear age. For many, including myself, Trump's return to the historic original name only demonstrates a willingness to engage in battle and could be construed by enemy nations as provocative.
Even though Trump has already demonstrated an inclination for rebranding through controversial name changes — such as his executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America — the use of the Department of War as a name that projects strength signals to the world, a U.S. military posture of war-fighting proclivity amidst an increasingly tense global environment, is it any coincidence that the name change came on the heels of China’s September 3 massive military parade, in which new weapons and military hardware were unveiled?
I’m not alone in my frustration over what is perceived as the administration’s cosmetic change that is more a public-relations gesture than a substantive step that serves national security.
The inherent nature of the U.S., the essential principle on which America was founded, and our true identity remain one of individual liberty. Our consistent history of defending those rights for all peoples is well established and needs no emphasis in the form of vexing word usage.
“Peace through strength” has served as our national security policy for years. We must remain clear that such a policy tenet exists on a slippery slope whereby a misguided step can result in the unintended application of military might.
Peter Wibell, Rutledge