President Donald J. Trump on Friday signed an executive order that reintroduces the name “Department of War” for the Pentagon, a title abandoned more than 75 years ago. The directive, issued at the White House, permits the use of “Department of War” and “Secretary of War” as alternative titles in official communications, ceremonies, public appearances and non-statutory documents.
The Pentagon’s legal designation remains unchanged. Since 1949, under revisions to the National Security Act, the institution has been formally known as the Department of Defense. That name can be altered only by congressional legislation, a point administration officials acknowledged as they emphasized the symbolic nature of the move.
White House statements framed the order as part of a broader effort to restore what Mr. Trump and his advisers describe as a “warrior ethos.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who assumed office earlier this year, endorsed the change and said the new terminology better reflects the military’s role. Within hours of the announcement, Pentagon websites and press materials began referencing the revived title.
The step carries both historical resonance and political undertones. For more than a century and a half, the United States maintained a Department of War, an institution responsible for managing the Army and overseeing military campaigns. Following World War II, President Harry S. Truman pushed for a reorganization to consolidate the armed services under a single command structure, resulting in the creation of the Department of Defense. The shift was intended to project a unified military establishment during the early Cold War era, when Washington’s global responsibilities were rapidly expanding.
Mr. Trump’s action does not reverse that history but reopens a debate over how the United States characterizes its armed forces. Supporters argue that the revival of “War” restores candor, stripping away what they see as euphemistic language. Critics contend it risks inflaming perceptions overseas and signals an embrace of conflict at the expense of diplomacy.
Democratic lawmakers were quick to denounce the order, calling it an unnecessary rebranding exercise that could drain resources from more pressing needs, such as supporting service members and modernizing equipment. Analysts noted that even without statutory force, the rebranding will require adjustments to signage, stationery and public materials, though officials have not provided detailed cost estimates.
The announcement also drew a mixed response from within the military itself. Some officers welcomed the return to historic language, describing it as a morale boost and a clear expression of mission. Others expressed concern that the terminology could politicize the institution or oversimplify its responsibilities. Outside observers highlighted the broader implications, warning that adopting “War” in official discourse could reinforce adversarial narratives abroad, particularly at a time of heightened tensions in Eastern Europe and the South China Sea.
0 Comments