The Best Offense is a Good Defense: Why the “Department of Defense” Should Not Become the “Department of War”

My former middle school was built to serve a dual purpose. Under the unassuming classrooms stood a bomb shelter, equipped with rations and automatic-shutting doors for community members to seek refuge in the event of a nuclear attack. Today, the school’s hidden features are merely fun facts that students learn as they study the Cold War. 

Another relic of that time was the “War Department,” the name of the department that led our national defense since its establishment in 1789. Emerging from the Second World War as the world’s first ever nuclear power, the United States stood with an unprecedented level of influence. President Harry S. Truman reflected this shift in signing the National Security Act of 1947, which consolidated the War Department and the Department of the Navy under a single “National Military Establishment.” Truman later transformed the structure into the “Department of Defense” (DOD) under the National Security Act Amendments of 1949, explaining that the restructuring “means using our experience in World War II for the peace of the world.”

The DOD remained unchanged until last month, when President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to establish a secondary title for the agency: the “Department of War.” Under the Order, the executive branch will use this secondary title in all internal and external communications. President Trump justified this decision, arguing, “We want to be defensive, but we want to be offensive, too, if we have to be.” To make the change official, Senators Rick Scott and Mike Lee introduced the Department of War Restoration Act with a companion bill in the House sponsored by Congressman Greg Steube. Considering the DOD’s history and the many consequences of its renaming, there are three core reasons for the Pentagon to keep its current name.

1. Deterrence and Diplomacy

The US military experienced success under the “War Department,” but the country has avoided widespread international conflict under the DOD. Rising authoritarian powers only emphasize the power of diplomacy. As former US Ambassador to China R. Nicholas Burns made clear: “This is a backward-looking decision.” Coining a “Department of War” promotes authoritarian messages on the world stage, especially China’s claims that the US is an international instigator while China is a peacemaker. Right now is an especially inopportune time for the US to promote aggression between nuclear powers, as an April report from the Congressional Research Service highlighted concerns over Chinese nuclear proliferation and supply to its allies. 

President Trump claimed through his recent campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize that he knows diplomacy mitigates high-stakes international threats. If President Trump truly values diplomacy, he should recognize how the DOD’s name represents an era of foreign policy that has prevented a third world war. 

2.  Consistency

Wars are not bound by domestic military shifts, as seen from President Truman to President Eisenhower in the Korean War and the War in Afghanistan from President Bush to President Biden. Ensuring that military relations function separately from domestic politics ensures military operations are not reliant on certain parties or politicians, leaving primary power with the people in both peace and war. DOD policy reflects this consistency through policies prohibiting partisan political activity. While presidents are permitted to appoint their own Joint Chiefs of Staff, their terms often span presidents to promote consistency in their apolitical posts. President Trump’s decision to fire the former chairman, General C.Q. Brown, threatened this precedent, and changing the name of the DOD would only promote additional inconsistency that erodes the military independence and preparedness tradition. 

3. Cost

The proposed name change has a high price tag for American taxpayers. When asked how much the change costs, Trump responded, “Not a lot. We know how to rebrand without going crazy.” A 2022 report issued by the Naming Commission to Congress estimated that changing the names of military assets on only nine Army bases and three Navy ships would cost approximately $62.5 million. When scaling this change to the over 700,000 facilities under the DOD, some estimate the rebrand would cost billions. 

Rather than going toward stationary or napkins, the $1 billion could go toward the underfunded projects that help our servicemembers. Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, including Senator Tammy Duckworth, echoed this sentiment. Congress passed the Fiscal Year 2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Funding Bill in June, but some lawmakers expressed frustration over military construction being underfunded by approximately $1 billion. If these funds were not approved to maintain military facilities, the cost cannot justify cosmetic changes. 

Renaming the DOD is costly to taxpayers, military tradition, and the US’s reputation abroad. Instead of unnecessarily draining resources and instigating conflict, Congress members should vote against the Department of War Restoration Act and recommit funds toward a military that not only is a global powerhouse but also successfully maintains peace.