On September 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that sent ripples through Washington and beyond: the United States Department of Defense would officially revert to its historic name, the Department of War. The move, which Trump had teased for months, instantly reignited debates about American military identity, the power of the presidency, and the symbolism of words in the nation’s most consequential institutions.
According to a White House statement reported by KPFA, Trump’s executive order marks a return to the department’s original moniker, first established by George Washington in August 1789. For over 150 years, the Department of War oversaw the nation’s military campaigns, from the War of 1812 and the Civil War to conflicts with Spain, Mexico, and Native American nations. Its first secretary, Henry Knox, was a Revolutionary War commander and had served as war secretary even before the Constitution was ratified.
But why the change now? Trump, never one to shy away from controversy, has argued that the term “defense” is, in his words, “too politically correct.” He’s been quoted as saying the War Department “just sounded better,” and, during remarks in August, pointed to America’s military victories during the era when the department bore its original name. “I’m sure Congress will go along if we need that,” Trump said at the time, adding, “I don’t think we even need that.”
The last time the department’s name changed was in 1949, when President Harry S. Truman signed amendments to the National Security Act. That legislation, as detailed by the Truman Library Institute and reported by The New York Times, merged the Navy, War Department, and the newly independent Air Force under a single umbrella: the National Military Establishment, with a civilian secretary of defense at the helm. Just two years later, the establishment was renamed the Department of Defense, reflecting a new era—one defined by the dawn of nuclear weapons, the Cold War, and a desire to project a message of national security rather than aggression.
Richard H. Kohn, a professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a historian of the U.S. military, explained the rationale behind the 1949 shift. “The decision was definitely not about political correctness,” Kohn told The New York Times. “It was to communicate to America’s adversaries and the rest of the world that America was not about making war but defending the United States, and saying that if that requires war, there are four major armed services.” The new name signaled a commitment to deterrence and stability in a world suddenly overshadowed by the threat of nuclear conflict.
Trump’s executive order is not without legal and political complications. Jamal Greene, a professor at Columbia Law School, noted before the announcement that it’s unclear whether the president can unilaterally rename the department. “Acts of Congress established the Department of Defense and the title of secretary of defense,” Greene pointed out, suggesting that Trump’s executive order might not take effect immediately—or at all—without legislative backing. Trump, for his part, has remained confident that the change will stick, but the question is likely to land in the courts or on Capitol Hill before the dust settles.
This isn’t the first time Trump has used executive orders to alter the nation’s nomenclature. Earlier in January 2025, he signed an order declaring that the Gulf of Mexico would henceforth be called the Gulf of America, a move that left some Democrats in a bind. As legal experts told The New York Times, contesting such a change could risk being painted as unpatriotic, even if the legal grounds for such an order are shaky at best.
While the headline-grabbing name change dominated national discourse, other significant stories unfolded on September 5. A United Nations report, highlighted by KPFA, warned that wildfire air pollution—a problem made worse by climate change—is an escalating threat to public health. The report’s findings come amid a year marked by devastating fires across North America, Europe, and Australia, with scientists stressing that rising global temperatures and prolonged droughts have created tinderbox conditions in many regions.
Meanwhile, in Sacramento, healthcare workers staged protests outside Sutter Health facilities, decrying what they called chronic short staffing and soaring executive pay. The protesters, as reported by KPFA, demanded better working conditions and fairer compensation, arguing that patient care is suffering while top executives see their salaries balloon. The demonstration reflects a broader national trend of labor unrest in the healthcare sector, where burnout and resource shortages have been exacerbated by the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On the legislative front, lawmakers passed a measure designed to protect immigrant families: schools will now be required to warn parents if their campuses are targeted by immigration enforcement. Supporters of the bill, according to KPFA, say it’s a necessary safeguard for vulnerable students and families, particularly in an era of heightened immigration crackdowns. Critics, however, argue that the measure could hinder law enforcement efforts and create administrative headaches for already overburdened schools.
Internationally, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on three leading Palestinian human rights organizations. The move, reported by KPFA, came in response to the groups’ support for an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza. The sanctions have drawn condemnation from human rights advocates, who argue that the U.S. is stifling legitimate efforts to document and address potential violations of international law. Supporters of the sanctions counter that the targeted groups have ties to organizations the U.S. considers hostile or problematic, and that the investigation is politically motivated.
Amid the day’s political and social tumult, September 5 also marked International Day of Charity, established in honor of Mother Teresa’s death anniversary. The day serves as a reminder of the importance of compassion and service, even as headlines are dominated by conflict, controversy, and division.
As the country digests the implications of President Trump’s executive order, the debate over the Department of War’s resurrection is likely to intensify. Will Congress act to affirm or block the change? Will the courts weigh in? And what message does the new name send—to America’s allies, adversaries, and citizens? For now, the renaming stands as both a nod to the nation’s martial past and a lightning rod for the ongoing struggle over what, exactly, America stands for in the world.
