On September 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order authorizing the Department of Defense to adopt the secondary title "Department of War" in official correspondence, public communications, ceremonial contexts, and non-statutory documents. The move, which the Trump administration frames as a return to a more assertive military posture, has sparked swift reaction across Washington, igniting a heated debate over symbolism, cost, and the deeper meaning of American militarism.
Within days, the Pentagon’s website, social media accounts, and even some of its physical signage were updated to reflect the new moniker. Secretary of War plaques now hang in the halls of the Pentagon, a visual reminder of the administration's push to evoke a more combative era in U.S. military history. According to Stars and Stripes, the Defense Department has not yet provided a cost estimate for the rebranding, but the scope is broad: updating titles, forms, communications, signage, branding, ceremonial materials, and digital infrastructure. The experience of the Biden administration’s $60 million initiative to rename military bases honoring Confederates looms large as a cautionary tale.
Senate Democrats have wasted little time in challenging the move. On September 23, a group of ten senators, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, sent a letter to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) demanding a formal cost assessment. “Given the Trump administration’s repeated emphasis on fiscal restraint … this symbolic renaming is both wasteful and hypocritical,” the senators wrote, as reported by Stars and Stripes. They argued that the renaming “risks confusion, redundancy, and unnecessary cost expenditure,” and contradicts the administration’s stated focus on minimizing federal spending. Their letter asks the CBO to tally not only the immediate costs but also any anticipated downstream expenses.
“This analysis will help Congress evaluate the fiscal implications of symbolic executive actions and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and effectively,” the senators added. The lawmakers’ concerns extend beyond dollars and cents; they warn that introducing an unofficial designation for the department could create confusion in both domestic and international communications, muddying the waters at a time when clarity is crucial.
For now, the statutory name of the Department of Defense remains unchanged. Making the shift to "Department of War" official in law would require an act of Congress. Several Republican lawmakers are eager to take that step. Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah introduced legislation this month to make the name change permanent, while Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., offered a similar proposal as an amendment to the House’s annual defense policy bill. However, the House Rules Committee declined to give Steube’s amendment a vote on the House floor, according to Stars and Stripes.
The rebranding has drawn a chorus of criticism from commentators and veterans alike. In a pointed essay for The Nation, critics described the move as “symbolic and unlikely to address underlying issues of militarism, strategic failures, and excessive military spending, which has reached over a trillion dollars yearly.” The article notes that President Trump’s rhetoric around the renaming—suggesting that America must have an offensive military and referencing an era of military victories—invokes a nostalgia for World War II, but ignores the sobering record of U.S. military involvement since 1945.
“Quick: Name one clear triumph in a meaningful war for the United States since 1945,” the piece challenges, citing Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as conflicts without decisive victories. The critique goes further, arguing that simply rebranding the Pentagon will not fix what it calls “wanton immorality and strategic stupidity.” The author points to President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell Address, which famously warned against the growing influence of the military-industrial complex, and laments the continued expansion of what is described as a “war state.”
Supporters of the change argue that the new name reflects a more honest appraisal of America’s global posture. President Trump, in his executive order, stated that the move is “a critical step in returning to a time when America was always winning.” The symbolism, they say, is about projecting strength and clarity to both allies and adversaries. Yet, as The Nation points out, there is little evidence that a change in nomenclature will translate to better outcomes on the battlefield or in the halls of Congress.
The debate over the renaming is playing out against a backdrop of broader personnel and policy shifts in the federal government. On September 23, the Army announced a new warrant officer retention bonus program, offering substantial financial incentives to officers in critical specialties—such as cyber operations, aviation maintenance, signal and communications, and special operations—who commit to additional years of service. Lt. Col. Angie Chipman, chief of the Army retention division at the Pentagon, explained, “the Army is addressing its most pressing retention challenges and ensuring its ability to meet future operational demands.”
Meanwhile, the General Services Administration (GSA) reversed course on planned layoffs, offering hundreds of employees a chance to rescind their separation notices. The move follows similar reinstatement offers at the IRS and Labor Department, reflecting ongoing uncertainty in the federal workforce. Virginia Congressman James Walkinshaw has stepped in to champion several pieces of workforce legislation originally introduced by the late Congressman Gerry Connolly, including bills to prevent a revival of Schedule F and provide larger federal pay raises.
The Supreme Court, for its part, has agreed to hear a case that could reshape the independence of federal agencies. The case, which arose from President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, could overturn a 1935 decision that gave Congress the power to create protections for agency leaders, safeguarding them from removal by the President except for cause.
All of these developments underscore a moment of flux and uncertainty in the machinery of American government. The move to rebrand the Department of Defense as the Department of War is, at its core, a symbolic gesture—but it is one with real-world implications, from the cost to taxpayers to the message it sends about America’s place in the world. Whether the change will endure, or whether it will be remembered as another episode of political theater, remains to be seen.
For now, the debate continues—over the price of symbolism, the lessons of history, and the true meaning of American power.
