War Department: The Perfect Fit

Rebranding the Department of Defense: A Step Toward Honesty?

On September 5, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that officially renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War. This move brought back a name that had been used since the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1787, before bureaucratic changes in the post-World War II era led to the establishment of the Department of Defense in 1949. The president’s decision was framed as a return to historical accuracy and a broader understanding of warfare.

The argument presented is that the term "Department of Defense" has become misleading. Since 1949, many U.S. military actions—such as interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and the strike on Iran—have not been defensive but rather offensive wars of choice. Even the conflict in Afghanistan, initially framed as a response to the 9/11 attacks, evolved into a long-term nation-building mission.

This rebranding reflects a growing sentiment that the current label is deceptive. The Washington Post editorial board, for instance, has acknowledged that "Department of Defense" has long been a "euphemism." The author argues that using the term "War" more accurately represents the nature of these conflicts, which often involve aggressive actions by the U.S. political and military elite.

A History of Offensives

The article highlights several examples where U.S. military involvement did not align with the concept of national defense. In the 1990s, the U.S. intervened in the Balkans, bombing the Bosnian Serbs and later Serbia itself. These actions were taken despite the fact that neither country had attacked the United States. Similarly, the U.S. involvement in Lebanon in the early 1980s resulted in significant casualties, including the bombing of a Marine barracks that killed 241 American service members.

The justification for the Korean and Vietnam Wars was based on the idea of countering a monolithic communist threat. However, this narrative has been widely criticized as simplistic and historically inaccurate. The U.S. military campaigns in these regions led to the loss of tens of thousands of American lives, with little clear evidence of a direct threat to the homeland.

Even the initial response to the 9/11 attacks, while understandable, was followed by a prolonged conflict in Afghanistan that transformed into a counterinsurgency and nation-building effort. The author points out that this mission was far from defensive in nature, lasting nearly two decades and involving significant U.S. military presence.

The Risks of Modern Warfare

The article also addresses the current geopolitical landscape, particularly the U.S. involvement in the NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. This situation presents a much greater risk than previous conflicts, as Russia is a major nuclear power with the capability to strike the U.S. homeland. Despite this, the U.S. continues to engage in what the author describes as an offensive operation under the guise of defense.

Critics argue that Trump's use of an executive order to make the name change bypassed the usual legislative process, raising concerns about authoritarian tendencies. Additionally, the timing of the executive order, shortly after the U.S. military sank a Venezuelan boat suspected of drug trafficking, fueled perceptions of increased belligerence.

The Case for Honesty

Despite these criticisms, the author believes the name change is a step toward greater transparency. By renaming the department, Americans can no longer ignore the reality that the U.S. military apparatus is engaged in a global war effort, not just a defensive one. This shift in terminology could lead to a more honest public discourse about the nature and consequences of U.S. military actions.

About the Author

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and a contributing editor at The National Security Journal. He is the author of 13 books and over 1,300 articles on national security, international affairs, and civil liberties. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).