In another branding move as commander in chief, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War. He rationalized the move by asserting that the Defense Department’s name didn’t sufficiently represent U.S. military strength.
“We won the World War I. We won World War II. We won everything before that and in between,” Trump said at a Sept. 5 press conference. “And then we decided to go woke and change the name to Department of Defense.”
Trump’s discourse doesn’t just fail to acknowledge the department’s original purpose as a global advocate for peace — the name change is also the perfect example of how the weaponization of language can shape dangerous, militant perspectives.
While George Washington initially created a “Department of War” in 1789, it has been altered throughout history to reflect the country’s values and goals. As the United States took on a paternalistic role in global conflicts post-World War II, the 1947 passage of the National Security Act created the National Military Establishment to unify armed forces. At the time, President Harry Truman felt as if the services housed under the NME were still not united enough and many worried that the abbreviation sounded too much like the word “enemy.” Ultimately, the National Security Act was amended in 1949 to combine the War and Navy departments, establishing the Department of Defense we know today.
The department, first and foremost, was created with the goal of unifying armed forces. Its name emphasized a goal not to wage war, but rather to safeguard its nation, especially during the Cold War, where the objective was readiness rather than constant attack. To change the name of the department is to paint the United States in a combative and offensive light — the opposite of what the department was designed to do.
But even when these were the goals and narratives surrounding the name “Department of Defense,” some of the most heinous and undemocratic actions our nation ever part in happened under the DOD’s careful watch. Words are important and can inspire calls to action, but they’re no replacement for action itself. Yet by parading around the title of war rather than defense, we are unabashedly embracing our cultural perception as the war-hungry global hegemon.
Trump’s name change comes on the heels of his controversial deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C, and threats to do the same in New York City and Chicago. Trump has made it clear that he is unafraid to use tactics of war in everyday life — take his deployment of the guard accompanied by 700 U.S. Marines in Los Angeles, where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided various areas of the city, hoping to root out undocumented immigrants. This represents a clear and disturbing escalation in the use of overt military tactics paired with violent, militant rhetoric. In recent weeks, the president has leaned heavily on such violent symbols and narratives, overusing imagery that is often tied to conflict. In a post on Truth Social, Trump posted an AI-generated image likening him to Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore from “Apocalypse Now,” writing, “I love the smell of deportations in the morning … Chicago about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR.”
Words and decisions have power — and the word “war” suggests violence and division. When we accept war-driven language, it becomes easier to justify conflict both within the United States and abroad. Think about how often a law or measure is suggested because it might be helpful in the “war” on terror, or the war on drugs, or the war on childhood obesity. It’s almost funny how the United States needs to frame something as a war just to find the will to do anything about it. Trump’s words have significantly altered the nation’s global image, especially to allies, painting the country as an aggressor.
Moreover, the name change is coming from an administration that has made several anti-war promises, yet has — at almost every turn — acted in a way that promotes conflict and death. The closest we’ve come to a peaceful resolution during this administration is the unceremonious end to the brief skirmish between Israel and Iran, a conflict we perpetuated by supporting Israel’s bombing campaign with our own military strikes on Iran. At his inaugural address in January, Trump claimed that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and a unifier.” With Trump’s track record, however, his legacy seems to be shaping up to be one of violence and division instead.
While he flaunts the new Department of War, the president is simultaneously campaigning for a Nobel Peace Prize. Trump’s contradictory decisions, fueled by language and imagery of war, illustrate how inflammatory rhetoric blurs the line between defense and aggression.
Trump’s Department of War is a direct betrayal to the department’s original goal of creating a paternalistic, international peacekeeping force — designed to protect its nation and emphasize collective security, rather than wage endless wars. Maybe we were far from angels under the Department of Defense, but now we’re resigning ourselves to our role as the infamous “Great Satan” of the West.
In a political climate already filled with division, we must recognize the implications of weaponized language and strive to preserve the Department of Defense’s goal of being seen as a symbol of protection rather than a symbol of war. The president’s incendiary language and recent acts of war have normalized violence as a form of governance, and intimidation as a form of diplomacy.
WSN’s Opinion section strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion section are solely the views of the writer.
Contact Leila Abarca at [email protected].