By Matt Underwood The Trump administration moves forward on plans to rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War, a move that, to put it mildly, has sparked a lot of reactions. It’s a change that, at face value, seems to be a straightforward renaming, but the implications and the context surrounding it are, let’s just say, complicated.
First off, the practicalities of such a change are pretty significant. Think about all the signage, the stationery, the websites, the official documents – everything would need to be updated. It’s going to be a costly undertaking, and as some have pointed out, those costs will likely be borne by taxpayers. It’s a valid concern; in a time when resources are always being scrutinized, dedicating a large sum to a name change can seem, well, a little frivolous. And the sheer scale of replacing all references to the Department of Defense is undoubtedly massive.
Beyond the logistical and financial considerations, there’s the question of legality. The Department of Defense is established by law. Any change to that name would, in the normal course of events, require an act of Congress. This presents a potential hurdle. The administration could attempt to circumvent this, perhaps through executive orders, or by re-branding certain communications and materials. However, such actions might be challenged, and the legitimacy of the renaming could be called into question. There are certainly some questions about how the renaming could be achieved.
The symbolism of the proposed name change is probably the most interesting aspect of all. The Department of Defense, however imperfectly, at least projects an image of protecting the nation. Changing the name to the Department of War sends a much more aggressive, confrontational message. Some see this as a more honest representation of the department’s function. It does engage in war. Others see it as a concerning over-correction, one that perhaps emphasizes the war-making aspect of the department to the exclusion of its other responsibilities, like defense, deterrence and humanitarian efforts.
This all comes at a time when the former president was also, famously, seeking the Nobel Peace Prize. The optics of renaming a department of defense to a department of war while simultaneously pursuing a peace prize are, to put it mildly, not the best look. It opens the door to accusations of hypocrisy and, frankly, a detachment from reality. It almost feels as though it’s a parody of itself.
Some see this as another example of the administration embracing a certain aesthetic. Others see it as an attempt to bolster an image of strength or masculinity. It is definitely a bold statement, that’s for sure. Is this a serious policy decision or a performative act? Some people find it to be a cartoonish display, while others are more concerned by the shift in priorities.
Moreover, this rebranding raises questions about the department’s actual role. The Department of Defense does more than just wage war. It engages in various defensive actions and overseas humanitarian aid. If the name is to be changed to “Department of War” it does not represent what the department is actually doing. It is important to understand that the name represents a message.
The potential cost, the questionable legality, and the symbolism of the name change all combine to make this a complex and controversial move. Whether it’s a cynical ploy, a genuine reflection of the administration’s priorities, or a waste of resources remains to be seen. Regardless of your views on the former president, it is hard to deny this is a striking proposal, one that is sure to continue to generate debate and discussion.