Visceral appeal of “War” holds more power than civilized, necessary work of “Defense”

President Donald Trump announced his intention to rename the Department of Defense, reverting to its archaic and bellicose predecessor: the Department of War.

The pronouncement, made during a meeting with the President of South Korea, was couched in the President’s trademark vernacular of strength and victory. He cited military analyst Pete Hegseth, whom he has previously called his “Secretary of War,” as an inspiration.

“Pete Hegseth has been incredible with the, as I call it, the Department of War,” Mr. Trump said. “You know, we call it the Department of Defense, but between us, I think we’re going to change the name.”

He argued the change was a return to a more successful era, stating, “We had an unbelievable history of victory when it was Department of War.” When pressed for details on the feasibility of such a change, the President offered a familiar, yet nebulous, assurance: “You want to know the truth, I think we’re going to have some information on that maybe soon.”

But this is not a simple matter of semantics. It is a profound and deeply symbolic act. The Department of War was abolished in 1947, and formally renamed the Department of Defense in 1949, for a reason. The experience of two devastating world wars led to a more nuanced view of warfare, with naked aggression being seen as uncivilized. The new name reflected a Cold War reality where the goal was deterrence and collective security, not the glorification of conflict.

Critics were swift and severe. Progressive anti-establishment New Jersey Democrat Lisa McCormick lambasted the proposal, drawing a direct parallel to the modern cultural battles the President often engages in.

“Department of War sounds more manly and aggressive, but semantics do not make Americans safe,” she said, framing the move as a performative action tantamount to a leader choosing his pronouns—a gesture of identity over substance.

The sentiment was echoed by Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth, a veteran who lost both legs serving in Iraq. In a scathing rebuke, she dismissed the President’s recent characterization of Democrats as “treasonous” for not applauding his State of the Union address by resurrecting a pointed epithet: “Cadet Bone Spurs.”

The irony of the moment is stark. Even as the President seeks to rebrand the nation’s military apparatus for a bygone era of open conflict, his administration simultaneously points to its efforts to broker ceasefires abroad in regions like Kashmir and the Caucasus, and now between Russia and Ukraine. This dissonance suggests a presidency comfortable with contradiction, where the performance of strength often outweighs the pursuit of peace.

The proposed change requires an act of Congress, a hurdle that makes its passage unlikely. But the message, like so many from this administration, is designed not to legislate, but to provoke. It is a signal to his base and a shock to the system of the post-war international order.

It is a signal that, for this President, the visceral appeal of the word “War” holds more power than the civilized, complex, and necessary work of “Defense.”