Washington, D.C., 13 November 2025 — In a significant shift of tone and symbolism in U.S. military policy, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order rebranding the United States Department of Defense (DoD) as the “Department of War.” The move, described by the White House as restoring military purpose and clarity, raises important questions about cost, legal authority and future defence strategy. (According to Al Jazeera.)
What’s happening
On 5 September 2025, President Trump formally signed Executive Order 14347, titled “Restoring the U.S. Department of War”, authorising the use of the “Department of War” title and allowing the Secretary to adopt the title “Secretary of War.” The order does not legally replace the DoD’s statutory name — only Congress can do that — but it mandates immediate adoption of the new nomenclature in statements, signage and digital presences.
The Pentagon has already begun implementing changes: its official website redirects from defense.gov to war.gov, and the door-placard for the Secretary’s office at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, now reads “Secretary of War.”
Why the change — and what it signals
President Trump justified the renaming by saying the term “defense” had grown too passive and “woke,” whereas “war” better reflects the country’s posture. “We won the First World War. We won the Second World War. And then we decided to go woke, and we changed the name to Department of Defense,” he said.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth supported the shift, declaring that the department must move from a defensive mindset to one of offence. “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct,” he said.
Analysts suggest the change is symbolic of a broader shift in U.S. military posture: a return to the notion of war-fighting as a core mission rather than just deterrence or defence. The original name “War Department” was used until 1949, when post-war reforms created the modern Department of Defense.
The cost, the legal hurdles and reaction
While the name change is immediate in many respects, its full implementation faces legal and financial headwinds. Because the DoD’s name is codified in the National Security Act of 1947 and later legislation, Congress must pass new law to complete the change — meaning the executive order functions primarily as a rebrand for now.
Cost estimates for the rebrand have soared. A report cited by NBC News puts the figure at up to $2 billion to change signage, letterheads, badges, websites and other materials across the global military footprint. Some have questioned whether funds earmarked for war-fighting capabilities are being diverted toward what critics call “branding.” Congressional Democrats have called the move “cosplay” and frivolous.
Why it matters to Americans
For U.S. taxpayers, the change raises immediate budgetary implications. Replacing labels, digital domains and printed matter in thousands of installations worldwide is a tangible cost at a time of domestic funding debates. For military personnel and contractors, it means adapting to new titles, communications protocols and identity systems. For allies and adversaries alike, the shift sends a signal: the United States is ready to emphasise war-fighting rather than purely defence or deterrence.
Politically, the move may reflect a deeper change in national security philosophy: prioritising offensive strength, rapid action and simplified nomenclature over multilateral defence frameworks. It also raises questions about how the U.S. defines its role globally — whether as a backstop for allies or an aggressor prepared to act unilaterally.
What happens next
The next phase will hinge on Congress. Several Republican lawmakers, including Senators Rick Scott and Mike Lee, have introduced legislation to formalise the renaming. Should Congress pass a bill, the rebranding would gain full legal standing. If not, the “Department of War” name may remain largely symbolic, used in the executive branch but not in statutory documents.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon will continue rolling out changes: updating websites, memos, and signage globally. Observers will be watching how this affects morale, recruitment and international military cooperation — particularly with NATO allies who emphasise “defence” and collective security rather than unilateral war-fighting.
