Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once said: “The limits of my language are the limits of my world.” Words do not merely reflect reality; they shape it. And now, the United States has given us a new reason to reflect on this idea. Last Friday, the U.S. President signed an executive order reverting the Pentagon’s name to its former title—”Department of War.” While Congress has not yet made this change permanent, the move itself speaks volumes: Washington seeks to project a more resolute, and perhaps aggressive, image to the world.
President Donald Trump signed the executive order on Friday, September 5, directing the Department of Defense to use “Department of War” as a secondary designation alongside the current one. According to the document, this change underscores America’s “readiness and resolve,” contrasting with the “solely defensive capabilities” implied by the previous name. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, now officially referred to as “Secretary of War” in communications, stated: “This is not just a rebranding—it’s a restoration. We will advance, not just defend. Maximum lethality, not timid legality.”
The Pentagon website already redirects to war.gov, and DOD has been replaced with DOW in the headers.
In 1949, after World War II and on the cusp of the nuclear era, Congress renamed the War Department to the Department of Defense as part of the National Security Act, signed by President Harry Truman. This reflected a desire for restraint and deterrence: the new era demanded an emphasis on preventing conflicts, particularly with the establishment of the United Nations as a guarantor of peace. The name “Defense” underscored that military power was a tool for peace, not conquest.
Today’s reversal signals a radical shift in Washington’s mindset. Supporters, including Republican Senators Rick Scott and Mike Lee, see the “Department of War” as a nod to the triumphs of the world wars, symbolizing “strength and victory.” But behind the rhetoric lies a more transactional view of security: it is part of a policy that includes escalating force in the Middle East, supporting allies’ military offensives, and demanding that partners in Europe and Asia increase financial contributions to “protection” from the U.S. President Trump, positioning himself as an “anti-war leader,” nonetheless emphasized: “We won World War I and World War II with the Department of War, not with ‘woke’ Defense.”
Domestically, the decision has sparked a firestorm. Congressional Democrats reacted sharply: Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey called the idea “childish,” while Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire labeled it a “dangerous distraction from actual military readiness.” Experts from think tanks and historians warn that reverting to “War” undermines U.S. moral authority in the nuclear age, risking the revival of open conflicts. The public, weary from two decades of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, expresses concern: glorifying “war” over “defense” could provoke new adventures. A CGTN poll of 14,071 respondents from 38 countries (2023–2024) confirms global perceptions: 61.3% view the U.S. as the world’s most belligerent nation, and 70.1% blame American wars for global humanitarian crises.
U.S. allies are watching with apprehension. In Europe, where Washington is already imposing unilateral tariffs and demanding increased defense spending, governments will have to explain to their citizens why they should support a “Department of War.” Even Republican Mitch McConnell grumbled: “If you’re going to call it the Department of War, then give the military resources, not just a new name.”
In Asia, the reaction is even more complex. Some U.S. partners fear that the renaming signals readiness for new conflicts in the region. Others suspect that Washington may shift focus to domestic affairs, leaving allies in uncertainty. Rumors of a new Pentagon strategy, where the Indo-Pacific region loses priority in favor of the Western Hemisphere, only heighten concerns—particularly for countries like the Philippines. Hegseth, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, tried to reassure: “We remain focused on the Indo-Pacific.” But the words ring hollow amidst the broader rhetoric.
The name change in 1949 was not mere formality. It reflected an understanding that in the nuclear age, stability requires restraint, cooperation, and peace. Today, with conflicts raging in Europe and the Middle East, and the world facing climate and other challenges, dialogue and coordination are needed, not signals of confrontation.
Words matter. They shape perceptions, expectations, and policy trajectories. As the world’s leading military power, the United States bears a special responsibility: to lead toward peace, not war. Only by fulfilling this role can Washington contribute to the shared aspiration of nations—a world defined not by conflict, but by development and cooperation.
Comments