Remember when the president responded to the public’s overwhelming clarion call to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico? And with the stroke of a Sharpie, he did, changing the trajectory of the future from lowly Mexico (boo) to bigly America (YAY!)? Well, President Donald J. Trump just did it again
Section 1. Purpose. On August 7, 1789, 236 years ago, President George Washington signed into law a bill establishing the United States Department of War to oversee the operation and maintenance of military and naval affairs. It was under this name that the Department of War, along with the later formed Department of the Navy, won the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, inspiring awe and confidence in our Nation’s military, and ensuring freedom and prosperity for all Americans. The Founders chose this name to signal our strength and resolve to the world. The name “Department of War,” more than the current “Department of Defense,” ensures peace through strength, as it demonstrates our ability and willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our Nation at a moment’s notice, not just to defend. This name sharpens the Department’s focus on our own national interest and our adversaries’ focus on our willingness and availability to wage war to secure what is ours. I have therefore determined that this Department should once again be known as the Department of War and the Secretary should be known as the Secretary of War.
Does changing the name from Defense to War really “demonstrate our ability and willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our Nation at a moment’s notice”? Is this a performative change by a morbidly obese bone-spurred draft dodger to pretend he’s tough? Or is this more red meat for the faux macho who believe that calling soldiers “war-fighters” is the difference between winning or losing Vietnam?
Of course, the name of the department can’t be changed with a Sharpie any more than a hurricane’s path. What Trump’s Executive Order does is give the DoD a “nickname,” authorizing Signal-challenged secretary to call himself by the more aggressive title.
The Secretary of Defense is authorized the use of this additional secondary title — the Secretary of War — and may be recognized by that title in official correspondence, public communications, ceremonial contexts, and non-statutory documents within the executive branch. (Emphasis added.)
So what if no one caught the redundancy when the EO was drafted. Who cares about such attention to detail when we have war on the mind? And to the extent there is a mind involved, war it is.
Hegseth: “Maximum lethality — not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct. We’re gonna raise up warriors. Not just defenders.” pic.twitter.com/pWi5qTAdz2
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 5, 2025
If there is any message to be sent with this shift, it’s that the United States is no longer the defender of democracy, but a warmonger, ready to take the aggressive stance of waging war should our president decide it’s in our national interest. Greenland better watch itself. As for Venezuela, the horse has already left the barn. But if what we do, or what we want to do, is to defend our nation and the sovereignty of our allies from attack, then defense might be the better name. Yet here we are, with a president who sees defense as woke and a secretary of the pocket square eschewing “tepid legality.” Inter arma enim silent leges.
On the one hand, this is another act of pointlessness, a change serving no purpose other than the enrichment of the sign makers and letterhead printers, because you know Hegseth is going to change all the stationary to reflect his new stature. On the other hand, this will send a message to the world “leaders” with whom Trump is most enamored that his feelings were deeply hurt when they held a sleepover in China and he wasn’t invited that he can be as manly as Kim Jong Un. With this name change, Seal Team Six’s mission won’t fail again.
If this all strikes you as needlessly silly and pointless, the costs aside, the fevered fantasy of a president who has no grasp of what honor means to those in the military who gave their lives in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere, to whom our soldiers are suckers and losers, then the message sent by this new nickname is that our government wants to replace legality with lethality, reducing us to the moral equivalents of our worst enemies.
If not, then you should consider what distinction is left between the shining city on the hill and the isolated pariah nation that gave away its legitimacy as a beacon of freedom, prosperity and democracy. We almost certainly can win a war against Greenland. Maybe even Canada. Will that make you feel more macho?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“reducing us to the moral equivalents of our worst enemies”.
All nations are psychopaths, the US is an empire and has never been an exception and has never been better than its worst enemies.
The United States behaves as badly as (in reverse historical order) the People’s Republic of China, the USSR, and Nazi Germany/the Empire of Japan?
In other news, Trump is changing the name of the San Andreas fault.
Henceforth, it’s to be called “Biden’s Fault”.
That is all.
Now they will have to give him the Nobel Peace Prize! Chess moves.
Humm, speaking as a veteran, I’ve always thought that calling it the War Department was more accurate.
In reality, I don’t think the name change matters except to get some segment of the population riled up. Everyone knows what it does, and that won’t change, no matter what you call it so let us label it for what it is.
Again, speaking as a veteran, I think the following quote is appropriate , given the times we live in with Hamas and the cartels running around.
Niccolo Machiavelli.
“It is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved? It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”
So maybe calling it the War Department could send a message to our wannabe enemies. Or maybe not. It’s just a paperwork exercise after all and the next Democrat president can rename it the Peace Department and rewrite the mission statement.
Do we really want to take the advice of Machiavelli? Speaking as a veteran as well, I despise war and hope there will never be another war. But if there is, I pray we will only be on the side of defending freedom and democracy. Honor matters to me.
Given the role actually played by the military since 1945, “War” is really a better fit. It still doesn’t address the most significant deficits which persist in the absence of separate cabinet representation for the land and sea forces. Clearly our fearless leader has yet to master the teachings of Alfred Thayer Mahan, and so leaves our great country to languish without the benefit of a First Sea Lord.
“the United States is no longer the defender of democracy, but a warmonger”
IHSTTYAIGTMYS
There is a large percentage among active duty/ veterans that the DoD lost its way the last 20 years of nation building. That the eye was taken off the ball of completely destroying enemies of national objectives.
Renaming (even if a secondary title) to “war” is a message to the force, the parents of future service members and adversaries.
Parents and family are important because recruits overwhelmingly join on advice from past service member’s who are family (family of service members are also the largest recruit population). They want their children training to destroy enemies and come home safe. They do not want training time spent on how to be a better trans ally.
Even if that is a perception it is one that was strong during the last admin (as shown by recruiting numbers before and after JAN).
The message to our adversaries is that the US military’s focus in now destroying enemies and not nation building or internal topics which is a deterrent.
Why would anyone in their right mind occupying the highest magistracy in the United States post something like this on their social media account? Adverting that they intend to make war on one of our largest cities? Disgusting. Beneath contempt. Dangerous. Vile.
[Ed. Note: No one in their right mind would.]
If so, this speaks of a deeply disturbing military. “Completely destroying enemies” isn’t the goal of armed conflict, and anyone who believes it is shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun. The goal is ending conflicts, not killing.
Of course we want soldiers to come home safely, but only by using no more force than needed to accomplish the objective and protect our troops from harm.
You sound as sick as Pete Hegseth. I listened to his comments in the Oval when this EO was signed. This is a very disturbed individual. He is frothing at the mouth to kill people. Anyone. Unfortunately that includes US citizens on US soil.
I am US Navy veteran and the son of a US Navy career officer. I was born on a Navy base. I grew up around the world surrounded by military. I never met anyone whose military goal was “destroying enemies.” They signed up to DEFEND the United States.
I guess he’s giving up on winning the Noble Peace Prize…