The Rebranding of Trump’s Department of War: An Analysis of Its New Direction

96
<!–

*{box-sizing:border-box}body{margin:0;padding:0}a[x-apple-data-detectors]{color:inherit!important;text-decoration:inherit!important}#MessageViewBody a{color:inherit;text-decoration:none}p{line-height:inherit}.desktop_hide,.desktop_hide table{mso-hide:all;display:none;max-height:0;overflow:hidden}.image_block img+div{display:none}sub,sup{font-size:75%;line-height:0}#converted-body .list_block ol,#converted-body .list_block ul,.body [class~=x_list_block] ol,.body [class~=x_list_block] ul,u+.body .list_block ol,u+.body .list_block ul{padding-left:20px} @media (max-width:620px){.desktop_hide table.icons-outer{display:inline-table!important}.image_block div.fullWidth{max-width:100%!important}.mobile_hide{display:none}.row-content{width:100%!important}.stack .column{width:100%;display:block}.mobile_hide{min-height:0;max-height:0;max-width:0;overflow:hidden;font-size:0}.desktop_hide,.desktop_hide table{display:table!important;max-height:none!important}.reverse{display:table;width:100%}.reverse .column.first{display:table-footer-group!important}.reverse .column.last{display:table-header-group!important}.row-10 td.column.first .border,.row-6 td.column.first .border,.row-8 td.column.first .border{padding:5px 5px 15px 25px}.row-10 td.column.last .border,.row-12 td.column.last .border,.row-6 td.column.last .border,.row-8 td.column.last .border{padding:5px 20px 25px 5px}.row-12 td.column.first .border{padding:5px 5px 15px 25px;border-bottom:15px solid transparent}}

sup, sub { font-size: 100% !important; } sup { mso-text-raise:10% } sub { mso-text-raise:-10% }

{beacon}

Welcome to The Hill’s Defense & NatSec newsletter

{beacon}

Defense & National Security Defense & National Security <!– The Big Story Trump‘s Department of War rebrand President Trump on Friday signed an order to formally change the Department of Defense to the Department of War, framing the rebrand as a signal of American strength. © AP Photo/Mike Pesoli Trump signed an executive order that authorizes the name change for the agency, and for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s title to shift to secretary of War. A permanent name change will require an act of Congress. In explaining the change, Trump cited America’s track record of military success under the Department of War moniker through World War II and claimed that the U.S. military underwent a change in attitude under the Department of Defense name. He suggested previous drawn out wars under the old moniker were the result of political correctness. “Really it has to do with winning. We should have won every war. We could have won every war, but we really chose to be very politically correct or wokey and we just fight forever,” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine. “We had it, and we won World War I, we won World War II, we won everything before, and as I said, we won everything in between,” Trump added. “And we were very strong. But we never fought to win. We just didn’t fight to win. We would have won every one of those wars quickly, but they went a route that I think was probably politically correct, but not correct for our nation. So I think the Department of War sends a signal.” Asked how the name change squared with his pursuit of peace and efforts to end conflicts around the world, Trump argued U.S. military strength helps ensure there are no additional conflicts. Hegseth said the name change was “not just about renaming, it’s about restoring. Words matter. Restoring…the warrior ethos. Restoring victory and clarity as an instinct.” The Department of War was established by George Washington in 1789. It existed until 1947, when it was reorganized by then-President Harry Truman. It was renamed the Department of Defense in 1949. Read the full report at TheHill.com. Welcome to The Hill’s Defense & National Security newsletter, I’m Ellen Mitchell — your guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect defense and national security now and in the future: Hegseth installs ‘Secretary of War’ nameplate outside office Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth posted a video to social media Friday showing the nameplate on his office being changed to reflect President Trump’s renaming of the Department of Defense. A video Hegseth posted to the social media platform X shows the nameplate on his office door being swapped out to one that reads “Secretary of War.” The title change reflects Trump’s Friday executive order that renamed … Full Story Department of War triggers eye rolls, enthusiasm and cost concerns President Trump’s executive order to formally change the Department of Defense to the Department of War was met on Friday with enthusiasm from some on the right, but largely elicited skepticism on the left and concerns about the steep cost from former officials.  Trump framed the rebrand as a signal of American strength that will send a message of “victory” to America’s allies and adversaries alike. Now Secretary … Full Story McConnell challenges Trump to beef up defense spending after ‘War Department’ change Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the chair of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, is challenging President Trump to follow up his executive order to rename the Defense Department the “War Department” with a bigger increase in the Pentagon’s budget to deter threats from China, Russia and other adversaries. “If we call it the Department of War, we’d better equip the military to actually prevent and win wars. … Full Story Trump denies knowledge of failed Navy SEAL North Korea mission in first term President Trump on Friday denied knowing about a Navy SEAL mission in North Korea in 2018 during his first term, following The New York Times reporting on the botched operation. Trump was asked if the administration has engaged with North Korea since it happened and responded, “I don’t know anything about it, no. I’d have to — I could look, but I know nothing about that.” “I don’t know anything about it,” Trump said on the … Full Story In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Homeland Dems demand investigation into DHS’s potential ‘unlawful destruction’ of records House Democrats are asking the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to open an investigation into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after it told a watchdog group that it was no longer retaining text messages when the nonprofit sought communications about immigration enforcement … Full Story On Our Radar Upcoming things we’re watching in and around the defense world: The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies will discuss America’s propulsion advantage Monday at 10:30 a.m. The House Rules Committee will hold a meeting on the National Defense Authorization Act at 2 p.m. Monday. What We’re Reading News we’ve flagged from other outlets: How a top secret SEAL Team 6 mission into North Korea fell apart (The New York Times) Pentagon-funded research at colleges has aided the Chinese military, a House GOP report says (The Associated Press) Trump’s veterans housing plan in West L.A. advances behind a wall of secrecy (Los Angeles Times) Opinions in The Hill Op-eds related to defense & national security submitted to The Hill: How the Committee on the Foreign Investment can secure American agriculture China’s impressive military parade masked shortcomings How mRNA vaccine cuts threaten US national security You’re all caught up. See you next week!

How does teh renewed focus on “great power competition” influence the allocation of resources within the Department of Defense, and what are the potential consequences for regional conflicts previously addressed through counter-terrorism efforts?

From Defense to Dominance: A Shift in Rhetoric

The term “Department of War” hasn’t been officially used by the U.S. government since 1949, replaced by the “Department of Defense.” However, under the renewed Trump administration (2025-present), a noticeable shift in rhetoric and policy suggests a functional, if not formal, return to a more aggressive and assertive posture – a rebranding, in essence, of American military strategy. This isn’t simply about increased military spending (though that’s a factor); it’s about how that spending is allocated and the narratives used to justify it. Key phrases like “peace through strength,” echoing previous administrations, are now coupled with explicitly nationalistic and protectionist language.

this rebranding impacts several key areas:

Increased Focus on Great Power Competition: The primary focus has demonstrably shifted away from counter-terrorism operations towards direct competition with china and Russia. This is reflected in budget allocations and strategic planning documents.

Emphasis on Military modernization: A rapid acceleration of programs focused on advanced technologies – hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence in warfare, and space-based assets – is underway.

Revival of Customary Alliances (with Conditions): While reaffirming commitments to NATO and other alliances, the administration is simultaneously demanding greater burden-sharing and alignment with U.S. foreign policy objectives.

De-emphasis on Nation-Building: A clear rejection of long-term nation-building efforts, especially in the Middle East and Africa, is evident. The focus is now on protecting U.S. interests and deterring aggression.

The Impact of Reduced Growth Aid

The shift in priorities isn’t happening in a vacuum. As reported in Ärzteblatt (September 6, 2025), cuts to U.S. development aid initiated during Trump’s first term are projected to have devastating consequences. The article estimates over 14 million preventable deaths by 2030 due to these reductions. This seemingly counterintuitive move – weakening global health and stability while simultaneously projecting military strength – is a core component of the new strategy. The logic, as articulated by administration officials, is that a stronger military deters threats, reducing the need for costly interventions and allowing resources to be focused on domestic priorities and military modernization. This is a controversial position, with critics arguing it exacerbates instability and creates breeding grounds for extremism.

weaponizing Economic Policy: A New Dimension of conflict

The “rebranding” extends beyond military matters.The Trump administration is increasingly utilizing economic tools – tariffs, sanctions, and trade agreements – as instruments of foreign policy. This “economic warfare” is frequently enough presented as a means of leveling the playing field and protecting American jobs, but it also serves to exert pressure on geopolitical rivals.

Consider these examples:

1. Tariffs on Chinese Imports: Continued and expanded tariffs on Chinese goods,framed as a response to unfair trade practices,are also intended to limit China’s economic growth and technological advancement.
2. Sanctions Against Russia: Expanded sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector and financial institutions, ostensibly in response to its actions in Ukraine and alleged interference in U.S. elections, are designed to cripple its economy.
3. Trade Agreements Favoring Allies: Negotiating trade agreements that prioritize U.S. interests and reward allies who align with U.S. foreign policy objectives.

The Role of Information Warfare and Propaganda

A crucial element of this new direction is a sophisticated information warfare campaign. This involves:

Controlling the Narrative: Aggressively shaping public opinion through strategic communication and media engagement.

Discrediting Opponents: Employing tactics to undermine the credibility of adversaries and their narratives.

Promoting a Nationalist Agenda: Reinforcing a sense of national pride and exceptionalism.

This isn’t necessarily about outright falsehoods (though those occur), but rather about selective framing and the amplification of certain messages while suppressing others.The goal is to create a domestic consensus in support of the administration’s policies and to project an image of strength and resolve to the world.

Case Study: The South China Sea

The South China Sea provides a clear illustration of the rebranded approach. The U.S. has significantly increased its military presence in the region, conducting freedom of navigation operations and bolstering its alliances with countries like the Philippines and Australia. simultaneously, the administration has imposed sanctions on Chinese companies involved in building artificial islands in the disputed waters and has actively sought to rally international opposition to China’s claims.This assertive stance,coupled with a willingness to challenge china’s actions directly,represents a departure from previous administrations’ more cautious approach.

Benefits and Risks of the new Strategy

The potential benefits of this more assertive strategy, according to proponents, include:

Deterrence of Aggression: