By Wang Mengjie
The US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on September 5 to restore the historical name of the US Department of Defense, renaming it the Department of War. Correspondingly, the titles of the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, and other officials were changed to the Secretary of War and equivalent designations. The move has sparked controversy within the US and raised widespread concerns in the international community.
The evolution of the names of US military institutions reflects the expansion of the US. Established in 1789, the Department of War once led the country in expanding its territory and influence through military means. With the enactment of the National Security Act of 1947, the Truman administration centralized military command under the newly created national military establishment. In 1949, an amendment to the Act renamed the national military establishment the Department of Defense. Although this change is seen as a response to the post-WWII international situation, it does not signify that the US has truly embarked on a path of peace. Data show that from the end of WWII to 2001, there were 248 conflicts worldwide, 201 of which involved the US, making up over 80% of the total. Since WWII, the US has instigated or waged the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, the Libyan Civil War, and the Syrian Civil War, using military hegemony to pave the way for expansion.
The restoration of the Department of War name reflects a shift in US foreign strategy, effectively repackaging military expansion and giving a "legitimate" veneer to its unilateralist strategy. After returning to the White House, Trump continued the "America First" policy he pursued during his first term. Although the US has shown signs of strategic retrenchment in Europe and elsewhere, its military expansion has only intensified, which is reflected in sharply increased defense budgets, the accelerated deployment of the "Golden Dome" system, and the open bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. Besides, Trump’s public calls to seize Greenland and annex Canada, along with demands that other NATO members shoulder more defense spending, have long stirred discontent among allies. The narrative shift from "Defense" to "War" further indicates that the US is seeking to challenge the international security order and rules through force, exposing an extreme self-interest that has raised serious concerns worldwide.
The renaming also serves the political purpose to reinforce Trump's persona and consolidate his political position. With more than a year remaining before the midterm elections, fierce battles over redistricting and other issues are underway between the two US parties. By renaming the Department of Defense, Trump can signal his determination to change the Washington establishment, strengthen his image as a disrupter of tradition, and solidify and expand his base of support. Since taking office in January this year, Trump has wielded the tariff hammer recklessly, aggressively pushed deportation policies, drastically cut federal employees, and shut down numerous government agencies, while also facing multiple lawsuits and strong opposition. Introducing a highly controversial military reform at this juncture can draw public and media attention and divert focus from other pressing issues. Moreover, the renaming can provide a veneer of legitimacy for steadily expanding military expenditures of the US, normalize the concept of "normalization of war" in public perception, reduce domestic anti-war resistance to military buildup, and better secure support from the military-industrial complex.
It should be noted, however, that since a formal name change requires congressional approval, this executive order only allows the Department of War to be used as a secondary designation for the Department of Defense (essentially an alias). Nevertheless, the executive order directs Hegseth to take measures to advance a permanent renaming of the Department of Defense. Several Republican lawmakers have already submitted related bills to the US Congress. Amid growing political polarization and heavy fiscal pressures, this move has sparked intense debate domestically. According to US government estimates, the renaming could entail direct costs of several billion US dollars, including updates to documents, signage, and systems, with indirect costs likely even higher.
At a time when the international community broadly advocates multilateral security cooperation, the act of renaming the US Department of Defense clearly runs counter to this mainstream trend. Against the backdrop of soaring "hegemonic costs" and a rapidly evolving global power structure, this attempt to revive US hegemony through a mere name change not only fails to restore its steadily declining international credibility but may also heighten global vigilance and resistance toward American-style hegemonism.