From Defense to War: The symbolic erosion of American influence

The New York Times described the revival of the name “Department of War” as more than just nostalgia, writing that the change carries a clear message. Trump justified the move by claiming that the name would take America back to an era when it “won wars.”

In 1949, then-President Harry Truman changed the title from “War Department” to “Department of Defense” to emphasize deterrence during the Cold War. David E. Sanger of the New York Times analyzed that, at a time when deterrence is more vital than ever—and as Russia and China challenge the U.S. in cyberspace and outer space—Trump’s response is to revive the language of an earlier age.

Sanger, who has written extensively on superpower rivalries, argued that for those following U.S. national security developments over the past seven months, Trump’s directive comes as no surprise.

Douglas Lute, a seasoned U.S. Army officer who held key national security roles under Presidents Bush and Obama and later served as U.S. ambassador to NATO, said:

“In one sense it makes perfect sense: this administration is simply taking us back to the pre-Truman era and dismantling the processes, institutions, and norms that were built after World War II.”

He warned that weakening allied trust in U.S. leadership will come at a heavy cost: once confidence erodes, restoring it will be extremely difficult.

In recent months, Trump has shown little interest in deterrence, focusing instead on investing in new weaponry. He dismantled large parts of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which was responsible for protecting against foreign and domestic cyberattacks, including securing U.S. elections. Trump even ordered the Justice Department to investigate statements by CISA’s head that the 2020 election was “the most secure in American history,” because it contradicted his claims of election fraud.

Trump also fired the four-star general who led the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, part of a wider purge of military officers appointed during the Biden era.

One of Trump’s flagship defense projects has been the “Golden Dome,” a space-based anti-missile system which critics argue is more offensive than defensive.

No one was reportedly more pleased by the renaming than Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who stands to officially become “Secretary of War” if the executive order passes through Congress. Trump has already referred to him by that title in public.

Hegseth told Fox News: “We won World War I and World War II not with a Department of Defense, but with a Department of War. As the President said, we don’t just defend, we attack.”

The New York Times noted that such remarks are significant because they alarm both allies and adversaries alike, reinforcing Russian and Chinese narratives of America as an aggressor. From their perspective, U.S. claims of being a peaceful, law-abiding actor are merely a cover for attacking any state it deems a threat.

The paper recalled Trump’s unilateral orders to strike Iranian nuclear facilities during the “12-day war” alongside Israel, and the sinking of a Venezuelan vessel accused of smuggling drugs that killed 11 people. Former U.S. Ambassador to China R. Nicholas Burns warned that Beijing would seize on these actions as proof that Washington threatens international order while China portrays itself as a defender of peace.

On another level, renaming the world’s most powerful military force sends a powerful message—especially given the U.S.’s trillion-dollar defense budget, which some now argue should more accurately be called a “war budget,” nearly three times larger than China’s.

The New York Times further wrote that America’s soft power has been sidelined, while hard power is glorified. The closure of USAID programs, silencing of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, and billions cut from the State Department’s foreign aid budget send a clear message: the U.S. is retreating from promoting democracy and humanitarian assistance.

Critics, however, see Trump’s move as largely “symbolic” and prohibitively costly. Larry Wilkerson, retired Army colonel and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, estimated the renaming effort would cost hundreds of millions of dollars:

“It’s incredibly expensive. Everything—buildings, monuments, official engravings—would have to be redone. We’re talking millions of dollars for just a name change.”

Representative Adam Smith, senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, blasted the move on NBC News: “It’s hard to fully capture the stupidity of this decision. Changing the word ‘defense’ to ‘war’ sends absolutely the wrong message. It literally changes nothing except for the worse.”

Smith contrasted the move with recent geopolitical developments: “Look at the world we’re in: Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un meeting together this week in China. And our President thinks this name change is what really matters? This is his answer?”