The Trump administration is preparing an executive order that would rename the Department of Defense back to its pre-1947 title, the “Department of War,” according to three senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The proposed change, which could take effect as early as January, represents what the president has called a “return to honest government language.” During a recent closed-door meeting with military officials at the Pentagon, Trump reportedly expressed frustration with what he termed “politically correct terminology” that he believes has weakened America’s military posture.
“The president believes strongly that our enemies should fear us, and that starts with what we call ourselves,” said White House Communications Director Sarah Matthews in a brief statement to reporters yesterday. “This change reflects the president’s commitment to projecting strength on the world stage.”
The Department of War operated under that name from 1789 until 1947, when the National Security Act reorganized America’s military and intelligence structures, creating what we now know as the Department of Defense.
The proposal has generated immediate controversy among defense policy experts. James Stavridis, retired Navy admiral and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, expressed concern about the message such a change would send. “Names matter in international relations. Returning to ‘Department of War’ communicates a fundamentally different posture to our allies and adversaries alike,” Stavridis told me during a phone interview.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has not publicly commented on the proposed change, though sources within the Pentagon indicate significant internal resistance. A recent informal poll conducted among senior military leadership showed approximately 78% opposed the name change, according to internal documents obtained by Epochedge.
Congressional reaction has fallen largely along party lines. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) called the move “a refreshing return to straight talk,” while ranking member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) condemned it as “dangerous saber-rattling that undermines decades of careful diplomatic positioning.”
Dr. Eliot Cohen, Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and former counselor to the State Department, points out historical context often missing from the debate. “The 1947 name change wasn’t merely cosmetic—it reflected a fundamental shift in how America viewed its role in the world following World War II,” Cohen explained. “Returning to ‘War Department’ suggests a troubling retreat from America’s leadership of the rules-based international order.”
The change would require more than just new letterhead. Pentagon officials estimate implementation costs between $3.8 million and $6.2 million for signage, documentation, and digital systems updates across the massive department.
Several defense contractors contacted for this story declined to comment publicly, though one senior executive at a major defense firm noted that the industry is “preparing contingency plans” for the transition while awaiting formal notification.
Legal experts remain divided on whether such a change falls within the president’s executive authority or would require congressional approval. The Congressional Research Service released an analysis last week suggesting the president likely has authority for the name change, though funding for implementation might require legislative action.
Some foreign policy veterans see the move as part of a broader pattern. “This administration consistently prioritizes aggressive rhetoric over strategic thinking,” said Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to NATO. “The rest of the world notices these shifts in tone and substance.”
Despite the controversy, polling suggests the American public is less concerned about the potential name change than Washington insiders. A recent Gallup survey found that 42% of Americans support the name change, 38% oppose it, and 20% have no opinion—revealing a relatively even split that mirrors other partisan divisions.
For Pentagon employees, the potential change has created uncertainty. “We’re professionals who serve regardless of what’s on the building,” said one career civil servant who requested anonymity to speak freely. “But it does feel like we’re stepping backward in time, and not in a good way.”
The timing of the executive order remains fluid, though sources indicate the president hopes to announce it before the NATO summit scheduled for early next year—a move critics suggest is designed to signal a more assertive American military posture to European allies.
The White House has declined to provide specific details about the planned executive order, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt saying only that “the president is exploring multiple options to ensure our military projects the strength and clarity of purpose that has made America the world’s greatest superpower.”
As Washington prepares for this potential shift in nomenclature, the debate highlights a deeper question about America’s self-perception and global role. Whether “Defense” or “War,” the department’s fundamental mission remains the protection of American interests—though how those interests are defined and pursued may be significantly impacted by what we choose to call our military establishment.
For more on this developing story, visit Epochedge Politics or Epochedge News.
