^{Photo: Times of India}

A Symbolic Shift with Historic Roots

Former President Donald Trump is once again making headlines with his push to rebrand the U.S. Department of Defense as the “Department of War.” According to senior White House officials familiar with the plan, Trump intends to sign an executive order authorizing the Pentagon to use the title “Department of War” as a secondary designation while his administration requests formal approval from Congress.

The idea is rooted in history. The Department of War was first established in 1789, the same year the U.S. Constitution went into effect. It retained that title until 1947, when, in the aftermath of World War II, lawmakers officially renamed it the Department of Defense to reflect a posture of protection rather than aggression. Trump’s move, however, seeks to reclaim the symbolism of wartime strength and victory.

Trump and Hegseth’s Campaign for Change

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has been one of the loudest voices behind the rebrand. Shortly after the news broke, Hegseth posted “DEPARTMENT OF WAR” in bold capital letters on social media. Earlier this year, he ran a public poll asking Americans whether they supported the name change, with Trump frequently referencing the results in rallies and speeches.

At a recent event at Fort Benning, Georgia, Hegseth told soldiers that his job title “may be a slightly different title tomorrow,” hinting at the imminent shift. Trump himself has argued repeatedly that the Department of War oversaw America’s most significant victories, contrasting it with what he sees as the softer connotations of “defense.”

Political and Legal Hurdles Ahead

While Trump can authorize secondary titles through executive order, a full legal name change requires an act of Congress. Trump has brushed off concerns about the legislative process, telling reporters, “We’re just going to do it. I’m sure Congress will go along if we need that.”

Whether lawmakers will support such a move remains uncertain. Critics argue the renaming risks unnecessary politicization of the military, while supporters see it as a long-overdue return to historical authenticity.

Cultural Changes Inside the Pentagon

The name change is part of a broader series of cultural shifts within the Pentagon under Trump and Hegseth’s leadership. Since taking office earlier this year, Hegseth has overseen the rollback of diversity programs and removed hundreds of books and online resources from military academies. Works addressing the Holocaust, civil rights history, and memoirs from prominent figures like Maya Angelou were among those taken down, sparking backlash from educators and veterans alike.

Additionally, the Pentagon has eliminated thousands of online resources celebrating the contributions of women and minority groups in U.S. military history. “Anybody that says in the Department of Defense that diversity is our strength is, frankly, incorrect,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in March, echoing the administration’s stance.

Controversy Over Military Policy

Perhaps most controversially, Hegseth presided over the removal of all transgender service members following an executive order by Trump. Critics described the process as “dehumanizing” and “open cruelty,” further intensifying debate over the administration’s handling of military personnel policies.

These decisions, along with the push to rebrand the Pentagon, have positioned Trump’s defense strategy as one focused on projecting toughness while rolling back decades of cultural evolution within the armed forces.

What’s at Stake

Trump’s rebrand effort taps into a broader theme of his political messaging: projecting power and appealing to Americans who believe the military has drifted away from its core mission. Supporters view the revival of the “Department of War” name as a bold reminder of U.S. dominance. Critics, however, warn it risks alienating allies, further politicizing the armed forces, and undoing decades of effort to modernize military culture.

As Congress weighs whether to support a formal renaming, the debate underscores a deeper question about America’s identity: should its military embody the spirit of “defense” or embrace the blunt force of “war”?