Donald Trump’s decision to change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, announced on September 5, 2025, has kicked up a storm of debate. This is more than a symbolic tweak. It exposes cracks in Trump’s foreign policy narrative. The executive order designates “Department of War” as a secondary name for the Pentagon, echoing its pre-1947 title. Although Trump frames it as a return to plain-spoken honesty, the change clashes with his claims of global peacemaking, carries a steep financial cost, and raises broader questions about his priorities. Let’s dig into this, starting with how it undermines his image as a bringer of peace.

Trump has built his brand around ending conflicts. In his first term, he took pride in being the first modern president without new wars, and since returning to office in 2025, he’s leaned hard into that narrative. Last month, he claimed to have resolved multiple global conflicts, pointing to progress in disputes like Russia-Ukraine, Thailand-Cambodia border tensions, and Iran. He’s highlighted ceasefires and negotiations as proof of his “peace through strength” approach, even suggesting he deserves a Nobel Prize. In a June 2025 speech, he described his Middle East efforts as delivering lasting peace in a region known for endless wars. It’s a clear message: Trump, the dealmaker, stops conflicts and brings troops home.

So why rename the Defense Department to something as aggressive as the Department of War? The shift to “Defense” in 1947 was deliberate, positioning the United States as a protector of global stability after World War II. Reverting to “War” suggests that military force is America’s primary tool, not diplomacy or deterrence. This contradicts Trump’s peace rhetoric, making him look like a leader who talks calm but signals conflict. If he’s truly ending wars, why choose a name that glorifies them? Critics argue it casts doubt on his sincerity, potentially weakening trust in U.S. diplomacy. Allies and adversaries might wonder if his negotiations are genuine or just pauses before escalation.

Then there’s the cost, which is far from trivial. Even as a secondary name, the rebrand will hit taxpayers hard. Estimates suggest that expenses could top $1 billion, covering updates to signage at military bases worldwide, official documents, websites, uniforms, and letterheads. Past renamings, like Confederate base changes under Biden, cost about $60 million for just a few sites, showing how quickly costs add up. Pentagon insiders are frustrated, calling it a wasteful distraction when budgets are tight. It’s a classic Trump move: big on flair, light on practicality.

Beyond messaging and money, the decision invites scrutiny on other fronts. Legally, Trump’s sidestepping a full rename by making “War” a secondary title avoids needing congressional approval, but it’s a risky move. Opponents could challenge it in court, arguing it oversteps executive power. Politically, it’s divisive: some conservatives cheer the tough-guy vibe, seeing it as a deterrent to enemies, but Pentagon officials are vocal about their annoyance, viewing it as a morale-draining stunt. For Trump’s base, it’s a bold show of strength. But moderates may see it as a step backward, evoking an era of overt militarism.

Internationally, the rename could harm America’s soft power. In a world of tense competition with China and Russia, branding the military as a “war” department risks painting the United States as imperialistic. Allies in NATO or the Indo-Pacific might worry about being pulled into conflicts, especially if Trump’s peace deals falter. The “Defense” label historically framed U.S. actions as protective, easing coalition-building during the Cold War and beyond. “War” feels like a throwback to nineteenth-century power plays, out of step with modern diplomacy’s focus on cooperation.

This decision also reflects Trump’s leadership style: bold, divisive, and attention-grabbing. Like his border wall or trade tariffs, it prioritizes optics over outcomes. While it might energize supporters, it distracts from urgent challenges like cyber warfare or climate-driven security threats. Renaming doesn’t change the department’s mission—defense, deterrence, and readiness remain the same. But it risks eroding public trust if seen as a frivolous expense or publicity stunt.

Another angle is the impact on the military itself. Service members, tackling a polarized political climate, might feel caught in a branding exercise that doesn’t address their realities. Recruitment and retention are ongoing challenges, with 2024 data showing the Army missing its goals by 15,000 soldiers. A costly, controversial name change could deepen disillusionment among troops who want focus on their welfare, not symbolic gestures.

Trump’s Department of War move reveals a leader at odds with himself. He wants credit as a peacemaker but can’t resist warrior rhetoric. The contradiction with his anti-war claims is stark, the financial burden is unjustifiable, and the legal, political, and international fallout could outweigh any short-term gains. As someone who has watched global leaders navigate tough choices, I’d argue that Trump should focus on substance—strengthening alliances, investing in defense innovation, or supporting troops—not tinkering with names for headlines. If he’s serious about peace, he needs actions that match the message, not labels that muddy it.

This first ran on FPIF.

The post The Department of War: Trump’s Costly Contradictions appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed