On Friday, President Trump signed an executive order rebranding the Department of Defense as the Department of War, and the Pentagon quickly carried out cosmetic alterations to comply with the change.
Sarah Kreps, professor of policy, law and government at Cornell University, previously served as an active-duty officer in the United States Air Force and is a leading expert in defense policy. She says that without subsequent structural reform in the department, the move to rename risks being performative.
Kreps says: “The proposal to rename the Department of Defense back to the Department of War carries symbolic weight but raises questions about substance.
“From 1789 to 1947, the United States had a War Department (and, from 1798, a separate Navy Department). After World War II, Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947, which reorganized the national security establishment and, among other things, created the Central Intelligence Agency.
“In 1949, the Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense, reflecting a broader mandate. That mandate has since expanded even further, covering everything from Ebola relief to tsunami response. A return to the ‘War’ label could be meaningful if it coincided with a narrowing of scope and responsibilities, clarifying what belongs under military authority and what should rest with civilian agencies.
“Without such structural reform, however, the move to rename risks being performative. Budgets remain vast, missions wide-ranging, and institutional incentives unchanged. A name alone does not reset expectations at home or abroad: Americans will still expect the military to do everything, and adversaries will judge American power by its actions rather than its title.”
More News from A&S
Cornell expert: Indonesia’s Prabowo ignoring ‘needs of the people’ in cabinet shake-up
Government
