A name is more than a means of identification; it reflects the bearer’s aspirations and values. It may be a burden or a bonus. It is no surprise that people and nations go to considerable lengths to alter their names in order to improve their fortunes. On September 5, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO), changing the name Department of Defense to Department of War. Both the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth and his deputy, Steve Feinberg, are to be addressed as Secretary of War and Deputy Secretary of War. The White House affirms that the name Department of War conveys a stronger message of readiness and resolve compared to Department of Defense, which emphasizes only defensive capabilities. Restoring the department’s name to Department of War will sharpen its focus on national interests and signal readiness to wage war on adversaries to secure America’s interests. So far, the name change is limited to the executive arm as ratification by Congress is required to make it permanent.
However, permanence is inconsequential as Trump and Hegseth press on to achieve their goals. “Words matter,” says Pete Hegseth; works matter more. In words and works Trump and Hegseth are determined to make Americans at home and people around the world feel the impact. The new Department of War will bring “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality; violent effect, not politically correct.” These are ingredients required to restore America’s warrior ethos, and win wars decisively. The aggressive posturing of Trump and Hegseth creates the impression that the US is at war.
Is the US at War?
Trump believes the US is at war at home and abroad. On September 30, 2025, an unusual meeting of US top generals from around the world was summoned by Hegseth. At the Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, Trump told US military commanders: “We are under invasion from within,”. New York, Chicago and San Francisco according to the President are in “bad shape” and he suggested “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military National Guard.” Perhaps the goal of the meeting was to formally outline the President’s plan in dealing with the “war from within,” as National Guards have been deployed to Los Angeles in June, and Washington, D.C. in August. Memphis, Chicago, and Oregon are in line for deployment of National Guards.
Abroad, Trump told Congress the US is locked in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels after he ordered strikes on boats alleged to be carrying drugs from Venezuela to the US. Three such strikes have been ordered in the month of September, and a total of 17 people were killed. Some questioned the lack of details about the strikes, such as the name of the drugs and the identity of persons on the boats, others queried the legality of the strikes. Trump and Hegseth are eager to operate without shackles of the law as they embrace the Department of War.
Is the Department of War thrashing the law?
According to transcript published by rev, 2025, Hegseth is unequivocal about his desire to unchain US military from time-tested rules of engagement in combat. In Virginia, he charged US military leaders:
We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for war fighters. (para 65)
Scary. War is scary. That is the reason International Humanitarian Law (IHL) exists, to shackle the barbarity of war and restore some dignity for combatants and victims of war. The US like other countries, is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 and although allegations of breeches of IHL by US exist, however, several US administrations have reiterated America’s commitment to upholding IHL. According to a report published by the U.S. Department of State, 2024, Beth Van Schaack, US Ambassador-at-large for Global Criminal Justice during the 79th UNGA stated:
Although even perfect compliance with IHL cannot prevent civilian harm in warfare entirely, this body of law is essential for mitigating many of the worst humanitarian consequences and ensuring accountability where breeches occur. We also see from experience that adhering to IHL – including its enforcement obligations – can build future pathways for peace and reconciliation between warring parties. The United States calls on all states and armed groups to put policies and enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure that all armed actors comply with their treaty and customary IHL obligations. (para 3)
Such speech projects the US as a benign world power. It is one of the attractions of ‘brand USA,’ not talk by “foolish and reckless politicians,” (rev para 14) as Pete Hegseth alludes. Trump’s deployment of National Guards across American cities is the subject of law suits and protests. Aside from pushing the boundaries of executive powers, the deployments further exacerbate the gulf between Democrats and Republicans. While Republicans have no problems with deployment in ‘red states,’ Republicans Jeff Landry of Louisiana and Mike Kehoe of Missouri invited National Guards in their states; Democrats deem the deployments as overreach of executive power. Oregon and Portland is the latest ‘blue city-state’ to sue Trump over deployment of National Guards.
Earlier, Governor Newsom of California successfully sued Trump when the court ruled that the deployment of National Guards in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act which forbids the military from partaking in internal law enforcement without approval from Congress. However, the court ruling was limited to California. Trump does not have such restrictions about deployment of National Guard in Washington D.C. as the Home Act Rule grants the President authority.
Legal tussles and protests aside, the presence of soldiers in American cities in peace time is un-American and threatens centuries of culture of supremacy of civil institutions. Also, on the foreign scene, the liquidation of persons in international waters under the affixation of ‘unlawful combatants,’ without due process opens the door to lawlessness.
Historical Perspective to Department of War
The Department of War is not new to Americans. In 1789, the US began with the Department of War under Secretary of War, Henry Knox, a proper soldier and hero of the Revolutionary War. The name Department of War was fitting at that time because the US fought a long, bloody war (1775 – 1783) to gain its independence from Britain. Even after independence in 1776 and the onset of republican democracy in 1789, the US continued to be dodged by war as it was wedged between opposing super powers, Britain and France. Difficulties in the diplomatic balancing act pitched the US against France at one time leading to the ‘Quasi War’ (1798 – 1801), and against Britain in the ‘Second Revolutionary War’ (1812 – 1815), American Battlefield Trust (2025). In both instances the US was not the aggressor. Although President John Adams mobilized his country against possible invasion by France, he went against the desire of his Federalist Party, populist opinion and his electoral fortune to seek diplomatic solution to the dispute with France.
Since 1789, the Department of War was restructured to meet the needs of the time. The Department of War survived for 158 years (1789 – 1947) until President Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947. The Department of Defense with a cabinet member Secretary of Defense came into existence in 1949 after President Truman signed several amendments to the National Security Act of 1947. The amendments put paid to the newly formed National Military Establishment and strengthened the position of the Secretary of Defense. Since the end of WW2, aside the misadventure in Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq, the US has projected the image of a benign world leader. US’ leadership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a defensive alliance embodies this commitment. Trump and the Department of War appear determined to alter this image.
Conclusion
Misperception leads to war with unpredictable consequences for the victor and the vanquished. For a President who craves the Nobel Peace Prize and wants to be remembered as a peace maker, the Department of War and its offerings are recipes for inciting conflict. In Virginia, Hegseth described American generals as persons who “kill people and break things for a living,’. Given the choice, would these generals not say “We defend our country and allies at the risk of our lives for a living”. There is a difference between using overwhelming force against civilians in American cities and on international waters; and deploying America’s military might against invading armies.
Hegseth says the latter is reactionary, but with good intelligence, it has worked for the US. You do not fix what is not broken. US’ defensive posture with the Department of Defense carefully cultivated by patriotic American presidents has earned the US allies from around the world. Trump stands on that legacy and it is ‘common sense’ that he protects it.
