Enough With the 'Department of War' Nonsense

There’s an adage in the military that ‘words mean things.’ It is a reminder that precision matters. So, when ostensibly serious people refer to the Department of Defense as the “Department of War,” we are no longer being precise. We are being theatrical. Worse, we are being unserious.

This is not semantic quibble.

We are more than six months into this new naming convention, and it hasn’t gotten any easier to absorb. The Trump administration, including Secretary Hegseth himself, advocates “peace through strength.” Ironically, however, their chosen defense war rebrand is perfectly antithetical to their adopted peace axiom. The rebrand-by-vibes crowd likes “Department of War” because it sounds tougher. Meaner. Like something you’d stencil on the side of a movie prop Humvee alongside a Punisher logo encircled by the phrase ‘si vis pacem, para bellum.’ The problem? Vibes are not law. Aesthetic aggression is not authority. And pretending otherwise doesn’t project strength – it projects insecurity.

So, when commentators, military officers, or enthusiastic government officials insist on resurrecting “Department of War,” what they’re really saying is: I want us to sound tougher than the law allows. That’s not accurate. That’s branding.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: calling it the Department of War doesn’t make us sound strong. It makes us sound juvenile. Anecdotally, many Defense Department employees think the whole ‘War’ thing is foolish. Defense employees not focused on conceding to leadership pressures see it as ignorant to history and tone deaf to reality, but keen on aggressive signaling.

This is especially irking when it happens in places that should know better.

Listening to leaders at U.S. military service academies – institutions built on rigor, discipline, and intellectual seriousness – address astute cadets, midshipmen, and faculty casually saying “Department of War” is painful. Not provocative. Painful. It makes intelligent people who know better sound like weak pawns kowtowing to coercive leaders, for fear of saying the Department of Defense risks being labeled a non-conformist objector, elevating the risk for reprisal and removal. So, the Department of War it is.

To be clear: using the Department of War in the lexicon is not wrong – because the president’s order directs that agencies and departments ‘shall recognize and accommodate’ the use of the Department of War as a ‘secondary title’ in internal and external communications. But the Executive Order does not formally require leaders to use Department of War in their vernacular. Those who do so choose to ‘accommodate’ an unofficial term because someone almost certainly told them ‘if you don’t say Department of War, you’re out.’    

The United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy teach cadets and midshipmen that civil-military relations matter. That law matters. That words matter. But then leaders toss all of that aside on the basis of blind obedience to people making things up as they go rather than adhering to the naming convention codified in federal law. Current leaders should set better examples for future leaders.

The contradiction is not edgy. It’s sloppy.

Serious militaries do not need to shout “war” to prove they understand and can inflict violence. They understand it precisely because they’ve seen its costs.

The irony is that the United States Department of Defense is already one of the most powerful institutions on the planet. It commands unmatched global reach. It executes lethal force when authorized. It does not need a scarier name for the rest of the world to respect its power.

A lion does not need to rename itself “Murdercat” for the rest of the animals to know it is, in fact, the alpha on the Savannah.

If the goal is deterrence, professionalism, and credibility – or better yet, actual adherence to the 2025 National Security Strategy touting a “Predisposition to Non-Intervention,” this labeling convention does the opposite. It replaces confidence with chest thumping. It replaces law with locker room bravado. So much for ‘speak softly and carry a big stick.’

“Defense” does not mean weakness. It means restraint with teeth. It means power with purpose. It means “Don’t tread on me.” It is the backbone of the founding principles of the United States. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution establishes the functions of government. It requires the government to “provide for the common defense;” not to make war. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost sight of this in favor of a modern branding campaign that signals more insecurity than it does “peace through strength.”

Let’s ditch the insecurity. Stop auditioning for a tougher brand. Go back to calling things what they actually are. It’s the Department of Defense. That’s not softer. That’s reality.

Ryan Burke, Ph.D., is a professor of military and strategic studies and a veteran U.S. Marine Corps officer.