Former President Donald Trump has called for restoring the historic title “Department of War” to replace the current Department of Defense, framing the move as a return to America’s military roots and a rejection of what he described as decades of “political correctness.”
Speaking alongside South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, Trump emphasized that the original name reflected a stronger, more assertive identity for the U.S. armed forces. “That’s really what it is,” he said, linking the term to America’s military victories in World Wars I and II. He argued that the military’s purpose should include both offensive and defensive capabilities, saying the change would reinforce the nation’s readiness to act decisively when needed.
At a NATO summit in June, Trump had already referred to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as “Secretary of War,” signaling that the idea was not merely symbolic but a serious proposal under consideration. He also cited historical buildings near the White House that still bear the older title as evidence of its enduring place in American tradition.
Trump criticized the 1949 decision to rename the War Department, claiming it diluted the country’s military identity and legacy. He said the title “Department of War” represents the courage and strength that defined the United States through its greatest conflicts, and he suggested that reverting to the original name would restore that spirit.
While many of Trump’s supporters applauded the proposal, calling it a patriotic nod to history, legal experts cautioned that the process may not be simple. Because the Department of Defense’s name is codified in federal law, a full renaming would require Congressional approval. Analysts noted that such a move could spark political and legislative debate, especially over its symbolic and strategic implications.
Trump concluded his remarks by emphasizing the intent behind the rebranding effort. “We don’t want to be defense only… We want offense too,” he said, underscoring that the shift is not just about language but about redefining America’s military posture.
The proposal, if advanced, would mark one of the most significant symbolic changes to the U.S. military establishment in decades, reigniting national discussions about power, identity, and the meaning of strength in modern defense policy.