Althouse: "Trump’s opponents complain about the aggressive connotations of the new name."

September 6, 2025

"Trump’s opponents complain about the aggressive connotations of the new name."

"But the United States is protected by the most lethal and vigilant fighting force ever assembled, no matter what it’s called. The new name could prompt more focused debate about how to use it."

Writes the Editorial Board of The Washington Post, in "In defense of the War Department/Euphemisms such as 'defense' and 'security' have a tendency for bureaucratic mission-creep."

59 comments:

RideSpaceMountain said...: War is "aggressive"!?! Oh noes!!!; 9/6/25, 8:20 AM
RideSpaceMountain said...: Not necessarily a fan of the name change, because I'm a big believer in the fundamental meaning of words. But I also have to pragmatically agree with the name change.

The DOD hasn't been about "Defense" in a really long time.; 9/6/25, 8:22 AM
Leland said...: Not a fan, but actually, WaPo is making a good argument for the renaming. It just doesn’t make me more of a fan. Some of the “defense” mission creep is good stuff and not war like.

However, I do think in terms of recruitment. I want a military that recognizes their role is to fight in wars ferociously so they don’t have to fight in wars.; 9/6/25, 8:25 AM
Rocco said...: From Cynical Publius on X:
"... [O]ur military became more interested in how it could look and act like the State Department then in how it could eradicate our enemies in the most violent and expeditious manner possible.
...
"[T]he leaders of our uniformed services forgot who and what they are. They are not diplomats. They are not civil service employees of some federal department. They are not politicians. They are WARRIORS—or at least they are supposed to be. Their singular purpose is to close with and destroy our nation’s enemies.

The “Department of War” is a necessary and vital symbolic move that recaptures the heart of the warrior. It tells our own nation and our adversaries this: No more Vindmans. No more Milleys. No more McChrystals. No more idiotic rules of engagement that serve only to kill young American troops. No more disgraceful retreats from the Taliban. No more nation-building. No more bringing 'democracy' to 8th Century tribal goons.
...
"Now when we fight, we kill and we destroy and we win and we come home. THAT IS WAR.

That’s why the “Department of War” is so very, very important."

https://x.com/CynicalPublius/status/1964098833379373074; 9/6/25, 8:27 AM
Iman said...: No more Milley, McChrystal, Bearclaw Vindman…
I can live with that.; 9/6/25, 8:29 AM
gilbar said...: serious questions..
The Dept of War existed from before 1800, until 1949..
The Dept of Defense existed from 1949 until 2025.
about 150 years, vs about 75.

WHICH department engaged in MORE WARS?
WHICH department WON more?

let me know what you find out; 9/6/25, 8:36 AM
Kakistocracy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/6/25, 8:42 AM
Kakistocracy said...: Trump says the name was changed “because we became politically correct.”

The war department ceased to exist by that name in 1947.

Harry S. Truman, wokest of the woke?

Maybe they should rename the Pentagon to the Department of Victory, just to be doubly sure.

Trump season 2 is the funniest sitcom around.
I keep thinking, “it can’t get more ridiculous than this”, but then it does! 🤣🍿; 9/6/25, 8:44 AM
Ronald J. Ward said...: "Now when we fight, we kill and we destroy and we win and we come home. THAT IS WAR.“

Maybe that’s why they aren’t particularly welcomed in blue states, even if they do pick up trash from the streets in the process.; 9/6/25, 8:45 AM
Keldonric said...: If we want plain language, why not call it the Department of the Armed Forces? That’s what it actually is. “Defense” softens the mission, “War” sounds blunt but is just as much a euphemism — we’ve had “wars” on drugs, poverty, terror, none of which were declared wars in the constitutional sense. A name like “Armed Forces” sidesteps the rhetorical tug-of-war and simply describes the institution we’re talking about.; 9/6/25, 8:49 AM
Wince said...: This may reflect a larger shift in military doctrine.

In planning the October 7 attack, Hamas never expected the response of Isreal to be total war, something not waged in the west since WW II.

Hamas expected its ability to exploit the advantages of asymmetric warfare to continue. But the sheer barbarity of their attack made it clear there was no hope for peace in the status quo.

War should be brief, lethal and rare. Make Warfare Total Again.; 9/6/25, 8:52 AM
Kakistocracy said...: A critical component of a strong military is deterrence, which is the avoidance of war.

Does the new name reflect a change in posture, or is it just Trump doing random meaningless attention-grabbing stuff again?

Trump has the maturity of a four year old. Hegseth is the same.; 9/6/25, 8:54 AM
john mosby said...: Nut graf: “ Clarifying that the Pentagon is in the business of war-fighting could have other salutary effects. Congress has not declared war as the Constitution contemplated since World War II, even as U.S. troops have fought and died in wars large and small around the world.”

That’s the lawfare trap I mentioned yesterday. Certain factions see this as a way to limit our forces to and by the paradigm of organized violence between organized states. Even though our use of force has hardly ever been against other states.

The Lilliputians are rubbing their ropes and stakes in glee….RR, JSM; 9/6/25, 8:54 AM
RideSpaceMountain said...: The purpose of the US Army is to kill people and break their shit. The purpose of the US Navy is to drown people and break their ships...in half preferably. The purpose of the US Air Force is to vaporize EVERYTHING, people are "collateral damage". The purpose of the United States Marine Corps is to insult you, then kill you, then molest your corpse, then have a party roasting your pets with lots of tequila celebrating your death and the fact they shall soon be killing your friends (Marines throw the best parties). The purpose of the US Coast Guard is to save lives and provide timely meteorological information, except in time of war, when its purpose is to kill people and break shit....which surprisingly they do an exceedingly good job of. The purpose of the US Space Force is unknown, highly classified, and on a need-to-know basis.

In every case aforementioned, YOU ARE JOINING ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE PRIMARY FUNCTION IS TO KILL PEOPLE AND DESTROY EVERYTHING THEY LOVE. I've had this informal conversation thousands of times. If you are joining these organizations for ANY other reason than those I just mentioned - like college money or healthcare or because you dont know what to do with your life - you are not wanted. Stay the fuck away. The Sevices don't need any more of you. You have chosen poorly. The Armed Forces of the United States is not a vacation, you will support the United States - and no other country - and may be required to either A) kill people directly or B) be indirectly involved in killing. If you're not cool with this or learning how to do this, fuck off.

I'm so fucking tired of this country's military fighting other people's wars and I am doubly tired of people - especially women - signing up because they think the Services are a welfare program. Fuck you. Stay away. Millions of us are going back to the way things were....the USA being a "fail deadly" country to fuck with and otherwise enjoying our lives - even if that means we have to live Amish - just like so many other people that want to do the same unmolested.

Like I said earlier, I kind of disagree with the DoD becoming the DoW but also kind of agree. No more pussies and no more pussy-footing around. It's a terrible and ugly business but a necessary one and people need to accept and acknowledge that, most especially the people you vote for.

That includes Donald Trump.; 9/6/25, 8:55 AM
Kakistocracy said...: I guess all of those who served after 1945 served in a woke military, per the draft dodging commander in chief; 9/6/25, 9:11 AM
Peachy said...: Under Crook Joe - our police and our military were degraded, demoralized, de-funded, and all were forced into hugging a pride flag.
A pride flag is a lecture.; 9/6/25, 9:13 AM
Peachy said...: Kak-a-poodle... Donald Trump is The President.
Your crooked vile frauds kamala/ Tampon timmy the assassin - are losers. LOL. But keep trying - desperado.; 9/6/25, 9:16 AM
Jaq said...: "The new name could prompt more focused debate about how to use it."

I agree. That's why I like it even as I despise the mission creep that has undermined its mission as a defensive force since the end of WWII, actually since the closing days of WWII, when seeds of a bid for world empire—well they call it "primacy," you spot the difference—were sown.

George Washington was right, and Dwight Eisenhower was right, and most of the men who held the office have been unfit to carry their jock.; 9/6/25, 9:20 AM
Jaq said...: Joe Biden pulled our troops out of Afghanistan because he was planning war with Russia, and they would have become easy prey. Trump set conditions for withdrawal, Joe Biden? Well, Sir Robinette bravely ran away.; 9/6/25, 9:22 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Democracy Dies In Departments; 9/6/25, 9:23 AM
Rusty said...: Jesus, but that Kak guy is dumb.; 9/6/25, 9:30 AM
n.n said...: It's a reproductive... rhetorical rite.. right that was conceived... birthed before Trump, used explicitly... implicitly by the kings and queens... presidents that precedeed him, garnering gay accolades from the experts, professional classes, and journalists.; 9/6/25, 9:38 AM
Ronald J. Ward said...: Kakistocracy said...

“Does the new name reflect a change in posture, or is it just Trump doing random meaningless attention-grabbing stuff again?”

It’s about talking about anything other than his self-inflicted destruction of the job market and skyrocketing prices. Call it the First Friday of The Month Shit Show.; 9/6/25, 9:41 AM
n.n said...: Planned Perphood (PP), better? Drug mules aborted are a tarrif on their manufacturing cartel. A tax on Fentanyl distribution.. because [black] lives matter.

Did they receive a warning to abandon womb... ship, before being summarily aborted in the blue sea under blue sky?; 9/6/25, 9:45 AM
n.n said...: The last declaration of war was in 1942.; 9/6/25, 9:47 AM
boatbuilder said...: If you listen to Mike Benz, who was absolutely right about USAID, there is a massive amount of non-military social engineering, political/ideological propaganda, graft and "dirty tricks" stuff that is funded under "defense". If the name change is a precurser to a DOGE-like cleanup of the Pentagon, I'm all for it.; 9/6/25, 9:53 AM
Larry J said...: Personnel is policy. The Marine Corps has the warrior ethos at its heart. Every Marine is a rifleman. Before a Marine officer can go on to become a pilot or any other career, he must complete infantry training. We need a similar ethos in every branch of the military.

We also need to get rid of the Obama and Biden senior officers. They were the ones who introduced the DEI and other rot into the DoD.; 9/6/25, 10:09 AM
Michael McNeil said...: The last declaration of war was in 1942.

Self-proclaimed Constitutional law expert Joe Biden, then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (and then still able to speak coherently), denied that. As Biden observed in the aftermath of a speech presented on October 22, 2001 [!], in response to a question from the floor: {quoting…}

Question: “Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom?” [Scattered Laughter]

Biden: “The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction… Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what… against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.”

{/unQuote}

(Ellipsis in the original. Quoted from Joe Biden's own [now defunct] senatorial website.)

True Constitutional law expert, UCLA professor Eugene Volokh agrees with him, by the way.

But, of course, Biden as President made no attempt to obtain any Congressional approval (e.g., by at least seeking an authorization for the use of military force) of any his actions in the Middle East and elsewhere.; 9/6/25, 10:11 AM
Lazarus said...: The old name fit a world where going to war was a momentous and consequential event that had to be taken very seriously. The post-1947 name suited the post-1947 world when we were intervening in all sorts of conflicts all around the world.

Will the new name bring us back to the old situation when we were less interventionist? Or are those days long gone? On the other hand, would we even be able to be as interventionist going forward as we were in the Cold War era? Do we have the resources to keep throwing our weight around internationally? And even in the years before the Cold War, when we were less interventionist, were we ever really very non-interventionist? We avoided major European conflicts but still meddled in Latin American and Asian affairs without official declarations of war.; 9/6/25, 10:38 AM
n.n said...: So, Department of Force, then.

Department of Abortion (DOA), would offer a clear characterization of motive, means, and intent.; 9/6/25, 10:43 AM
RideSpaceMountain said...: Bob Boyd said, "Democracy Dies In Departments"

I swear by God this needs to be a plaque in every Pentagon office in the same way Monty Burns put one that said "Don't Forget You're Here Forever" in in Homer Simpson's, not least of which because the military ain't a democracy.; 9/6/25, 10:55 AM
RideSpaceMountain said...: @Jaq, Eisenhower was one of the greatest men this country ever produced, even Kesselring said so and fittingly ein Deutscher zu Deutschen. It's a shame he's not more relatively famous than other Presidents. Philosophically and classically, it's my contradictory opinion a military man should be a spiritual pacifist and simultaneously an expert professional at destruction. SunZi said it best that fundamentally war should be avoided if at all possible, "for a destroyed nation can not be returned to its former glory nor the dead returned to life."

He had one of the toughest jobs any man has ever been saddled with since Lincoln and he performed it excellently. America should be lucky to ever see his like again, moreso because it likely shall unfortunately.; 9/6/25, 10:55 AM
Marcus Bressler said...: Kak (Rich) writes: "Does the new name reflect a change in posture, or is it just Trump doing random meaningless attention-grabbing stuff again?" In Rich's case, perhaps he felt the amount of mocking and ridicule he took prior to Trump 2.0 (he kept predicting DJT would lose among other crap) necessitated a name change so he could spout random, meaningless, stuff he WISHES would be attention grabbing? Different name, same old horseshite. Next up, LLR Chuck. Say what you want about Inga but she's proud to attach her name to her inane posts.; 9/6/25, 11:14 AM
Marcus Bressler said...: Trump adding that name (it doesn't replace it; read the fine print) is simply another great troll to infuriate leftists who hate wars -- especially the one to free the slaves they enslaved.; 9/6/25, 11:15 AM
Marcus Bressler said...: It is not the "Department of War, as Declared by Congress"'; just wanted to add that.; 9/6/25, 11:17 AM
Marcus Bressler said...: "Draft-dodging CIC"? You mean Slick Willie, who actually put in writing his reluctance to serve.; 9/6/25, 11:19 AM
RNB said...: Why not take a hint from H. Beam Piper (in his 1959 novel 'Lone Star Planet') and call it the Department of Offense?; 9/6/25, 11:41 AM
n.n said...: Department of War is a viable choice. Department of Burden is quite literally a liberal license for elective DOA.; 9/6/25, 12:29 PM
Achilles said...: Writes the Editorial Board of The Washington Post, in "In defense of the War Department/Euphemisms such as 'defense' and 'security' have a tendency for bureaucratic mission-creep."

Well hell has frozen over. A WAPO headline that is cogent and honest.

The Military is always a punitive force. The new name is just a more honest description that keeps cowardly politicians from hiding behind euphemism.; 9/6/25, 12:58 PM
Achilles said...: Ronald J. Ward said...

Kakistocracy said...

“Does the new name reflect a change in posture, or is it just Trump doing random meaningless attention-grabbing stuff again?”

It’s about talking about anything other than his self-inflicted destruction of the job market and skyrocketing prices. Call it the First Friday of The Month Shit Show.

I was wondering when the convergence would happen.

Same dishonesty. Same person.; 9/6/25, 12:59 PM
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...: It's quite amusing to see the News Barbies on CNN (and various other leftie scum) get all wee-wee'd up over how much it's going to change all the signage and letterheads.; 9/6/25, 1:04 PM
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...: "cost to change", sorry!; 9/6/25, 1:05 PM
Mason G said...: "Trump doing random meaningless attention-grabbing stuff again?”

Cats don't have a clue what that red dot is all about, but they still chase it.; 9/6/25, 1:14 PM
JK Brown said...: Since 1946, the US has only gone to war. Often with the vague argument we must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them on the defense here.; 9/6/25, 1:16 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Michael McNeil finally bring some sense to the declaration of war question . Yes, the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. But if you've ever read that document, you should know that it doesn't specify any particular wording that must be used.

And since the real point of that is Congress - - that is, the representatives of the people -- has to approved taking the nation to war, it can't be just an executive branch decision, then why doesn't an Authorization to Use Military Force completely fulfill that requirement?; 9/6/25, 1:19 PM
loudogblog said...: Department of War does better represent what their job is. What bothers me is the multi-millions it will cost to change ALL of the signs, graphics and paperwork.; 9/6/25, 1:22 PM
Rusty said...: North
A pittance compare to an aircraft carrier. Probably my most favorite navy ship. An island. With a runway. That moves!; 9/6/25, 1:27 PM
Kirk Parker said...: loudog blog.

Did you miss where this is just an additional name that the department can use? The sum total for any required reprinting of signs, letterhead, etc is approximately zero.; 9/6/25, 2:40 PM
Paul said...: So the 'Department of War' is a 'new' name??? Aggressive? Oh my my my.. what horrors!; 9/6/25, 2:46 PM
n.n said...: The cost of the signage that seems to change on a regular basis and with social whims is surely not an impediment to rational discretion. Just do it, again.

That said, Abortion! What is it good for? Social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress. #DPP; 9/6/25, 3:02 PM
buwaya said...: A contrary, and foreign, take. The "Defense Department" is really a copy of a British idea backed by Winston Churchill in the 1940s, or a Tory party idea of the 1930s. It was about centralizing all the military bureaucracies, Army, Navy, etc., which had been separate. So the UK first had a Minister of Defense - Churchill himself, acting - in the wartime cabinet of 1940.

The US idea was similar and derived from the British. The old War Department ran the Army only, and was renamed the Department of the Army. There was a separate Navy Department. There is a Department of the Air Force, created when the Air Force was split off from the Army. But all were subsumed (though not eliminated) in the new Defense Department.

It used to be that the Secretary of the Navy, for instance, was in the Cabinet, along with the Secretary of War.

The Defense Department is not a rename of the War Department.; 9/6/25, 4:08 PM
Marcus Bressler said...: I didn't hear a goddamned peep out of the Leftists regarding the cost of changing the names of military bases. So phuque off.; 9/6/25, 4:09 PM
buwaya said...: As a Churchill fan I'm not turned off by "Defense Department", but its your own business what you Americans name things.; 9/6/25, 4:14 PM
rehajm said...: I like the deterrent effect…; 9/6/25, 4:15 PM
Mason G said...: "It's quite amusing to see the News Barbies on CNN (and various other leftie scum) get all wee-wee'd up over how much it's going to change all the signage and letterheads."

I'll bet they didn't say a word about how much all those pride flags that seemed to be everywhere cost the government.; 9/6/25, 5:13 PM
n.n said...: Department of Affirmative Action... DOAA. Either way, a "burden"-free solution.; 9/6/25, 5:19 PM
Kakistocracy said...: The Department of Defense was created in 1947 by a group of people that had just fought the bloodiest and most destructive war ever.

Maybe we should respect their choice.; 9/6/25, 6:06 PM
Bunkypotatohead said...: I can't think of a time in my life when they actually defended any of us. Might as well call it something else.; 9/6/25, 7:34 PM
john mosby said...: How about DOKA: Department of Kicking Ass? Or DOKYFA - Dept of Kicking Your Fucking Ass? Would be descriptive and avoid the lawfare traps. The service songs could all be replaced by "America, Fuck Yeah" from Team America World Police:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LasrD6SZkZk

DD (Durka Durka!), JSM; 9/6/25, 8:30 PM