Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: Department of War Restoration Act

News

The U.S. Pentagon.

President Trump’s executive order renames the Pentagon the Department of War, reviving a historic title and sparking new debate in Congress.

Getty Images, Westend61

1970s funk band War also changed their name, having previously been known as both The Creators and later Nightshift.

What the legislation does


On Sept. 5, President Donald Trump signed an executive order renaming the Department of Defense as the Department of War. This would also allow the Secretary of Defense, currently Pete Hegseth, to be known as the Secretary of War.

That same week, congressional Republicans introduced legislation to make these name changes permanent. The Department of War Restoration Act was introduced by Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL17) in the House and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) in the Senate.

Context

For most of American history, the department was indeed known as the Department of War. But after World War II, Congress enacted the National Security Act of 1947 to better unify the military branches, since the Army and Navy had been overseen by separate departments.

For two years, this new comprehensive department was called the National Defense Establishment. But in 1949, the name was changed to the Department of Defense in response to the Soviet Union acquiring nuclear bombs.

“The anodyne appellation was intended so as not to provoke the paranoia of the Politburo,” Michael Keane, a fellow of the National Security Education Program, wrote in an opinion column for The Hill.

“In the newly nuclear age, with military strategies struggling to catch up with apocalyptic weaponry, a less bellicose-sounding military establishment seemed to make sense in the service of preventing an atomic extinction event.”

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the reinstituted name is tougher, stronger, and returns to a time-honored heritage.

“From 1789 until the end of World War II, the United States military fought under the banner of the Department of War. Thanks to their courage and sacrifice, the standard of excellence was established for all servicemembers who followed in their footsteps,” Rep. Steube said in a press release. “It is only fitting that we pay tribute to their eternal example and renowned commitment to lethality by restoring the name.”

“For the first 150 years of our military’s history, Americans defeated their enemies and protected their homeland under the War Department,” Sen. Lee said in a separate press release. “[The bill would] make President Trump’s return to tradition permanent in federal law. It should always be clear to anyone who would harm our people: Americans don’t just play defense.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the renaming is belligerent, unnecessary, and duplicitous.

“Given the Trump administration’s repeated emphasis on fiscal restraint—particularly its aggressive use of illegal impoundments and now, unconstitutional pocket rescissions—this symbolic renaming is both wasteful and hypocritical,” 10 Senate Democrats wrote to the Congressional Budget Office. “It appears to prioritize political theater over responsible governance, while diverting resources from core national security functions.”

Odds of passage

The House bill has attracted 10 Republican cosponsors, while the Senate bill has attracted two Republican cosponsors. Either awaits a potential vote in their respective chamber’s Armed Services Committee, both controlled by the GOP.

House Republicans also introduced two other bills in September to make the same policy change, though neither has yet attracted any cosponsors. Rep. John McGuire (VA-5) introduced the Peace Through Strength Act, while Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN2) introduced another bill, named the Restoring the United States Department of War Act.

Competing proposals

Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced a competing bill: the Department of Defense’s Cost of War Act. It would require any expenditures associated with the renaming to come out of the Defense Secretary’s personal travel budget.

While not explicitly introduced in response to Trump's renaming, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN5) introduced a February bill to create a Department of Peacekeeping—essentially the opposite of a “Department of War.” That bill has attracted 38 Democratic cosponsors.

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with The Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on The Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.

SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Social Media at School Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: Make Entertainment Great Again (MEGA) Act, Renaming Kennedy Center to Trump Center

Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting

Congress Bill Spotlight: Banning Trump Administration From Renaming Naval Ship Harvey Milk


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less