Defense.gov Now Redirects to War.gov
76 comments
·September 10, 2025mrweasel
whatsupdog
This action might save trillions of dollars when the future generations will see all this money going to war, instead of "defense". And you are worried about a few million it might take to rebrand?
david38
This it how it used to me.
We had a War Department. Rebranding to Defense was a PR move to hide what was really happening.
This is a good thing as it’s far more truthful.
andrewstuart2
Maybe it's more obvious when named this way, but I don't think I've ever been under the impression that the DoD is focused on peaceful means of keeping the peace.
bbarnett
I doubt it. People want to live with their heads in the sand.
After all, "War and Peace" had a working title "War, what is it good for" before his mistress insisted he change it.
DamnInteresting
> "War and Peace" had a working title "War, what is it good for" before his mistress insisted he change it.
I suspect that you are being facetious, but for the benefit of anyone else reading, this is not true. It's a "factoid" (an invented fact mistaken as true)[1] spawned from a joke on the TV program Seinfeld[2].
This has been your daily wet blanket.
kypro
Transparency might cost a government in a direct sense, but the liberal argument would be that a transparent government is a more democratic and accountable government therefore that cost should ultimately result in better governance which has lots of indirect benefits.
In reality the majority of the US military budget does not go to defence in the colloquial sense, it's far more about projecting US power globally (which isn't necessarily a bad thing if you think that the US is projecting it's power for good).
"War" is a better description and sounds less innocent than "defence" would imply, although I think you could argue that even this is a slightly misleading description.
simonw
I understand it's also something which takes an act of Congress, not that this administration seems to care about that at all. See also tariffs. And delaying the TikTok ban.
FranzFerdiNaN
Why would they? The Supreme Court has already decided that Trump is basically a king.
fabian2k
Why would you assume the current government is frugal in any way?
FranzFerdiNaN
Its almost like conservatives always lie about their goals!
senectus1
he actually cant rename it, it takes an act of congress to do that.
he can start calling it by something else.... but its still the DOD.
altacc
There's the best and most justifiable reason for doing anything: Dear Leader said so. /s
glimshe
For those who don't know it, this is the name the department has had for most of its history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_...
This is a good name even if you are against wars like I am.
Calling it "Defense" just gives the wrong impression that most of the money goes towards "defending" ourselves instead of attacking others. We should avoid euphemisms when naming government agencies.
dghf
> For those who don't know it, this is the name the department has had for most of its history
Not really. It's the old name of the Department of the Army. Except for the first nine years of the DoW's existence, the Navy had its own, independent department, as did the USAF once it was established as a separate branch.
The Department of Defense didn't exist until after WW2, and was called the National Military Establishment for the first couple of years.
You see a similar pattern in the UK, which had the War Office for the Army, the Admiralty for the Royal Navy and the Air Ministry for the RAF: after WW2, the Ministry of Defence was created, initially liaising and co-ordinating between the service ministries, and then fully absorbing and replacing them.
tl;dr the Department of War is the old name of the Department of the Army, not of the Department of Defense.
altacc
The history justification is moot given that the reason for the name wasn't clarifying an existing role (the US is already very aggressive militarily and happy to attack whenever and wherever it pleases) instead the justification that went with the naming is that the US should be even more aggressive. That, as well as not being necessary or wanted by the world, goes counter to Trump's pre-election promise not to involve the US in more foreign wars.
bbarnett
the US is already very aggressive militarily and happy to attack whenever and wherever it pleases
Completely untrue, because a statement such as this requires counter examples, comparators.
Compare the US to any colonial power. Such countries were hell bent on ruling the world. The Brits had the largest empire the world has ever seen, boots on ground in dozens of colonies. And everyone in Europe was invading each other, their colonies endlessly and constantly.
Compared to the scale and scope of action those colonial powers undertook, the US is the most peaceful and benevolent country ever.
Modern comparisons show much the same. For example, Canada was more than a decade in Afghanistan. Canada is not war like, but does think stamping out oppressive regimes is a good idea. Canada also has blue hats in multiple countries.
Those sort of actions may turn out poorly, but the intentions are not to harm but help. And yes, I agree that is debatable except we're talking about the statement I quoted.
And when you look at truly aggressive nations, such as Russia, again no comparison. When recently has the US invaded a country, with the goal of taking it over and absorbing it? That's right, never in living memory.
If US truly did what it had the power to do, it could have easily taken over the world.
Has it? Did it invade everyone? No.
Yes, the US does deploy its military might. Yes, maybe it should less often.
No, it isn't aggressive, it's just very powerful.
I would very much argue it restrains its use of power mightily.
altacc
If this was Reddit I'd ask you what you were smoking! ;)
Calling the U.S. ‘peaceful and benevolent’ overlooks the sheer volume, aims and consequences of its military actions. It may not colonize in the traditional sense but its interventions often reshape nations in the US' favour, often violently, without accountability and leaving the populace of those countries much worse off than before.
I think it's not wise to judge present day against history as we should be aiming for improvement over time but if we look at recent history the US has a history of destabilising governments, often democracies, in favour of a more US aligned government. Often these efforts fail and the country descends into chaos. In others it leads to a government that uses death squads to help US businesses (see the banana republics).
Russia's aims in Ukraine were mostly likely to install a Russian aligned leader. This is similar to the USA's history of installing or supporting anti-democratic leaders. So whilst the US might not be absorbing countries but that shouldn't be the only metric for control.
Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan was under UN mandates and I agree that peace keeping forces are often good but that is not comparable to US military interventions. The US often acts unilaterally, or with limited partners and lack of widespread support.
With 251 military interventions since 1991 [1] we can cherry pick the best and worse uses of force, and I agree that sometimes force is needed, but I see the long term trend that the intention is indeed to help but it is mostly to help US interests. Consider as well that colonial Britain (and other colonial powers) also thought they were being helpful and bettering their colonies by bring "civilisation". Just because you think or state your aims are good doesn't make them so.
I'd argue that whilst the US could definitely not take over the world militarily (see how often it fails to take over a country) it already has in large part due to trade and culture and this is why it fears China so much, as China is now a rival for that power.
[1] https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/u-s-launch...
mcphage
> If US truly did what it had the power to do, it could have easily taken over the world.
My dude, we struggle to take over poor middle-eastern countries. I'm not sure how you think us trying to take over the world would go.
mynameyeff
Precisely, it is Orwellian to attempt to misdirect people using language.
brainzap
1$ of every iphone you buy goes to War
cyanydeez
Yawn. "We really should be regrsssive cause of history"
Next youll tell us black people should really be slaves or go back to africa.
Thanks gyy
edwinjm
The Nobel Peace Prize, which he really wanted, isn't a priority anymore, is it?
goku12
‘War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength.’
Zealotux
They gave it to Obama, anything is possible.
SanjayMehta
If you look at some of the people who received the Nobel Peace Prize, you can’t fault him for thinking he should get one too.
leventhan
For once, reducing the budget for the war department doesn't sound bad
random_ind_dude
Will defense contractors be known as war contractors from now on?
dlcarrier
I like this lack of euphemisms.
Can they change the ATF to the Department of Uncategorized Federal Overreach?
Also, NOAA should be called the Weather Force.
gilleain
"Weather Force" sounds like a low-budget kids show. The characters? So there's 'Lightning' of course, who is generally angry. 'Sunshine', naturally - the happy one of the group. Also, uh, 'Drizzle'? hmmm. Could use some work.
jackvalentine
This is just Captain Planet but lamer.
voxadam
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
― George Orwell, 1984detritus
I doubt he wrote that then, given he'd been dead for 34 years at that point.
sertsa
It’s from the book “1984”, published in 1949.
detritus
Sadly you ignored the main takeaway from the quotation, "ignorance is strength".
computerthings
[dead]
SanjayMehta
Well played. I’m stealing this.
hagbard_c
From Orwell's "1984" which was published in 1949, the same year the Department of Defense was established out of what used to be the Department of War or "War Office". In 1947 The Department of War was split into three separate departments - Army, Navy and Air Force - which were gathered into the National Military Establishment which in turn was renamed to Department of Defense in 1949.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Wa...
josefritzishere
I think this is my least favorite stupid thing in 2025 and it has a lot of competition.
OhMeadhbh
Did congress declare war on someone while I was napping? Just sort of curious if we're officially at war or if this is one of those "War on Drugs" or "War on Poverty" things.
mcdonje
Congress has been ceding power to the executive branch to greater and greater degrees over time. The president can effectively declare a war, even if not technically.
The founding fathers thought the different branches would want to keep their power. They didn't expect that feckless senators and representatives would want to hand off parts of their jobs so they could tell voters the bad happenings aren't their fault.
pjc50
Russia escalated their incursions into NATO airspace with the result of several drone kills: https://news.sky.com/story/poland-scrambles-nato-defences-af...
Oh and Israel bombed Qatar with implicit US approval.
altacc
Neither of these are something the US would ever react to diplomatically let alone militarily, except maybe to give Israel more weapons.
krapp
Congress hasn't declared war since WW2. If you think that sort of formality is still relevant, you've been napping for a while.
pbiggar
They don't declare war anymore if they can avoid it. Being at war comes with obligations and consequences, so they prefer to drone strike Yemen and Gaza without declaring war
spuz
You need to update your world model. Trump would very much like to officially declare war with Venezuela because it gives him certain wartime authorities (such as the Alien Enemies Act and the Insurrection Act) which he can use to to deport people without due process and deploy the armed forces domestically. This is why he ordered the destruction of a speedboat near Venezuela, has increased the bounty on the arrest of Venezuela's president Maduro and called him the head of the Cartel of the Suns. This is also why he is changing the department of defense to the department of war. He wants to use the pretense of war to subvert any checks against his power.
He likely does not want to actually invade anyone or do anything that brings actual war to the US but he does want the personal benefits that come with being at war.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/09/americas/venezuela-yvan-g...
pbiggar
Interesting. That does match what we've seen. Interesting his use of the word "terrorists" - they also use this word to describe the resistance against Israel's oppression. Truly a multi-faceted word that can be used to justify any crime against humanity!
krapp
>He wants to use the pretense of war to subvert any checks against his power.
What checks to his power?
The US is already in a state of emergency, one magically extended into infinity by the legislative branch redefining what a "day" is. The Alien Enemies act has already been used to justify Trump's mass deportation program as a war against the "invasion" of the US by immigrants, and that continues despite pushback from the courts, because Trump has declared openly that he doesn't consider himself bound by the courts.
And given what he's already gotten away with, his thesis seems to be correct. He isn't going to seek the pretense because he knows he doesn't need to.
defrost
It's part of the ongoing War on EDS (Epstein Derangement Syndrome).
So far that's going as well as the Wars on Drugs and Poverty did.
vim-guru
What an ugly logo, and the kerning is all wrong. Man!
tempodox
The “of” is in italics, while the surrounding text is not. Is war on typography part of the mission?
FjordWarden
Wow there is so much spacing after the "of" that I read it as "U.S. Department of space war"
tempodox
Marginally better than redirecting to `love.gov`.
motbus3
Approving money for war is harder than approving money for defense. I don't think it was his intention. He wants to sound masculine and brave, like Putin seems to do for him.
I'm not sure at all about anything anyway. But right now, I have friends working for "Defense AI related" projects and knowing their interests in AI, I'm sure all the companies are doing is to stamp AI-ready label in the same missiles.
Remember that anyone can say that a linear model is AI.
Rebranding an entire department under the US government cannot be cheap. That does not sound like something a frugal government does without a very good reason.