On September 5th, following an executive order by President Donald Trump, the Department of Defense officially changed its name to the Department of War. Proponents of the change — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — argue that the new title reflects a “warrior ethos” and sends a message of resolve to America’s adversaries. Critics, however, warn that the shift sets a dangerous precedent for American democracy.
In this episode, podcast host Micah Barrett speaks with Reid Sorrell, author of “The Department of War: A Dangerous Precedent for American Democracy,” to discuss the name change and his article.
The listening time for this episode is 14:36 seconds.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
Micah Barrett: I’m Micah Barrett, and this is the Florida Political Review podcast. Today on the Florida Political Review podcast, we’re joined by Reid Sorrell to talk about his thought-provoking article, “The Department of War: A Dangerous Precedent for American Democracy.” Welcome, Reid.
Reid Sorrell: Thank you so much for having me.
Micah Barrett: So, to jump straight into it, what is the history of the Department of War’s name, and why was it changed to the Department of Defense?
Reid Sorrell: Originally, the Department of Defense was called the Department of War when it was established in 1789 after we were reorganizing the country from the Articles of Confederation. The Department of War was essentially the Army, and there was a separate position for the Department of the Navy.
Both were Cabinet-level positions, meaning they were present at Cabinet meetings and reported directly to the president. Following World War II, an act created the National Security Establishment, which incorporated the Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy while creating the Department of the Air Force, placing them all under one unified organization.
This was later renamed the Department of Defense in 1949, with a Secretary of Defense serving as the representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at Cabinet meetings and to the president.
Micah Barrett: So, the Department of War became the Department of Defense — but why do you think Trump decided to change the name back to the Department of War?
Reid Sorrell: The name change actually has no real effect upon the structure of the government or the Department of Defense. All it does is change the name in official communications. His executive order approved referring to the Department of Defense as the Department of War in executive transmissions and governmental documents.
It doesn’t create a structural change — it’s purely political. In my opinion, this serves as Trump’s transition toward a more militarily focused government, where we are not prioritizing peace on the world stage but instead pushing conflict. It reflects a return to a more colonial-era mentality, before modern checks were placed on military power — back when we were invading the Philippines or Mexico under claims of freedom or manifest destiny.
Micah Barrett: So, what would you say to those who argue it’s just a name change and no big deal?
Reid Sorrell: It’s never just a name change. Think about Confederate military bases named after former Civil War traitors. These names represent the United States to the rest of the world. If we maintain Confederate bases or, in this case, name an entire department after war, it signals a shift in U.S. foreign policy and values.
Micah Barrett: In your article, you say that renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War sets a dangerous precedent. What precedent is that, and why is it dangerous?
Reid Sorrell: When you call something the War Department, it suggests that we are no longer seeking peace or defense. We’re signaling that we are a war-first country. Oppressive regimes abroad don’t have “defense departments”—they have “war departments.” Those organizations are designed to cause chaos and distrust.
If we want to remain leaders of the free world, we need a department focused on defending people from injustice, not signaling aggression. Otherwise, nations will stop looking to us and start looking to China or Russia. We already see this shift with Kuwait, which historically relied on us but is increasingly turning to China for deeper economic and military ties, including through initiatives like the Kuwait-China Friendship Club.
Micah Barrett: Do you think the renaming is more of a foreign policy move or a domestic political move?
Reid Sorrell: I’d say it’s both. Domestically, it appeases war hawks in Congress who receive support from military contractors or PACs connected to the military-industrial complex.
Internationally, it is meant to show strength to adversaries who might distrust or doubt our current government. Pew Research polling has shown that many countries don’t currently take the U.S. seriously, partly due to internal division and leadership dissatisfaction under multiple administrations.
Micah Barrett: We’ve seen the president threaten military deployment in cities such as New York. Do you think this name change could normalize domestic military force?
Reid Sorrell: I would say no. Even though the president has threatened military action and followed through in cities like Portland, L.A., and Chicago, the goal is still framed as peacekeeping. If you look to the Middle East, we recently brokered a deal between Israel and Hamas attempting to end conflict without oppressive conditions.
So, although controversial, these actions are not necessarily normalizing military rule; they’re being justified as temporary measures to restore peace.
Micah Barrett: Is it even legal for a president to change the department’s name alone?
Reid Sorrell: No — he didn’t legally change it. He changed the name only in official communications through executive order. The legal name remains the Department of Defense, overseen by the House Committee on Defense, which continues to fund and refer to it by that name.
However, within departmental communications, they are now allowed to call themselves the Department of War, and Secretary Hegseth has embraced that informally.
Micah Barrett: What do you think the name signals to other countries, particularly allies vs. enemies?
Reid Sorrell: To both allies and enemies, it signals that the U.S. is no longer prioritizing peace, stability, or economic development. It suggests a return to military-driven foreign policy rather than diplomacy or development-based policy.
Countries in Africa, for example, might turn away from the U.S. toward France, China, or Russia, especially as China continues to expand through economic partnerships like the Belt and Road Initiative — filling the space the U.S. used to occupy.
Enemies may interpret the change as a sign that we are more likely to use military action, which could deter some, but also reinforce the long-standing narrative that the U.S. uses power oppressively.
Micah Barrett: Critics say that the Department of War name strikes fear into enemies and could act as a deterrent. What’s your response?
Reid Sorrell: Fear doesn’t need to be verbalized when we already have the most powerful and advanced military in the world. Deterrence is already established.
Instead, we should focus on building stable relationships through economic development, education, and investment so that countries want to align with us, not fear us. That approach is more cost-effective and prevents war and extremism.
Micah Barrett: Finally, what warning signs or indicators should listeners look for that would confirm your concerns?
Reid Sorrell: We’re already seeing some: increased ICE deployment, greater use of military displays, and events such as Trump’s birthday parade featuring troops in Washington, D.C.
If these trends continue and Americans grow more comfortable with a constant military presence or military-themed nationalism, it could signal a future with more foreign wars and less emphasis on peace.
Micah Barrett: Well, thank you, Reid, for the conversation. We really appreciate it. Please go read Reid’s article in the Florida Political Review titled “The Department of War: A Dangerous Precedent for American Democracy.” Thank you, Reid.
Reid Sorrell: Thank you so much for having me.
Read Reid Sorrells’ article here and listen to the Spotify episode here.
