The Secretary of War plaques are installed at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., Sept. 3, 2025. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Aiko Bongolan). The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoW) visual information does not imply or constitute DoW endorsement. Image: DoD/DoW
By: FEDweek StaffAn executive order signed Sept. 5, 2025—and companion bills in both chambers—has reignited efforts to rename the Department of Defense the “Department of War.” Without formal guidance in a White House memorandum or committee report, agencies must navigate high-level directives against an unchanged statutory framework, risking costly missteps, legal challenges and diplomatic misfires.
The Pentagon estimates the rebranding would cost about $600 million to update signage, uniforms, digital templates and stationery across 4,800 global installations. Federal employees and contractors are already facing procurement freezes, communications overhauls and budget shortfalls as the government shutdown enters its 21st day.
Those projected costs come as the shutdown compounds fiscal and operational strain. Partisan framing now shapes both the pace of legislative action and the scope of operational uncertainty, with stakes extending beyond cost to how the world interprets a shift from “Department of Defense” to “Department of War.”
Conservative commentators cast the order as a show of strength, while progressive outlets dismiss it as costly symbolism; on Capitol Hill, the divide mirrors familiar defense and budget fights. That political noise—layered over fiscal constraints and the unresolved question of statutory authority—ultimately frames both the timeline and the likelihood of change.
Meanwhile, the administration and secretary Pete Hegseth have decided the costs are indeed worth it, in service of what they see as a necessary “cultural refresh.”
President Trump’s Executive Order 200 authorizes “Department of War” as a secondary title in executive-branch communications, ceremonial proceedings and non-statutory documents. That same day, Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced S. 3126 in the Senate, while Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) filed H.R. 7254 in the House to codify the change in statute.
Both measures were referred to the Armed Services, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees and their House counterparts. But with no fiscal 2026 appropriations in place, committee staff have been furloughed and hearings are suspended.
As of Oct. 16, the Senate’s official schedule lists only a Judiciary business meeting; no defense-related hearings are planned. Without a continuing resolution or emergency carve-out, the bills cannot advance to markup or floor debate.
Executive Order 200’s designation of “Department of War” as a secondary title, paired with Senate bill S. 2685 and House bill H.R. 5080, has created a legal and operational gap between the unchanged statutory name and new executive messaging—one neither the White House nor Congress has explained.
Practical confusion
A White House fact sheet on EO 200 outlines mechanics for template and ceremonial updates but omits any discussion of Congress’s constitutional prerogative to name Cabinet departments. Sponsors of both bills have touted their proposals without releasing explanatory memos to reconcile the conflict, and congressional calendars through mid-October list no hearings on either measure.
Meanwhile, Pentagon officials updating seals and signage across more than 700,000 global facilities report acute confusion over whether “Department of Defense” or “Department of War” applies to appropriations, contracts and interagency agreements, raising questions of Antideficiency Act violations. The Antideficiency Act further bars new rebranding obligations during the shutdown, halting any orders for physical or digital updates.
For federal employees, contractors and allies abroad, the practical question is how agencies are expected to operate under two names at once—and whether that ambiguity carries real costs in procurement, diplomacy and strategic messaging.
Legal analysts emphasize that EO 200 cannot alter the department’s statutory name, seals or appropriations language. Pentagon planners have drafted internal style guides using exempt carryover operations and maintenance funds, but implementation remains frozen.
The last major reorganization came under the National Security Act of 1947 and its 1949 amendments, which merged the War and Navy Departments under the “Defense” umbrella. None of those measures revisited the department’s name, underscoring the legislative inertia surrounding such changes. Congressional calendars had anticipated possible markups in late 2025, but those timelines remain uncertain.
The projected $600 million cost raises trade-offs across the defense budget. Competition for funding across the vast department includes cyber upgrades and munitions sustainment, discretionary investments in childcare and retention bonuses, and base infrastructure projects if appropriations are reprogrammed to cover one-time rebranding expenses.
Strategic signaling
Perception often outweighs legal fine print in international diplomacy. Even though Executive Order 200 only authorizes “Department of War” as a secondary title, foreign governments are unlikely to focus on the nuance.
According to an Oct. 15 NATO press conference, allies have already flagged interoperability concerns, while China, Russia and Iran are framing the move as proof of U.S. aggression. In practice, the “secondary” label functions as a headline—what appears on podium backdrops, press releases, and ceremonial documents—so the global audience may treat it as the de facto name regardless of statutory limits.
Advocates say the “War” label better reflects the Pentagon’s combat mission and strengthens deterrent messaging, while criticism has recognized DoD’s substantial portfolio—disaster relief, medical evacuations, infrastructure rebuilding—tied to the “Defense” brand conveying neutrality and soft‑power access, especially in multilateral operations. The unresolved question for practitioners is whether dual branding complicates interagency coordination, host‑nation approvals and humanitarian access in the field.
Life under dual-branding
For federal employees and managers, though, the partisan debate is only the backdrop—the immediate challenge is how to operate under dual branding while Congress remains deadlocked. Day-to-day work hinges on readiness: contracting teams should begin reviewing solicitations and deliverables where branding appears and flag possible reprogramming tied to public-facing materials. Public affairs offices can prepare dual-title templates, update media kits and web assets, and maintain consistency while statutory naming remains unchanged.
Those practical adjustments quickly spill into budget and management decisions. Budget analysts will need to model one-time rebranding costs against FY 2026 appropriations and identify potential emergency carve-outs or interim funding paths. Program managers can update training manuals, readiness reports and interagency memos to reflect dual references and prevent confusion in joint activities.
Taken together, these steps highlight the trade-offs and rebranding workload. Equally important is a cost-benefit review that weighs the dollar and manpower costs against those priorities, alongside monitoring of allied and adversary statements and work product for signs of strategic reverberations, and potential downstream impacts on interoperability and planning.
Shutdown Stalls Hegseth’s Reforms on Two Fronts as Pentagon Accelerates Cuts
Army Issues New Grooming Policy
Pentagon Orders New Task Force, Disbands Counter‑Drone Office
Trump to move Space Command headquarters out of Colorado
Civilian FERS Now? How to Buy Back Your Military Time if You Stand to Gain
Credit for Military Service for Federal Retirement Annuities
