A Familiar Face

Billy Huong• October 28, 2025

In an effort to salvage a divided United States, President Donald Trump has revived a former title to the Department of Defense: the Department of War (the White House). On Sept. 5, President Trump marked the revision’s effective beginning by signaling his approval of the official subtitle, “Department of War.” Promptly labelled, “Restoring the United States Department of War” on the White House’s official website, this proudly boasted change never received congressional consent. Instead, President Trump sought a loophole: a signed executive order to permit Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to refer to himself as “Secretary of War” and promote the title’s adoption across the department (Politico). By restoring the Department of Defense back to the Department of War, America runs the risk of being internationally challenged, as well as arousing skepticism from its own people.

Meanwhile, domestic public consensus is far from uniform — many citizens argue in favor of the change, claiming it strengthens American resolve (BBC News). However, countless people sway in the opposite direction (Politico). A ratio of 4:1 has been defined in terms of “strongly oppose” versus “strongly support”, meanwhile, 19% of voters remained unsure of which side to take (YouGov). The ideals the president beams forth on behalf of the country are taken at face-value by the rest of the globe, who presume that these are the core beliefs of all Americans. With the latter being a myth, as the American opinion is split, this goes to show the pervasive discontent with representation regarding this matter. Whether it was intentional or not, the new title altered foreign perception of America’s values.

The origin of the department was derived from decades of disorganized dispute. In 1789, amid the fragility of a newborn nation, the founding fathers promoted a centralized body to assert control and provide defense over the lands and waters encompassed by American territory. They dubbed it, “the Department of War.” Notably, it was established to safeguard the people who resided on American soil against foreign threats. “Safeguarding” did not include the invasion of territories for political, social or economic benefit (Politico). The name stuck around for the next 158 years, until President Harry Truman announced its official rebranding in 1947. The implementation of such a body was “directed not toward war — not toward conquest — but toward peace,” as was his justification (The New York Times). These ideals, humble in origin, met the world with neutrality. Peace, the priority of America, had ultimately been achieved. Despite this, President Donald Trump insists on the reinstitution of this former alias, thereby establishing a new definition of “peace.” His logic is as follows: “... a much more appropriate name, in light of where the world is right now,” and that it, "sends a message of victory” (NBC News). Sophomore Colin O'Brien expressed his outlook on the controversy surrounding the infamous adjustment.

“I do not think it sends a message of victory. I think it just puts us into a worse light than we already are,” O’Brien said. “It [makes America seem] more aggressive than [it] should be. [‘War’] is not the right message to be putting out.”

Undoubtedly, many deplorable stereotypes of Americans have been universally accepted for an extended period of time. The United State’s foreign outlook is tainted with the blood of its own people; crime rate is notoriously high in comparison to the rest of the world, which is only bolstered by U.S. regulations on firearms and other weapons of war (Human Rights Research Center). By devoting the existing Department of Defense to a “more victorious” Department of War, such stereotypes only worsen. Toxic portrayals of the U.S. only corrode its initial intentions. This, in turn, leads President Trump to contradict his original goal of spreading peace. If not a clear sign of victory over evil — in this case, tyranny and terrorists — the blurriness of Trump’s claims are subject to widespread misinterpretation, which is the case today. This notion is not confined to just outside U.S. borders.

After a brief overview of the situation, the domestic and international public may find themselves with one simple question: Why? Junior Jack Erikson, a veteran of the Peninsula Debate Team, offered his input on the motive behind the name's recent overhaul.

“[The name change] tells [us] what sort of mindset the Trump Administration has,” Erikson said. “They [are] definitely more in favor of deterrence policy, and peace-through-strength wartime attitudes.”

Deterrence policy, the discouraging of potential conflict by inflicting responsive destruction if prompted, emphasizes strength in domination. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth fortifies this “protective” ideology, which was far more prevalent in the 1980s: “Our allies know that we stand with them, and our adversaries know what we are capable of doing to them.” President Trump embraces this mindset — utilizing this technique to promote peace through authority, hence the slogan “peace-through-strength” (Brookings). However, the amount of wealth the U.S. expends to enforce deterrence policy is highly unconventional. The U.S. achieved peace at the cost of $997 billion, accounting for 37% of the world’s total military spending in 2024 alone (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). If a great portion of that budget could be redirected to internal improvements and general welfare, millions of citizens would enjoy a higher quality of life. To put this into perspective, one millionth of that budget would cover the cost of fourteen million meals for those in need (FoodBanking Network). Instead, America allocates these funds to “heightened security” — spurring a waterfall of influx in military equipment, which only intensifies global rivalries. The U.S. successfully retaining its reputation as the globe’s largest militaristic power does not speak great volumes for peace; rather, the country looks as though it is getting ready for violence.

The overhanging problem with the Department of War is its inability to communicate the right message to the world. With many implications in mind, sophomore August Agudamu noted his observations of the matter.

“Any type of conflict might lead to [aggression]. The [name change] could [incite] a psychological response, but not [necessarily] a [literal] global war,” Agudamu said. “[Regarding] the name change, I [lean] more to the side of [the Department of] Defense. [The change] was not worth it [at] all.”

Though by no means a declaration of war, the American public reaps the consequences of President Trump’s assertions; under his ideology, the common household would uphold a new, purely psychological “attitude,” specifically embracing radical peace and a healthy measure of pride. This controversial change in “attitude” was made in hopes of embracing a contemporary American “warrior ethos” (Radio New Zealand). Studies have shown that American patriotism, including ideals such as “warrior ethos,” have been on the decline since the late 1990s (United States Army War College). In reality, “warrior ethos” is not embraced as broadly by common citizens, leading the Trump Administration to attempt to reignite it, which has proven difficult. Not to say that this refined mentality would not have come without numerous benefits; just, the plan failed in its execution. The truth is this: the inhabitants of America are a peace-loving nation composed of ethnicities originating from all corners of the globe — unified under free commerce, free communication and unparalleled prospects. The people hold this as their identity. Younger generations, the adolescents who do not study politics, value neither the diction behind a stark political figure’s speech, nor the subtle rewording of a name, nor the pride in “warrior ethos.” Rather, the largely unstartled youth find themselves occupied with less distant interests: “How was work, Mom?” ,“Want to see what I got on my test?” and “What’s for dinner?” They take part in a future that is being destined for them, often under the premise that their opinions have no impact. Mirroring the youthful populace of America, the students at Peninsula wish to live their lives as usual — without every trivial syllable that their president utters about America reshaping how they compose themselves to the rest of the world.

President Trump feigns neutrality while puffing out America’s chest in an attempt at intimidation. The effects are both international and domestic: some countries have offbeat interpretations of Trump’s intentions (Politico). Citizens of the U.S. quarrel over the president’s methodology; one side is steadfast in saying it jeopardizes their worldwide reputation, while the opposition doggedly refutes this. Both arguments are, seemingly, presented in the pursuit of peace. Students everywhere are only mixed into the melting pot that is modern-day political America. After evaluating the outcomes, President Trump remains adamant on painting the future with the cold, resolute color of war. Artist or not, the darkened canvas has been set for the next generation to inherit.