Staff Reports
Senator Josh Hawley, joined by Senators Mike Lee and Rick Scott, has sparked debate this week by proposing to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War. While critics mock the idea as symbolic nostalgia, the proposal raises deeper questions about the mission and priorities of the U.S. military. The senators argue that America’s armed forces should focus on their core purpose—war fighting and deterrence—rather than being redirected toward progressive social experiments that do little to protect the nation. At its heart, the push is less about semantics and more about restoring a warrior ethos at a time when America faces serious threats abroad.
For years, many Americans have watched with skepticism as the Pentagon became a testing ground for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, as well as policies on gender surgeries and identity politics. These critics argue that while Russia and China expand their militaries at breakneck speed, Washington has been wasting precious time bogging down the Armed Forces in culture-war distractions. Hawley and his colleagues contend that by bringing the language of war back into the forefront, the American military will be more clearly defined as a lethal, fighting force meant to deter enemies—not a woke bureaucracy.
Predictably, establishment figures like Adam Kinzinger sneered at the proposal, dismissing it as outdated thinking from an earlier era. But their knee-jerk dismissal ignores the obvious reality: adversaries like China’s Communist Party and drug cartels flooding America with fentanyl are not concerned with inclusion seminars or public relations campaigns. They are exploiting America’s internal weakness. The refusal of critics to admit this demonstrates how far detached they’ve become from the core purpose of a military: to destroy threats before they reach U.S. shores.
This clarity is especially urgent in tackling crises such as drug trafficking, where national security and military readiness are intertwined. The current “soft” approach, where international criminals are treated with the same legal rights as citizens, has only emboldened cartels and terrorist affiliates. For Hawley and his allies, America cannot afford the luxury of legal niceties extended to enemies determined to kill our citizens. Renaming the Department isn’t about nostalgia—it’s about drawing a line between a defensive posture that has looked increasingly passive and a posture of strength that signals unmistakable resolve.
Ultimately, the debate over renaming the Department of Defense reflects a much larger ideological clash over America’s identity. Is the military a fighting force designed to win wars and crush adversaries, or is it a vehicle for advancing progressive social causes? For Hawley, Lee, and Scott, the answer is simple: the role of the military is to defend American lives and interests by being ready—and unashamed—to wage war when required. Whether or not the name change succeeds legislatively, the discussion has exposed the dangerous drift in American priorities. And in today’s world, where weakness invites aggression, clarity might just be the most powerful weapon we have.
