https://www.profitableratecpm.com/f4ffsdxe?key=39b1ebce72f3758345b2155c98e6709c
Since the September day when President Donald Trump symbolically renamed the Defense Department the War Department, the U.S. military has carried out at least 21 strikes against Venezuelan boats, killing 83 people suspected of drug trafficking. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called an unprecedented and widely mocked pep rally of military generals and flag officers during which he pledged his commitment to the “warrior ethos.” And Hegseth continued to fire or demote military generals and admirals, purging at least two dozen of them during his tenure, the New York Times reported.
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
In the late 1700s, American leaders structured the War Department along the lines of those of Great Britain and other European countries. The department was responsible for the army and non-naval forces, while the navy remained independent. World War II and the Cold War caused the Department’s responsibilities to grow and evolve until, as America’s global superpower status emerged and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency formed, the Department of Defense was created to consolidate the various military and intelligence arms that had emerged over the previous 150 years.
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
In the late 1700s, American leaders structured the War Department along the lines of those of Great Britain and other European countries. The department was responsible for the army and non-naval forces, while the navy remained independent. World War II and the Cold War caused the Department’s responsibilities to grow and evolve until, as America’s global superpower status emerged and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency formed, the Department of Defense was created to consolidate the various military and intelligence arms that had emerged over the previous 150 years.
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
Trump and Hegseth, he said, want to go back “to the good old days before 1947 and 1948. They look at it and go, Wow, desegregation of the military didn’t help. That’s when political correctness took hold. They won’t say it upfront, but that’s what they’re implying.”
Trump’s War Department is “refocused on preparedness and lethality,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement. “The White House is working hand in hand with the Department of War on implementing the executive order. »
“Just look at the purges”
In the late 1700s, American leaders structured the War Department along the lines of those of Great Britain and other European countries. The department was responsible for the army and non-naval forces, while the navy remained independent. World War II and the Cold War caused the Department’s responsibilities to grow and evolve until, as America’s global superpower status emerged and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency formed, the Department of Defense was created to consolidate the various military and intelligence arms that had emerged over the previous 150 years.
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
“They see this through their own very limited prism — that of blaming political correctness,” said Kyle Longley, director of the War, Diplomacy and Society program at Chapman University.
Trump and Hegseth, he said, want to go back “to the good old days before 1947 and 1948. They look at it and go, Wow, desegregation of the military didn’t help. That’s when political correctness took hold. They won’t say it upfront, but that’s what they’re implying.”
Trump’s War Department is “refocused on preparedness and lethality,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement. “The White House is working hand in hand with the Department of War on implementing the executive order. »
“Just look at the purges”
In the late 1700s, American leaders structured the War Department along the lines of those of Great Britain and other European countries. The department was responsible for the army and non-naval forces, while the navy remained independent. World War II and the Cold War caused the Department’s responsibilities to grow and evolve until, as America’s global superpower status emerged and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency formed, the Department of Defense was created to consolidate the various military and intelligence arms that had emerged over the previous 150 years.
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
As with his previous directive that all new federal structures be built in the “classic” style, President Donald Trump appears to be using symbols to literally take the country back in time. Restoring the Pentagon’s original name is a nod to restoring an American era when civil rights were weak and the role of women limited. From his elimination of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to his militarized anti-immigration campaigns, Trump is harkening back to the origins of George Washington’s War Department.
“They see this through their own very limited prism — that of blaming political correctness,” said Kyle Longley, director of the War, Diplomacy and Society program at Chapman University.
Trump and Hegseth, he said, want to go back “to the good old days before 1947 and 1948. They look at it and go, Wow, desegregation of the military didn’t help. That’s when political correctness took hold. They won’t say it upfront, but that’s what they’re implying.”
Trump’s War Department is “refocused on preparedness and lethality,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement. “The White House is working hand in hand with the Department of War on implementing the executive order. »
“Just look at the purges”
In the late 1700s, American leaders structured the War Department along the lines of those of Great Britain and other European countries. The department was responsible for the army and non-naval forces, while the navy remained independent. World War II and the Cold War caused the Department’s responsibilities to grow and evolve until, as America’s global superpower status emerged and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency formed, the Department of Defense was created to consolidate the various military and intelligence arms that had emerged over the previous 150 years.
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
“It’s a different America coming out of World War II,” said John C. McManus, a professor of military history at Missouri University of Science and Technology. A country once built on isolationism has been transformed. “America coming out of World War II can’t really afford it anymore. It’s a leading nationalist structure in the world.” The new DoD structure fits that, he said.
As with his previous directive that all new federal structures be built in the “classic” style, President Donald Trump appears to be using symbols to literally take the country back in time. Restoring the Pentagon’s original name is a nod to restoring an American era when civil rights were weak and the role of women limited. From his elimination of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to his militarized anti-immigration campaigns, Trump is harkening back to the origins of George Washington’s War Department.
“They see this through their own very limited prism — that of blaming political correctness,” said Kyle Longley, director of the War, Diplomacy and Society program at Chapman University.
Trump and Hegseth, he said, want to go back “to the good old days before 1947 and 1948. They look at it and go, Wow, desegregation of the military didn’t help. That’s when political correctness took hold. They won’t say it upfront, but that’s what they’re implying.”
Trump’s War Department is “refocused on preparedness and lethality,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement. “The White House is working hand in hand with the Department of War on implementing the executive order. »
“Just look at the purges”
In the late 1700s, American leaders structured the War Department along the lines of those of Great Britain and other European countries. The department was responsible for the army and non-naval forces, while the navy remained independent. World War II and the Cold War caused the Department’s responsibilities to grow and evolve until, as America’s global superpower status emerged and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency formed, the Department of Defense was created to consolidate the various military and intelligence arms that had emerged over the previous 150 years.
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
But a closer look at the department’s history, historians told TPM, shows that a return to the Washingtonian war ethos makes no sense for a modern nation. The ways and means of warfare changed completely, and George Washington’s America was not the global superpower it is today.
“It’s a different America coming out of World War II,” said John C. McManus, a professor of military history at Missouri University of Science and Technology. A country once built on isolationism has been transformed. “America coming out of World War II can’t really afford it anymore. It’s a leading nationalist structure in the world.” The new DoD structure fits that, he said.
As with his previous directive that all new federal structures be built in the “classic” style, President Donald Trump appears to be using symbols to literally take the country back in time. Restoring the Pentagon’s original name is a nod to restoring an American era when civil rights were weak and the role of women limited. From his elimination of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to his militarized anti-immigration campaigns, Trump is harkening back to the origins of George Washington’s War Department.
“They see this through their own very limited prism — that of blaming political correctness,” said Kyle Longley, director of the War, Diplomacy and Society program at Chapman University.
Trump and Hegseth, he said, want to go back “to the good old days before 1947 and 1948. They look at it and go, Wow, desegregation of the military didn’t help. That’s when political correctness took hold. They won’t say it upfront, but that’s what they’re implying.”
Trump’s War Department is “refocused on preparedness and lethality,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement. “The White House is working hand in hand with the Department of War on implementing the executive order. »
“Just look at the purges”
In the late 1700s, American leaders structured the War Department along the lines of those of Great Britain and other European countries. The department was responsible for the army and non-naval forces, while the navy remained independent. World War II and the Cold War caused the Department’s responsibilities to grow and evolve until, as America’s global superpower status emerged and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency formed, the Department of Defense was created to consolidate the various military and intelligence arms that had emerged over the previous 150 years.
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
Steve Yates, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, says Trump’s name change has real significance. Yates told TPM that this is just one aspect of a broader change aimed at deflating the DoD’s bloated bureaucracy and returning the department to its original wartime ideals ordered by George Washington and away from “nation building” and “peacekeeping.”
But a closer look at the department’s history, historians told TPM, shows that a return to the Washingtonian war ethos makes no sense for a modern nation. The ways and means of warfare changed completely, and George Washington’s America was not the global superpower it is today.
“It’s a different America coming out of World War II,” said John C. McManus, a professor of military history at Missouri University of Science and Technology. A country once built on isolationism has been transformed. “America coming out of World War II can’t really afford it anymore. It’s a leading nationalist structure in the world.” The new DoD structure fits that, he said.
As with his previous directive that all new federal structures be built in the “classic” style, President Donald Trump appears to be using symbols to literally take the country back in time. Restoring the Pentagon’s original name is a nod to restoring an American era when civil rights were weak and the role of women limited. From his elimination of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to his militarized anti-immigration campaigns, Trump is harkening back to the origins of George Washington’s War Department.
“They see this through their own very limited prism — that of blaming political correctness,” said Kyle Longley, director of the War, Diplomacy and Society program at Chapman University.
Trump and Hegseth, he said, want to go back “to the good old days before 1947 and 1948. They look at it and go, Wow, desegregation of the military didn’t help. That’s when political correctness took hold. They won’t say it upfront, but that’s what they’re implying.”
Trump’s War Department is “refocused on preparedness and lethality,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement. “The White House is working hand in hand with the Department of War on implementing the executive order. »
“Just look at the purges”
In the late 1700s, American leaders structured the War Department along the lines of those of Great Britain and other European countries. The department was responsible for the army and non-naval forces, while the navy remained independent. World War II and the Cold War caused the Department’s responsibilities to grow and evolve until, as America’s global superpower status emerged and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency formed, the Department of Defense was created to consolidate the various military and intelligence arms that had emerged over the previous 150 years.
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
Last Wednesday, an NBC News report revealed that an official War Department name change, which could only be accomplished by an act of Congress, could cost taxpayers as much as $2 billion in signage updates, personnel items such as signs and badges, and technological changes.
Steve Yates, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, says Trump’s name change has real significance. Yates told TPM that this is just one aspect of a broader change aimed at deflating the DoD’s bloated bureaucracy and returning the department to its original wartime ideals ordered by George Washington and away from “nation building” and “peacekeeping.”
But a closer look at the department’s history, historians told TPM, shows that a return to the Washingtonian war ethos makes no sense for a modern nation. The ways and means of warfare changed completely, and George Washington’s America was not the global superpower it is today.
“It’s a different America coming out of World War II,” said John C. McManus, a professor of military history at Missouri University of Science and Technology. A country once built on isolationism has been transformed. “America coming out of World War II can’t really afford it anymore. It’s a leading nationalist structure in the world.” The new DoD structure fits that, he said.
As with his previous directive that all new federal structures be built in the “classic” style, President Donald Trump appears to be using symbols to literally take the country back in time. Restoring the Pentagon’s original name is a nod to restoring an American era when civil rights were weak and the role of women limited. From his elimination of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to his militarized anti-immigration campaigns, Trump is harkening back to the origins of George Washington’s War Department.
“They see this through their own very limited prism — that of blaming political correctness,” said Kyle Longley, director of the War, Diplomacy and Society program at Chapman University.
Trump and Hegseth, he said, want to go back “to the good old days before 1947 and 1948. They look at it and go, Wow, desegregation of the military didn’t help. That’s when political correctness took hold. They won’t say it upfront, but that’s what they’re implying.”
Trump’s War Department is “refocused on preparedness and lethality,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement. “The White House is working hand in hand with the Department of War on implementing the executive order. »
“Just look at the purges”
In the late 1700s, American leaders structured the War Department along the lines of those of Great Britain and other European countries. The department was responsible for the army and non-naval forces, while the navy remained independent. World War II and the Cold War caused the Department’s responsibilities to grow and evolve until, as America’s global superpower status emerged and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency formed, the Department of Defense was created to consolidate the various military and intelligence arms that had emerged over the previous 150 years.
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
Last Wednesday, an NBC News report revealed that an official War Department name change, which could only be accomplished by an act of Congress, could cost taxpayers as much as $2 billion in signage updates, personnel items such as signs and badges, and technological changes.
Steve Yates, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former national security adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, says Trump’s name change has real significance. Yates told TPM that this is just one aspect of a broader change aimed at deflating the DoD’s bloated bureaucracy and returning the department to its original wartime ideals ordered by George Washington and away from “nation building” and “peacekeeping.”
But a closer look at the department’s history, historians told TPM, shows that a return to the Washingtonian war ethos makes no sense for a modern nation. The ways and means of warfare changed completely, and George Washington’s America was not the global superpower it is today.
“It’s a different America coming out of World War II,” said John C. McManus, a professor of military history at Missouri University of Science and Technology. A country once built on isolationism has been transformed. “America coming out of World War II can’t really afford it anymore. It’s a leading nationalist structure in the world.” The new DoD structure fits that, he said.
As with his previous directive that all new federal structures be built in the “classic” style, President Donald Trump appears to be using symbols to literally take the country back in time. Restoring the Pentagon’s original name is a nod to restoring an American era when civil rights were weak and the role of women limited. From his elimination of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to his militarized anti-immigration campaigns, Trump is harkening back to the origins of George Washington’s War Department.
“They see this through their own very limited prism — that of blaming political correctness,” said Kyle Longley, director of the War, Diplomacy and Society program at Chapman University.
Trump and Hegseth, he said, want to go back “to the good old days before 1947 and 1948. They look at it and go, Wow, desegregation of the military didn’t help. That’s when political correctness took hold. They won’t say it upfront, but that’s what they’re implying.”
Trump’s War Department is “refocused on preparedness and lethality,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement. “The White House is working hand in hand with the Department of War on implementing the executive order. »
“Just look at the purges”
In the late 1700s, American leaders structured the War Department along the lines of those of Great Britain and other European countries. The department was responsible for the army and non-naval forces, while the navy remained independent. World War II and the Cold War caused the Department’s responsibilities to grow and evolve until, as America’s global superpower status emerged and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency formed, the Department of Defense was created to consolidate the various military and intelligence arms that had emerged over the previous 150 years.
Trump and Hegseth have called the 20th century renaming a “wake-up call” and advocate an aggressive and gleefully violent vision of U.S. national security policy. In December, Hegseth told reporters his defense ministry would be about “lethality, lethality, lethality. Everything else is gone.” At his nomination hearing in January, Hegseth said he was chosen to “bring back the warrior culture to the Department of Defense.” Trump, during a press conference at the NATO summit in June, revealed his desire to return the department to its colonial name.
“He used to be called Secretary of War…” Trump said, flanked by Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Then we got politically correct and they called him Secretary of Defense. I don’t know, maybe we’ll have to start thinking about a name change.”
Longley doesn’t think Trump or Hegseth have any idea of the military history of the former War Department.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t poised to recreate some of these political dynamics, particularly domestically.
“For Washington and early presidents, the War Department was primarily tied to the war against Native American peoples,” Longley said. He also highlighted the connection between the 18th century war against Native Americans and Trump’s violent anti-immigration campaign.
“There is a dramatic intersection with the militarization of American forces that can be used right now against immigrants, but also against American citizens,” Longley said.
High-ranking blacks and women in the armed forces have also been targeted by the administration. White men make up the vast majority of military generals and admirals. Women represent approximately 8% of generals and general officers. Only 6.5% of generals are black.
Still, “just look at the purges of military officers,” Longley said. They were disproportionately women and people of color.
In response to a TPM inquiry, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, said in an emailed statement that the department was committed to making the name change permanent. Parnell said the shutdown delayed “the final cost estimate” of the name change and blamed Democrats for the shutdown.
“In a nod to our proud heritage, this change is essential because it reflects the Department’s core mission: winning wars,” Parnell said.
Who cares?
Foreign conflicts or terrorism are not among the three most important issues for Americans, according to the results of the latest ACP/Ipsos survey released Monday. A survey of AP voters in November also found that the economy was Americans’ top concern. In a country where economic issues still reign supreme, it’s hard to imagine that the average voter cares or even notices that the name of the DoD has been symbolically changed.
The Heritage Foundation’s Yates, however, said there is a consistent electorate in states like Idaho, where he served as Republican Party chairman, who cares about defense issues. And that’s a place, Yates said, where War Department symbolism or perceived DoD reforms could be “red meat for the campaign.”
“If I were still president and trying to get back to basics,” Yates said, “this is something we could and should talk about in the midst of things that I think would be of interest to households in rural Idaho.”
Yates also suggested that military personnel and their families should be concerned about this change because it coincides with structural changes within the department. Current and former defense professionals, however, have expressed concerns about Trump’s national security policies — from using an obscure mid-20th century immigration law to target pro-Palestinian protesters to bombing Venezuelans on boats — from the start.
“If we’re just average service personnel doing our jobs, is that really having a major impact on our lives? Probably not that much,” McManus said.
“The question, I suppose, is whether a name change…has enough support,” he continued. “I think it’s fair to say that a name change probably took place in the 1940s. I think it’s more questionable now.”
Back to top button
