What are the steps to legally rename the Department of Defense in the U.S. government?
Executive summary
President Trump signed an executive order in September 2025 authorizing the Department of Defense and its leaders to use “Department of War” and “Secretary of War” as secondary, non‑statutory titles and directing the secretary to recommend steps for a permanent rename (White House fact sheet; Reuters) [1] [2]. Multiple outlets and legal analysts note that a statutory name change would require an act of Congress because the 1947 National Security Act and subsequent statutes set the department’s legal name (Military.com; Forbes; Axios) [3] [4] [5].
1. What the executive order actually does — short, concrete effect
The White House order lets the DoD and subordinate officials use “Department of War” and “Secretary of War” in official correspondence, public communications, ceremonial contexts and non‑statutory executive‑branch documents, and it instructs the secretary to produce a recommendation within 60 days about actions needed to make the change permanent (White House fact sheet; Reuters) [1] [2]. Reporting and DoD practice since the order show the administration immediately began redesigning signs, web handles and some public materials to reflect the secondary title (PBS; National Guard Association) [6] [7].
2. The legal obstacle: Congress controls department names
Every major news and legal analysis cited says a formal, legal renaming requires Congress because Title 10 and the National Security Act of 1947 (and its 1949 amendments) are statutory foundations that established the War Department’s replacement by the Department of Defense; only Congress can amend those statutes (Military.com; Forbes; Axios) [3] [4] [5]. Executive orders can direct executive‑branch usage but cannot override or change statutes on their own (Military.com) [3].
3. The procedural path Congress would need to take
Available sources describe the necessary step as congressional legislation to amend the statutory name, but they do not provide a line‑by‑line legislative text or procedural timetable; mainstream reporting frames it as an act of Congress to rename, plus floor votes and presidential signature to enact the change into law (Forbes; Reuters; Axios) [4] [2] [5]. Sources do not detail committee referral, appropriations language, or whether simple amendment to Title 10 would suffice versus a broader reorganization bill — not found in current reporting [4] [2].
4. Alternate routes discussed and their limits
The White House asked the secretary to recommend “legislative and executive actions” to make the change permanent, and some allies in Congress proposed facilitating measures to make agency reorganization easier (Reuters; White House) [2] [1]. Analysts caution, however, that creative executive‑branch workarounds (branding, second‑titles, internal memos, URL changes) produce public effect but do not alter the department’s legal status; multiple outlets stress the distinction between symbolic rebranding and statutory renaming (Military.com; Forbes; NBC reporting summarized by others) [3] [4] [8].
5. Costs, logistics and political stakes
News reporting estimates massive practical costs — updating signage, seals, documents, software, badges and legal forms — with one NBC estimate of up to $2 billion to implement a full, department‑wide rename (NBC via aggregated sources; MSNBC commentary) [8] [9]. The order’s immediate rebranding moves (web redirects, plaques changed at the Pentagon) demonstrate administrative willingness to bear some costs now while seeking a legal pathway to permanence (PBS; Wikipedia summary of reporting) [6] [10].
6. Competing perspectives and political context
Supporters argue the old “Department of War” label signals a restored “warrior ethos” and stronger posture; the White House framed the move as restoring historical nomenclature and morale (White House fact sheet; Reuters) [1] [2]. Critics, including at least one senator cited in reporting, called the change symbolic and politically divisive, and framed it as the wrong priority for preventing conflict (BBC; Reuters) [11] [2]. Reporting also notes congressional allies introduced proposals to ease renaming and reorganization, indicating the dispute is both legal and overtly political (Reuters) [2].
7. Bottom line and next practical steps
The executive order achieves a visible branding change inside the executive branch and tasks the secretary with mapping a path to statutory change; but a legal rename requires Congress to amend the statutes that established the Department of Defense (Military.com; Forbes; Axios) [3] [4] [5]. For anyone seeking to pursue a lawful renaming, the next practical steps are a congressional bill to amend Title 10/the National Security Act and floor votes in both chambers, followed by the president’s signature — specifics of drafting, committee work and costs remain matters of political negotiation and are not detailed in available reporting [4] [2].