Which members of Congress would sponsor legislation to change the Department of Defense name?
Executive summary
Several Republican members of Congress have already filed measures to make President Trump’s “Department of War” rebrand permanent: Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) introduced a House bill and Sen. Mike Lee (R‑Utah) introduced companion legislation in the Senate, according to multiple reports [1] [2]. All outlets note that a permanent name change requires an act of Congress, and the administration has for now used the new label only as a “secondary title” via executive order [3] [4].
1. Who publicly moved first: Steube and Lee pushed legislation
Reporting identifies Rep. Greg Steube as the House sponsor of a bill to formally rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War and Sen. Mike Lee as a Senate sponsor of related legislation, making them the clear congressional point people advocating a statutory name change [1] [2].
2. Why Congress matters: law, not rhetoric
Every news source underscores that only Congress can legally create, abolish or rename federal departments; the White House’s executive order gives DoD a “secondary title” but cannot complete a permanent renaming without congressional approval [3] [4] [5]. Multiple outlets frame the executive order as a messaging move that still leaves the statutory question to Capitol Hill [6] [7].
3. Who else is mentioned — allies, not a full roll call
Coverage says “some of Trump’s closest supporters on Capitol Hill” proposed legislation and that Republicans “have already introduced proposals” to codify the name change, but reporting cites specific sponsors only for Steube in the House and Lee in the Senate; full lists of cosponsors or additional sponsors are not provided in current reporting [8] [9] [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive roll call of sponsors or which committee chairs backed the bills.
4. Political context: why Republicans moved and why leaders may tolerate it
Reports note that Republican congressional leaders showed little appetite to oppose the administration and that GOP control of narrow House and Senate majorities makes passage plausible — though coverage stops short of declaring a certain outcome [10]. The push is portrayed as consistent with the administration’s broader effort to reshape federal agencies and messaging [6].
5. Costs and consequences that Congress will weigh
News outlets flag tangible costs and implementation challenges a permanent rename would trigger: replacing signs, badges and rewriting digital code across classified and unclassified systems, with one reported estimate of up to $2 billion — a factor Congress and appropriators could use to oppose or modify legislation [11] [12]. These figures appear in multiple pieces as likely considerations in any congressional debate.
6. Legal and procedural limits the Hill could cite
Multiple sources stress that name changes are rare and legally require an act of Congress, signaling the procedural barrier sponsors must clear — committee referral, hearings, appropriations and floor votes — before a statutory rename could take effect [10] [3] [5]. Coverage implies potential for litigation or political pushback but does not document any filed court challenges in current reporting [6].
7. Competing views and media emphasis
Some outlets cast the move as symbolic messaging and an executive overreach; others emphasize congressional agency and the practical steps already taken by Republican lawmakers to codify the change [7] [8] [9]. These different framings reveal an implicit political agenda: supporters present the rename as a restoration of a historical title and toughness in posture, while critics highlight cost, legality and potential politicization of the military — reporting shows both frames but does not record a resolution [2] [11].
8. What the available reporting does not say
Current sources name Steube and Lee as the public sponsors and say “Republicans” introduced proposals, but they do not provide a full list of cosponsors, committee actions, exact bill numbers, or a legislative timetable; available sources do not mention those details [1] [2]. They also do not report a completed congressional vote enacting a permanent name change [4].
Bottom line: public reporting identifies Rep. Greg Steube (R‑Fla.) and Sen. Mike Lee (R‑Utah) as the congressional sponsors who moved to codify the “Department of War” label; Congress, not the White House, holds the legal power to finalize any name change and faces questions about cost, procedure and political consequences if it proceeds [1] [2] [3].