Listen to the article
Pentagon Renaming Could Cost Taxpayers Up to $125 Million, Budget Office Reports
WASHINGTON — Changing the Department of Defense’s name to the Department of War could cost American taxpayers as much as $125 million, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office released Wednesday.
The potential rebrand stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in September, which authorized “Department of War” as a secondary title for the Pentagon. When signing the order, Trump argued that the switch would send a message to global adversaries that the United States remains a formidable military power. He also characterized the current name, Department of Defense, as “woke.”
Despite the executive action, Congress must formally approve any official name change for the department—something lawmakers have shown little appetite for thus far. Nevertheless, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth embraced the new designation immediately after Trump’s order, replacing the gold lettering outside his office from “Secretary of Defense” to “Secretary of War.” The Pentagon’s website domain was also promptly changed from “defense.gov” to “war.gov.”
The timing of the rebranding coincided with an increasingly assertive U.S. military posture globally. In recent months, American forces have conducted airstrikes against suspected drug-trafficking vessels in South America and executed an operation that captured then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Trump administration has also issued military threats directed at countries ranging from Iran to Greenland.
According to the Congressional Budget Office report, costs for implementing the name change would vary significantly depending on scope and timeline. A “modest implementation” limited to internal agency changes would cost approximately $10 million—an expense that could likely be absorbed within existing Pentagon budgets.
“A statutory renaming could cost hundreds of millions of dollars,” the report states, with the high-end estimate reaching $125 million if implemented “broadly and rapidly throughout the department.”
The Pentagon’s sprawling infrastructure presents significant logistical challenges for any comprehensive renaming effort. The headquarters alone encompasses more than 6.5 million square feet of office space, with countless signs, logos, and official seals that would require modification. The report does not address potential costs for changing signage and materials at hundreds of U.S. military installations worldwide.
Shortly after Trump’s executive order, several Republican lawmakers including Senators Mike Lee, Rick Scott, and Marsha Blackburn introduced legislation to formalize the name change, but the measure has made little progress in Congress.
The executive order had tasked Secretary Hegseth with recommending actions required to permanently change the name. When asked about the status of these recommendations, Pentagon officials declined to provide details.
The new cost analysis was requested by Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who have expressed concerns about the financial implications of the proposed change.
The Department of War was the original name for the military department from 1789 until 1947, when it was reorganized and renamed the Department of Defense following World War II. The name change reflected a shift in American military policy toward collective security arrangements in the post-war era.
The Congressional Budget Office, established more than 50 years ago to provide impartial analysis to lawmakers, prepared the report as part of its mandate to support the legislative budget process. The analysis comes as Congress faces broader debates about military spending priorities and fiscal responsibility.
While symbolic changes to government institutions are not uncommon between administrations, the scale and cost of this particular proposal have raised questions about resource allocation at a time when the defense establishment faces significant operational challenges and modernization needs.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
While I understand the rationale behind the ‘Department of War’ name, I’m concerned about the high price tag. Wouldn’t that money be better spent on improving military readiness and capability rather than a cosmetic change?
I’m curious to hear feedback from current and former Pentagon officials on the proposed name change. Their perspectives on the potential benefits and drawbacks would help inform whether this is a worthwhile investment.
This strikes me as more of a symbolic gesture than a substantive policy shift. While I appreciate the desire to project strength, a $125 million rebrand seems like an inefficient use of taxpayer funds.
This proposed name change feels like political theater rather than a substantive policy change. If the goal is to project strength, I’m not convinced that a new name is the best use of $125 million.
Exactly, there are likely better ways to demonstrate US military power than a costly and largely symbolic name change. Focusing on actual defense capabilities would be a wiser investment.
Renaming the Defense Department to the ‘Department of War’ seems like an unnecessary and costly change. I’m not sure it would actually send a stronger message to adversaries or make the military any more formidable.
I agree, the current name ‘Department of Defense’ seems more appropriate and less aggressive. Spending $125 million on a rebrand seems like a waste of taxpayer money.
While the ‘Department of War’ name may be more direct, I’m not sure it’s worth the hefty price tag. Seems like the current ‘Department of Defense’ title adequately conveys the military’s role in protecting the nation.
I’m curious to hear the administration’s rationale for this proposed name change. Spending $125 million to rebrand seems hard to justify, especially when the current ‘Department of Defense’ title is well-established.
Agreed, the justification for this change should be quite compelling to warrant such a significant expenditure. I’m skeptical that a new name alone will meaningfully impact global perceptions of US military strength.