The Department of War Rebrand is an Opportunity
If Congress is willing to seize it.
On September 5, President Trump authorized the Department of Defense to use the name "Department of War" in ceremonial and official communication — and ordered a plan to rename it outright.
He wasted no time flexing the new name, though his initial target was not enemies abroad.
It was an American city:
I don’t know if it was threat, joke, or performance, but as a Chicagoan, I didn’t appreciate the Commander-in-Chief of the United States’ armed forces turning his attention — and the attention of the most powerful military apparatus in human history — toward my city.
It was the briefest flicker — a knife’s-edge glint — but it was enough to feel the menace the United States can bring to bear.
And yet, despite my outrage at the prospect of American troops in American cities, I agree with Trump on one thing: we should call it the Department of War.
I agree because it opens the door to reasserting legislative power over the military.
The Constitution is vague about the divisions of military responsibility. It outlines clear powers — Congress declares war and funds the military; the president commands the military — but it leaves the specific boundaries of each body’s authority ambiguous.
That ambiguity is by design, and it has led to a continuous push and pull – mostly push – between presidents and Congress over war powers.
Since World War II, presidents have sent millions of soldiers into combat without formal declarations of war. Korea, Vietnam, the secret bombings of Cambodia — military operations have increasingly been conducted without direct or immediate congressional authorization. The exact relationship between Congress and these military actions is complex. In many cases, Congress asserted itself after the fact, through appropriations, legislation, or mounting political pressure. But the balance shifted: presidents led, and Congress followed – often reluctantly, and always without exercising its full war-making authority.
Congress tried to claw back that authority with the 1973 War Powers Resolution, requiring the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any deployment and necessitating an automatic military withdrawal after 60 days if Congress does not provide authorization. But it had no teeth: the Resolution lacks a clear enforcement mechanism, and Congress has never successfully forced a president to withdraw troops after 60 days. Political realities— party loyalties, fear of backlash, and the complexities of armed conflict — have kept Congress from requiring compliance.
So nothing changed.
The president controls the military.
Congress spectates.
But the name change — to Department of War — could alter that.
Presidential war powers didn’t just expand in the era of the Department of Defense – they thrived under it. The name came into use during the Truman administration – in 1949. A year later, Truman sent troops to Korea without a declaration of war. Then came Vietnam. Then Cambodia. One rebrand — and then an era of undeclared war.
Defense implies something broader and more complex than War, but Trump’s proposed name change is a tacit (and likely accidental) admission: The Pentagon exists for one reason.
To make War.
And War, as written in the Constitution, demands congressional oversight.
We’ve grown used to seeing the Democrats and Republicans in Congress as one another’s enemies. But they’re also united by a shared institutional interest: expanding legislative power in relation to the other branches of government.
There’s precedent for this. We saw it with the aforementioned War Powers Resolution in 1973. A year later, Congress solidified its role in the federal budgeting process (for better or worse) with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. In 1996, Congress expanded its oversight of federal regulations with the Congressional Review Act. All of this legislation had bipartisan support – in some cases, overwhelming bipartisan support.
We need more of that.
Every member of Congress should constantly be looking for opportunities to expand congressional power. It’s their job.
The Constitution was designed to encourage tension between the three branches of government. But Congress and the judiciary have allowed the presidency to grow vastly more powerful. The imbalance of powers in this country is now routine.
Congress is the branch of government closest to the people. It’s the most direct line between American citizens and federal power — or at least it’s supposed to be. Congressional representatives have a responsibility not just to deliver results to their constituents, but to deliver levers of power to them.
Representatives and Senators should want to do this. They ran for office to fight. To shape laws. To wield power. They must believe they’d be good at it – otherwise why run? Why seek the job?
If they believe in their role, they should fight to strengthen it.
It’s what presidents have been doing for decades. They expand their purview.
Congress should do the same.
And, sure, it’s more complicated for Congress to do it. There are hundreds of legislators to align against a single executive. Hundreds of ambitions against one presidential agenda.
But that’s the job.
I’m not naive. I don’t expect Democrats to get Republicans on board with curtailing presidential authority while Trump is in office. The real test will come after. It should be a high priority for congressional Democrats to work with Republicans to claw back authority from the next Democratic president.
It’s easy to check a president you oppose. The real test of principle is whether you’ll check the one on your side.