by Joan Johnson-Freese, Florida Phoenix
September 9, 2025

The words of the Preamble to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Constitution are inscribed above a hallway door at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport: “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be erected.” 

The Trump administration certainly validates the first part of that maxim, but increasingly shows no interest in the second part.

President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order aiming to change the name of the Department of Defense back to the Department of War. That was what the cabinet agency overseeing the nation’s military forces was called from its creation by Congress in 1789 until 1949. The name change reflected the merging of the Navy, Army and Air Force as a single organization led by a civilian secretary. 

Trump’s move screams of chest-thumping bravado, likely in large part in response to the recent car-rides, shared laughter and hand-holding events well-covered by the media between “bros” Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping. What we are witnessing is an ego-driven display of male “mine-is-bigger-than-yours” on an international scale that will not bode well for people trying to live their lives and make ends meet under these autocratic rulers. 

All leaders have egos, but when egos go into hyperdrive and are linked to national security, it does not bode well. Lyndon Johnson’s tragic mishandling of Vietnam was in large part due to personalizing the war, seeing the troops as “my boys,” and Ho Chi Minh as “his enemy,” thereby making “losing” a threat to his ego.

Conventional wisdom posits that “fight or flight” is the human response to threat. Actually, however, those two options are more prevalent among men — and the UNESCO adage specifically references men. Women favor what is known as “tend and befriend” options, where they seek to deescalate conflicts and build defenses with allies. “Flight” is often associated with cowardice, and hence unacceptable if ego is driving decisions. Strong leaders not led by ego have long recognized the value of using all options — fight, flight, tend and befriend — and using them prudently. 

The idea that a best offense is a good defense dates back to George Washington, who considered “prudence” — which differentiates sound strategy from ego-driven, shoot-from-the hip aggression — a key attribute of his leadership. Defense is the cornerstone of deterrence, a strategy that has long served the United States well. And as my son’s baseball coach used to point out: “if they don’t score, you can’t lose.”

Renaming  the Defense Department would allow Trump to create conditions for a self-fulfilling prophecy, and those rarely go well for politicians who initiate them. Unfortunately, trying to stop the ill-advised instincts of politicians can be difficult for individuals around them. The head of Central Command, Adm. William “Fox” Fallon, found himself embroiled in a scandal that led to his resignation after Esquire magazine ran an article in 2008 titled “The Man Between War and Peace.” Fallon was quoted in the article as having said that the George W. Bush administration’s aggressive rhetoric toward Iran – “a constant drumbeat of conflict” was not useful. 

Even acolytes must be careful not to rile the wrath of sensitive ego-driven leaders or risk retribution. Witness the long list of former Trump friends, staff members, friends and even political allies denounced when they seemingly failed ego-driven loyalty tests.

Officially changing the name of the Defense Department would require congressional action. Republicans U.S. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Rep. Greg Steube of Florida filed legislation calling for such a rebrand in their respective chambers. But the second Trump administration has already proven masterful at work-arounds, loopholes and simply ignoring U.S. law. Wanting this name change, however, communicates a signal of U.S. intentions that will almost certainly push panic buttons among U.S. allies regarding the logic and stability of U.S. leadership and policy, and push adversaries closer together, neither of which will be good for the country.

I was recently reminded of a Turkish proverb that well describes the “normalized insanity” environment in which we currently live. “Though the forest thinned, the people continued to vote for the ax. The ax told them that because his handle was wood, he was one of them, and they believed him.” The people of Russia and China have lived under autocratic rule for so long their voices are largely muted. 

National security should not be a partisan issue. In the United States there is still time to stop what could otherwise become a runaway train toward not just autocratic rule, but international conflict, if enough people say “enough.”

Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: info@floridaphoenix.com.

The post Trump’s War Department: Just say no. appeared first on floridaphoenix.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content critiques former President Donald Trump’s military and foreign policy approach, describing it as ego-driven and provocative, while contrasting it against more measured and strategic leadership qualities. It emphasizes concerns about international stability and calls for caution regarding aggressive rhetoric and symbolic actions like renaming the Department of Defense. The language and perspective align broadly with center-left viewpoints that prioritize diplomacy, international cooperation, and skepticism of nationalist or militaristic posturing. The critique is pointed but remains grounded in policy concerns rather than partisan attacks, placing it in a center-left rather than far-left frame.