A Deep Dive into Trump's Military Doctrine: From Department of Defense to Department of War

The End of an Era

The seventy-six-year era of the "Department of Defense" came to an end with the stroke of the presidential pen on an executive order. This action, far more than just changing the sign at the Pentagon's entrance, signals a subversive reshaping of the American military philosophy and global strategy that has been in place since World War II. The tranquility of Washington has been shattered, and a fierce debate over America's national identity, military mission, and role in the world has spilled from academic ivory towers onto the central stage of global politics.

This report will provide an in-depth analysis of the background and immediate reactions to this historic decision, with a special focus on the driving force behind it: the military doctrine President Trump has gradually formed and implemented across his two terms in office.

A Historical Watershed

From "War" to "Defense," and then a dramatic return to "War." The century-long evolution of the name of America's highest military department is a mirror reflecting the evolution and cycles of the nation's strategy.

Immediate Reactions from Global Media

Within hours of the executive order's signing, global media outlets provided intensive coverage and commentary, with opinions polarizing sharply, highlighting the controversial and impactful nature of the move. Here are summaries of the core commentary from major media outlets:

Associated Press

"The White House announced the executive order abruptly on Thursday afternoon, stunning Washington. The order not only changes the name but also directs the new Secretary of War to submit a plan within 90 days to 'divest all non-core combat functions.' Bipartisan leaders in Congress said they received no prior notification, with the Speaker of the House calling it 'a blatant contempt for congressional authority.'"

Reuters

"The move sent shockwaves through NATO allies. A senior European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, 'This is not just a semantic change; it is a chilling signal about America's commitment to global security.' The U.S. dollar and stock index futures saw a slight dip after the news broke."

The New York Times

"This is more than a name. It is a decisive turn in American foreign policy, a shift from leader to loner. By redefining the Pentagon as a pure war-fighting machine, the President is undermining the roles of diplomacy, development aid, and alliances, which are the true cornerstones of American security and prosperity."

The Wall Street Journal

"While acknowledging the questionable legality of the executive order, its editorial board argued that this 'shock therapy' might help break the Pentagon's bureaucratic sclerosis... 'Whether you like it or not, Trump is forcing a long-overdue conversation about the true purpose of the military.'"

Fox News

"Tonight, the President showed the world that America will no longer pay for other people's wars. The name 'Department of War' is honest. It tells our troops their job is to kill our enemies and defend our home, not nation-building overseas. This is the ultimate expression of 'America First.'"

Xinhua News Agency

"The latest move by the U.S. government is another dangerous step in its pursuit of unilateralism and hegemonic policies. This change in name is, in substance, a more direct pretext for its military interventions and is bound to bring more instability to an already turbulent world. The international community should remain highly vigilant."

A Deep Dive into Trump's Military Doctrine

Renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War is the inevitable outcome of Trump's military doctrine. This ideology was not born overnight; it began to take shape during his first presidential term and has been aggressively implemented in his current one. It marks a complete break with the bipartisan foreign policy consensus of the past several decades.

First Term (2017-2021): Foundations and Probes

Trump's first term was a period of laying the groundwork for his disruptive military philosophy, characterized by a constant struggle with the establishment. Its core features can be summarized as follows:

Transactional Alliances and Global Realignment

He viewed traditional military alliances like NATO and pacts with Japan and South Korea as protectionist business deals rather than sacred contracts based on shared values. He repeatedly pressured allies to increase their defense spending, threatening to withdraw the U.S. security umbrella if they failed to do so. His military posture adjustments during this period reflected a clear cost-benefit analysis:

• On the EU/NATO: He publicly questioned the commitment to NATO's Article 5 collective defense clause and frequently threatened to withdraw from the alliance over defense spending disputes (particularly with Germany), straining transatlantic relations.
• On Japan and South Korea: He demanded that Japan and South Korea significantly increase their financial contributions for hosting U.S. troops, at times bringing renewal negotiations to a standstill. This forced both nations to re-evaluate their own defense capabilities and, to some extent, spurred their military modernization.
• On Australia: Although the U.S.-Australia relationship remained relatively stable, the unpredictability of the Trump administration prompted Australia to seek more diverse security partnerships and strengthen its role in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad).

The Middle East and Afghanistan: An Obsession with Ending "Endless Wars"

He strongly opposed long-term U.S. military engagement in the Middle East, viewing it as a "stupid war" that wasted American lives and treasure. His actions were highly personalized and often bypassed traditional decision-making processes:

• Afghanistan Withdrawal: He initiated direct negotiations with the Taliban and secured a withdrawal agreement, completely marginalizing the Afghan government of the time. This reflected his preference for quick fixes, even at the expense of long-term stability.
• Strategic Contraction in the Middle East: He ordered a partial withdrawal of troops from Syria and reduced the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Concurrently, by brokering the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, he attempted to build a self-sustaining regional security architecture to lessen the American burden.

"We can no longer be the policeman of the world. We can no longer let everyone take advantage of us. If they don't pay, we have to let them protect themselves." — A typical remark from Trump at campaign rallies.

A Veneration and Display of "Strength"

He approved massive military budgets and pushed for the creation of the Space Force. The core logic was to deter adversaries by displaying overwhelming military power, thereby avoiding war. However, the "strength" he cared about was more about grand symbols (like military parades and new service branches) than the complex global readiness state emphasized by the establishment.

Second Term (2025-): Full Implementation

Upon securing a second term, no longer constrained by establishment advisors, Trump began to systematically translate his first-term ideas into concrete actions. Renaming the Department of War was merely the most symbolic step in a series of radical moves.

Stance on Current Wars: Israel, Ukraine, and Iran

Trump's second term saw him engage with global hotspots in a distinctly different manner:

• Ukraine: He completely altered the model of aid to Ukraine. Early in his term, he announced a "final and decisive" massive military aid package, including long-range missiles and F-16 fighter jets that were previously withheld. However, he simultaneously issued an ultimatum to both Kyiv and Moscow: reach a ceasefire agreement within 120 days, or the United States would permanently halt all military assistance. He framed this as "peace through strength," aiming to forcibly end the war rather than pursue a complete victory for Ukraine.
• Israel and Iran: He granted Israel "unrestricted" freedom of military action in Gaza and regional conflicts. Meanwhile, upon receiving intelligence that Iran's nuclear program had achieved a breakthrough, he authorized a precision strike codenamed "Operation Daybreak." Executed jointly by U.S. and Israeli air forces, the operation carried out devastating airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordow. The White House described it as a model of "ending a threat, not starting a war." Subsequently, in retaliation for attacks on international shipping by Iranian-backed Houthi forces, the U.S. military conducted a week of intense airstrikes on Houthi military targets, far exceeding the scale of previous "self-defense" responses.

As the "Mediator": A Trump-Style Peace

Corresponding with his desire to avoid "endless wars," Trump was keen to play the role of the ultimate dealmaker, seeking quick, historic diplomatic breakthroughs, even if the agreements lacked a solid foundation.

• India-Pakistan Conflict: When tensions flared again in the Kashmir region, Trump proactively intervened, inviting the prime ministers of both countries to Camp David. Using a "transactional" mix of tariff threats and promises of economic aid, he brokered a "temporary de-escalation agreement." Though its details were vague, it momentarily prevented a wider conflict and was hailed by the White House as a Nobel Peace Prize-worthy achievement.
• Southeast Asia and Africa: For a border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, he dispatched a special envoy who used U.S. trade preferences as leverage to quickly secure a memorandum of understanding. For internal conflicts in Africa (such as in the Sahel region), he showed great impatience and disinterest, unless the conflict directly threatened U.S. interests in rare earth minerals or counter-terrorism outposts. His mediations were entirely opportunistic and interest-driven.

The Military and Weaponry: Reshaped for an "America First" War

The military reforms of his second term, from personnel to equipment, all revolved around a single core objective: to forge a leaner, more lethal fighting force entirely dedicated to America's unilateral interests.

• "Loyalty" in Personnel: He appointed ideologically aligned officials like Christopher Miller to lead the Department of War, aiming to eradicate what he perceived as the "deep state's" influence within the military.
• Weaponry Focused on "Great Wars": Budgets for counter-terrorism and low-intensity conflict equipment were drastically cut, with funds redirected to projects aimed at deterring great-power rivals, such as hypersonic missiles and nuclear modernization.
• "Americanized" Supply Chains: Citing national security, he mandated the reshoring of supply chains for key weapons systems like the F-35, aiming to bolster domestic manufacturing.

Voices from Inside and Outside the Pentagon

As soon as the executive order was issued, former Secretaries of Defense who once led this vast institution voiced their opinions, forming clear camps of support and opposition.

Immediate and Future Implications

The ripple effects of this executive order have already begun to manifest and will continue to evolve in the coming months and years, profoundly affecting America's domestic politics and foreign relations.

Legal and Political Battles

Congress has initiated emergency hearings, and legal experts are fiercely debating whether the president has the unilateral authority to change the name of a department established by an Act of Congress. The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is expected to file a lawsuit to block the executive order, setting the stage for a fierce battle between the White House and Capitol Hill.

International Repercussions

The NATO Secretary General has called for an emergency meeting of member states, while Asian allies like Japan and South Korea are urgently seeking clarification from the U.S. through diplomatic channels about whether its security commitments have changed. Russian and Chinese state media have declared this as proof that America is "shedding its disguise." The global diplomatic landscape is facing new uncertainties.

Internal Military Restructuring

The new "Department of War" is expected to undergo an internal reorganization, prioritizing resources and status for combat units. The future roles and budgets of Cyber Command, Space Force, and departments responsible for humanitarian aid and peacekeeping missions are under immense pressure, and morale within the military has become visibly divided.

Text of the Executive Order