When the US administration announced last week that the "Department of War" will be used as the "secondary title" for the Department of Defense, it was, for once, being honest.

The administration offered two justifications for the White House's decision. First, it reminded Americans that when the department was still called the "Department of War", the United States won two world wars. The name, it suggested, carries a victorious aura. Second, it argued that "Defense" sounds too passive, whereas "War" better captures the US' military posture. One can hardly fault this candor.

Asked about the move, China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson simply said that it is the US' internal matter.

From George Washington to Harry Truman, US presidents maintained the Department of War for over 160 years. Through those years, the US transformed from a fragile republic into a global power. For the incumbent administration, which has pledged to "Make America Great Again", evoking that era makes political sense. By dusting off the old title, it taps into a collective memory of past glory, rekindling pride while fueling hopes of renewed greatness. That is an apt political move for the US, given its current belligerent posture.

More important, restoring the title, "Department of War", makes it consistent with the institution's true character. Since 1949, when it was rebranded the "Department of Defense", the Pentagon has not followed a defensive defense policy. Its mission has remained that of the Department of War: planning, launching and sustaining conflicts across the globe.

A "department of defense" should primarily safeguard national security. But in the eight decades since the end of World War II, the US' so-called Department of Defense has done the opposite. It has frequently used its military power abroad on pretexts not related to self-defense. Successive US administrations have exhibited one common behavior: even when no country posed a threat to the US' security, they have conjured up enemies and triggered conflicts. If there were no adversaries, they were invented.

The rebranding of the US defense department did not temper US aggression. On the contrary, the US Department of Defense has proliferated wars. The record is long and bloody. The countries and regions scarred by US military action include the Korean Peninsula, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Guatemala, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. The Pentagon's interventions are too numerous to catalogue. Suffice it to say that the department has been far busier using force than defending US soil.

Even in 2025, only months into the current administration, airstrikes were carried out on Iran, and warships dispatched to Venezuelan waters under the guise of fighting drug cartels. If this is not the behavior of a "war department", what is?

Seen in this light, restoring the old title is not a reckless but a "corrective" move. For decades, the US Department of Defense has acted under a misleading title. Now, at least, the name reflects reality. By admitting what everyone else can see — that the US is a country perpetually at war — the administration has indulged in an act of bureaucratic truth-telling.

Of course, the Pentagon is not the only US institution misnamed. Other departments could use a dose of the same honesty.

Take the Department of the Treasury. In practice, it often functions less as a steward of fiscal policy than the command center for economic sanctions. Why not rename it the "Department of Economic Punishment"? And the Department of Commerce, forever accusing other countries of "unfair trade", could be renamed the "Department of Trade Wars".

Then there is the Department of Energy, which has largely treated oil and gas as the only energy sources worth mentioning. Renewables barely enter the picture. A more candid title for it may be the "Department of Petroleum". As for the Central Intelligence Agency, beyond intelligence-gathering, its well-documented history of political subversion and "color revolutions" abroad makes "Covert Action Agency" a more accurate name for it.

Names matter. They reveal a department's priorities and intentions. For years, Washington has cloaked its aggressive posture in benign-sounding language — "defense", "freedom", "humanitarian intervention". Such euphemisms are meant to soften the reality of hard power. By reviving the title Department of War, the department has finally matched name with function.

If the US insists on projecting force, let it at least do so under a name that admits as much. The recent renaming of the Pentagon is, then, a first step toward bureaucratic honesty. Whether future administrations will maintain this practice of linguistic candor remains to be seen.

For now, though, the "Department of War" has returned. And for once, its name is exactly what it does.

The author is chairman of the Hong Kong Strategy Institute and a commentator at Phoenix TV.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.