Cost to Rename Dept of Defense to Dept of War Could be $2 Billion

Thursday, November 13, 2025

Officially changing the Department of Defense to the Department of War can only be done by Congress and would require updating thousands of signs, rewriting digital code and creating new letterheads, placards and badges.

Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 11:33 PM | 7 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

A name change for the Department of Defense to the Department of War could cost $2 billion to enact, according to one report.

[image or embed]
-- Raw Story (@rawstory.com) Nov 12, 2025 at 12:30 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

No amount of taxpayer money being wasted by them is too big.

The biggest lie the GOP has ever sold was that they are fiscal conservatives.

BTW the CR to open the government includes $1 MILLION of Hawley, Graham and others who had their cell phone records subpoenaed in connection with J6 investigation.

$1,000,000,000 for a plane for Pedo47

$3,000,000 per weekend for Pedo47 golfing.

Two new Gulfstreams for Krusty Gnome and her adulterer.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-11-13 11:35 AM | Reply

One of the biggest costs would be rewriting digital code for all of the department's internal and external facing websites, as well as other computer software on classified and unclassified systems.

Tells you how poorly written the DoW code base is.

#2 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-11-13 12:08 PM | Reply

italics off

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-11-13 02:54 PM | Reply

It's just like Republicans to decide their Beta-Male Virtue Signaling is worth $2,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-11-13 02:57 PM | Reply

Beta-Male Virtue Signaling is worth $2,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars.

Didn't DOGE save 1,000x that much? That should cover it.

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-11-13 06:00 PM | Reply

@#2 ... Tells you how poorly written the DoW code base is. ...

That depends.

Was a requirement of that code base's design the accommodation of a name change?

If that was not specified as a requirement, then why should it be in the code? And if it was not specified as a requirement, then perhaps that the current code base cannot easily accommodate it may be more of a feature.

Based upon your comment, I'd proffer that your current trolling alias seems to favor a bloated code base, one that accommodates things not in the requirements spec.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-11-14 03:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When asked where the money is coming from ...

TRUMPY: I don't know. It's not for feeding the poor or them stupid little kids so I am sure I'll get it from someplace.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-11-14 09:38 AM | Reply