Trump Says U.S. Military Has ‘Never Fought to Win’ Since World War II

The New York Times ^ | Sept. 5, 2025, 8:36 p.m. ET | Erica L. Green

[E. Pluribus Unum]

As he signed an order recognizing the Defense Department as the “Department of War,” President Trump said that the country “could have won every war, but we really chose to be very politically correct.”

President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that ceremonially recognized the Defense Department as the “Department of War,” a name that was dropped after World War II and that the president claimed had caused the country to enter wars it “never fought to win.”

“We won World War II. We won everything before, and as I said, we won everything in between,” Mr. Trump said at an event in the Oval Office, where he signed the order. “And we were very strong, but we never fought to win. We just didn’t fight to win.”

Mr. Trump argued that the name, which was changed by President Harry S. Truman to combine all of branches of the military, had been changed because the country “decided to go woke.”

“I think the Department of War sends a signal,” Mr. Trump said. The change, he argued, was a “much more appropriate name, especially in light of where the world is right now.”

He added: “We could have won every war, but we really chose to be very politically correct, or wokey, and we just fight forever.”

The Department of War was established by Congress under President George Washington in 1789, just months after the Constitution was ratified. Mr. Truman changed the agency’s name as part of the National Security Act he signed into law in 1947, which merged the Navy and War departments and a newly independent Air Force into a single organization. Congress established the Department of Defense name in 1949.

Mr. Trump said that he anticipated pushing to codify the name change into law...

[BenLurkin]

How did we win World War Two?

[ealgeone]

I think Desert Storm was a good W. Till the media did what the media does.

[roving]

He said since World War Two. And he’s right. They have had to fight wars with one hand tied behind their back ever since.

[kosciusko51]

By not using proportion response, but overwhelming the enemy. Not to mention using nuclear weapons.

[roving]

That war started out good, but they didn’t go all the way. They hung the Kurds out to dry.

[ClearCase_guy]

Opinions differ, but Desert Storm could have included taking Baghdad and removing Saddam. We didn’t do that. Had to go back later. In my opinion, our battlefield accomplishments were stellar, but we did not fully win.

[Night Hides Not]

Those failures are on the politicians, our servicemembers did their jobs.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Too many business interests to take out Saddam.

[Tell It Right]

Agreed. Or another way to put it, the fighting on the ground was good, but the leadership was more focused on political winning that winning the war.

[Fai Mao]

I would disagree with the President on this issue. But I understand the sentiment.

In Korea, the objective was achieved.
The US had the North Vietnamese beaten and was betrayed by politicians.
The US military beat Iraq like a rented mule.
It defeated the Taliban and occupied the country for two decades.

[Fledermaus]

If we had gone in the coalition would have collapsed and we’d be fighting alone.

The mission was just to remove the Iraq Army from Kuwait.

Mission accomplished.

[MinorityRepublican]

I think Desert Storm was a good W.

It was pretty clear what we had to do during Desert Storm. We kicked Iraq out of Kuwait. And that was a sucess.

[Fiji Hill]

Grenada in 1983, an impressive US victory, was an exception. However, there were less than 300 casualties on both sides, so it can’t really be called a war, which requires at least 1,000 casualties.

[ansel12]

The military does what the civilians tell it to do, if the military is told to fight in South Vietnam but leave North Vietnam mostly alone, then they do, the same with Korea, if the military hands a country to the civilians and the civvies say thanks but stand down and let the enemy have it back, the military does that, what has not happened to the American military, is meeting an enemy that it can’t defeat on the battlefield which is what it’s job is.

[WKUHilltopper]

And Trump is right. It’s been fight to contain ever since.

[Bratch]

Turns out the objectives of nearly all* the military adventures since WW2 weren't to win but rather to keep the MIC rolling.

Bombs and tanks to destroy a country's infrastructure, which then requires contractors to come in and rebuild.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. 🙄

*Korea and Desert Storm being the possible two exceptions.

[Semper Vigilantis]

If you are going to put American Military lives at risk and expend national treasure in a foreign land, you damn well better be prepared to win, to win as quickly as possible, to win with a minimum of US casualties and with maximum all out force. Total war.
Do not only defeat the enemy, beat him so bad that he becomes an example for other bad actors to see and fear.
Then leave them with a big ol’ FAFO monument to remember you by.
Fight to win or do not fight at all.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

We kept the politicians out of the decision making.

[Right_Wing_Madman]

The mission was just to remove the Iraq Army from Kuwait. Mission accomplished.

The Iraq War was also a win. The US overthrew Saddam and formed a new government. That same Iraqi government is still in operation today.