In early September 2025, President Donald Trump announced that he would deploy federal troops into several major U.S. cities to quell unrest — even if governors objected.

The announcement immediately set off a wave of debate. Critics pointed to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, a law meant to prevent the use of the Army as a domestic police force. Supporters countered with the Insurrection Act of 1807, a much older law that presidents have invoked many times to justify troop deployments at home.

So here’s the central question for us today: Is Trump doing something unprecedented — or is he following a long, if uneasy, American tradition of presidents sending troops into the streets?

In an NPR report from September 5th, President Trump signed an executive order on Friday to give the Department of Defense a new name: the Department of War. The change returns the department to a name that it carried for much of its history, until it became the Department of Defense in the wake of World War II. During a press conference in the Oval Office, Trump tried to explain that the name change was designed to reflect a new tone for the nation and the military.

For most of America’s early history, we didn’t have a “Department of Defense.” We had a Department of War. After World War II, in the anxious first years of the Cold War, Washington reorganized the military and rebranded the whole enterprise. Today, that name—Defense—is in the news again, with a push from the White House to bring back the Department of War. What did “War” mean then? Why did we switch to “Defense”? And what would it mean to switch back now?

As always, this is Alan, your host, reminding you to grab your coffee, tea, or whatever beverage you prefer as we dig right in to the history of the Department of War, from it’s origins in the Constitution and some of the early challenges it faced, to its rebranding following the Second World War and the rise of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Music by: Andrii Poradovskyi (lNPLUSMUSIC - Pixabay)

Show Notes: www.rootsoftoday.blog

At its best, the CDC is a scientific bulwark against disease. At its worst, it becomes an institution caught between science, politics, and profit. The question for us is whether the CDC can navigate these pressures and keep public trust — or whether the forces of politics and perception will continue to erode its authority. RFK Jr. appears to be on a mission to erect a firewall between regulatory responsibilities and the corporate profit motive. Time will tell if his efforts are beneficial, or if they damage the organization.

Music by: Andrii Poradovskyi (lNPLUSMUSIC - Pixabay)

Show Notes: www.rootsoftoday.blog