The Global Times, a Chinese state-controlled media outlet under the People’s Daily, published an article on September 6, 2025, titled “US changes Department of Defense to Department of War; the move may indicate more aggressive use of US military power, says Chinese expert.” The piece covers U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order signed on September 5, 2025, to introduce “Department of War” as a secondary title for the Department of Defense (DoD), citing U.S. media reactions and a Chinese expert’s analysis. It suggests the change signals a shift toward U.S. belligerence.
Analysis:
The article contains no outright fabrications, but includes exaggerations and selective omissions. The “$1 billion” cost is cited from “media reports” but unsupported in searched sources—Politico implies high costs but provides no figure, suggesting potential inflation for dramatic effect. It omits that the change is symbolic/secondary, not a full rename, which downplays the need for congressional approval and portrays it as more definitive. Historical facts are correct but framed to contrast U.S. “aggression” with post-WWII peace efforts.
Global Times, known for nationalist and anti-Western rhetoric as a CCP tool, uses this piece to amplify U.S. criticism while advancing Beijing’s narrative. Techniques include:
- Amplification of Negative Views: Heavily quotes U.S. critics (e.g., Andy Kim, NYT) to portray domestic backlash, implying U.S. instability.
- Expert Endorsement: Li Haidong’s commentary frames the U.S. as a threat to “global peace,” echoing CCP talking points on U.S. “hegemony” amid tensions like Taiwan or South China Sea.
- Whataboutism/Deflection: Published post-China’s September 3 military parade (showcasing weapons), it deflects from China’s militarism by highlighting U.S. “belligerence.”
- Victimhood for China: The FM’s “no comment” positions China as restrained, contrasting with alleged U.S. aggression.
Such tactics align with state media’s role in shaping public opinion against the West, per analyses of Chinese propaganda.
The narrative frames the U.S. as shifting from “defensive” to “war-core” policy, using loaded terms like “dangerous signal” and “glorifying conflict.” This:
- Binary Opposition: U.S. as aggressor vs. implied Chinese/ global “stability.”
- Historical Manipulation: References WWII rename to suggest U.S. reverting to imperial era, ignoring Trump’s stated “warrior ethos” for deterrence.
- Selective Focus: Emphasizes costs and anger, downplaying supporters (e.g., Hegseth’s “maximum lethality” comments) or context like Trump’s military focus. This advances CCP goals of portraying the U.S. as unstable, justifying China’s military buildup.
Heavy Propaganda Spin
The Global Times article is factually grounded in U.S. events but employs propaganda to frame the rename as evidence of U.S. warmongering, potentially eroding global trust in America while bolstering China’s image. For balanced views, consult sources like the White House or NYT.
