‘War on terror’: How 9/11 changed the language of conflict

Post-9/11 Terminology: Shifts in U.S. Policy Language After the September 11 Attacks

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, U.S. government statements introduced several new or repurposed phrases to describe military operations, detention practices, and security measures. Terms such as “enhanced interrogation,” “extraordinary rendition,” and “enemy combatants” appeared in official documents and public remarks. The overarching phrase “war on terror” was used by the administration of President George W. Bush to frame a series of policies that included the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and subsequent military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nine days after the attacks, Bush addressed a joint session of Congress and stated that the effort against al-Qaeda would extend to other groups. Congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force on September 14, 2001, by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. The measure authorized the president to use force against nations, organizations, or persons determined to have planned, authorized, committed, or aided the attacks, or harbored those responsible. It remained in effect for more than two decades and served as the legal basis cited for multiple operations.

The authorization did not specify a geographic limit or a fixed end date. Analysts have noted that this structure differed from declarations of war against specific states in earlier conflicts. Christopher Baker-Beall of Bournemouth University has observed that describing the response as a war against a tactic rather than a defined adversary removed conventional boundaries on duration and scope.

Bush also stated in a November 2001 address that nations were either with the United States or with the terrorists. Administration statements frequently paired references to terrorism with descriptions of “evil.” Academics such as Harmonie Toros of the University of Reading have examined how such phrasing appeared in speeches and policy documents during the period.

The United States began military operations in Afghanistan in October 2001. In March 2003, a U.S.-led coalition entered Iraq, citing intelligence assessments that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. No large stockpiles matching those assessments were located after the invasion. The operations expanded to include detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Central Intelligence Agency sites referred to in government records as “black sites.”

Nearly 780 individuals were held at Guantanamo Bay over the following years. The majority were released without criminal charges. Some remained for periods exceeding 15 years. British-American lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who visited the facility early in its operation, described the conditions and legal status of detainees in subsequent writings. The facility continues to hold a smaller number of individuals as of 2025.

Interrogation methods used by U.S. personnel, including waterboarding and prolonged sleep deprivation, were described in Department of Justice memoranda as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Transfers of detainees to third countries outside standard extradition procedures were termed “extraordinary rendition.” Baker-Beall has stated that these phrases carried a technical tone that distanced the described actions from ordinary language about physical coercion.

A series of legal opinions issued between 2002 and 2005, later known as the Torture Memos, provided the administration’s interpretation of statutes prohibiting torture. The memos defined torture narrowly and authorized specific techniques under certain conditions. Leonie Jackson of Northumbria University has written that such language contributed to an appearance of procedural regularity around practices later criticized by human rights organizations.

The USA Patriot Act, enacted on October 26, 2001, expanded federal authority to obtain business records, conduct surveillance, and share information among agencies. The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, consolidating border, immigration, and transportation functions under one cabinet department. Similar legislative changes occurred in several European countries during the same period.

Policy documents from the era shifted emphasis toward preventing future threats rather than responding only to completed acts. Baker-Beall has described this as a move toward “governing possible future threats,” which broadened the range of permissible security measures. Tahir Abbas of Aston University has documented increased scrutiny of Muslim communities in the United Kingdom and elsewhere under counterterrorism programs introduced after 2001.

By 2013, the Obama administration had ceased using the phrase “war on terror” in official statements. President Barack Obama announced on May 23, 2013, that the United States was no longer engaged in a global war against terrorism as previously framed. The institutional structures established earlier, including the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, remained in place.

Under the second Trump administration, which began in January 2025, Guantanamo Bay has been used to hold some migrants pending removal proceedings. Executive orders issued in 2025 directed the Department of Defense to use “Department of War” as an alternate title in certain communications. Military strikes against Iranian targets were described by administration officials as preemptive measures to prevent nuclear weapon development.

Jackson has noted that elements of preemptive logic present in post-2001 policy documents reappear in later statements, even when the specific adversaries differ. Toros has pointed out that the practice of designating particular groups as inherent security risks has been applied to additional categories, including certain immigrant populations and criminal organizations, in subsequent years.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force continues to be cited in executive branch reports to Congress. Public records show that it has supported operations in multiple countries beyond the original targets of Afghanistan and Iraq. Academic analyses differ on whether the language introduced after 2001 produced lasting changes in public discourse or primarily reflected temporary rhetorical adjustments to new operational requirements.