Outside the Beltway

Cutting Generals Won’t Be Easy

A 20% reduction would require massive changes in law and approach.

James Joyner · Wednesday, May 14, 2025 · 7 comments

AP’s Lolita Baldor reports, “Hegseth’s Plan to Cut Senior Military Jobs Could Hit More than 120 High-Ranking Officers.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plans to slash the number of senior military leaders across the services would cut more than 120 high-ranking officer jobs in the active duty and National Guard, including as many as nine top general slots.

Based on the percentages outlined by Hegseth and his senior staff, 20% of the 44 authorized top active duty general and admiral jobs would be eliminated, along with 10% of the more than 800 one-, two- and three-star positions, according to numbers compiled by The Associated Press.

The cuts — about nine positions among four-star generals and 80 jobs across the other leadership levels — would affect dozens of active duty officers scattered across the five services as well as those who are in joint command jobs, such as those overseeing Africa, the Middle East and Europe. The changes would eliminate 33 senior National Guard positions.

[…]

The Army, which is the largest service, is allowed to have a maximum of 219 high-ranking general officers and is expected to absorb a higher number of the cuts, while the Marine Corps will probably see little impact at the very top. There are only two Marine four-star generals, and the tiny Space Force also only has two.

“The Marine Corps, with our general officers, like our civilians and senior executives, is by far the leanest service,” said Lt. Col. Josh Benson, a Marine spokesman. “Due to the already lean nature of the general officers in the Marine Corps, any cuts to Marine general officers will have an outsized impact to the Corps relative to other services.”

He said nearly one-third — or 21 — of Marine generals hold two or three jobs each, and as many as 10 positions are already empty.

Army leaders, meanwhile, have already developed plans to merge or close headquarters units and staff. As many as 40 general officer slots could be cut as a result, officials have said.

The joint jobs would include leaders at regional commands, such as those in Europe, the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East, as well as administrative or functional commands, such as Cyber Command and Special Operations Command.

Under the law, there currently can be no more than 232 of those joint officers, and they’re spread across all the services.

It’s unclear how many of the cuts those jobs would absorb, versus the slots in each of the services. But officials have talked about merging some commands as the Pentagon reviews its overall leadership structure.

In addition to the joint command jobs, Congress stipulates the maximum number of high-ranking general officers in the services: 219 in the Army, 171 in the Air Force, 21 in the Space Force, 64 in the Marine Corps and 150 flag officers in the Navy.

All combined, the services can’t have more than 27 four-star officers, 153 three stars, 239 two stars and 210 one stars.

As noted in my previous post on this, “Hegseth Orders Big Cuts to General and Flag Officer Ranks,” I’m of mixed minds on the broader idea and somewhat skeptical of the execution. While I’ve been of the longstanding view that having four-stars reporting to four-stars who report to four-stars is problematic from a unity of command perspective, there are other considerations. And, of course, if these cuts are used as an excuse to further target general and flag officers suspected of not towing the party line, it’s another blow to our conception of civil-military relations are supposed to work.

It’s also worth noting that a lot of our four-star billets are specifically mandated by law. For example, not all that long ago, there were zero four-star National Guard officers. Congress elevated the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to four-star rank and placed him on the Joint Chiefs (a move I continue to oppose). Subsequently, they made his deputy a four-star to have parity with the other Joint Chiefs. More recently, Congress created a Space Force, which creating the need for a four-star Chief of Space Operations and Vice Chief of Space Operations. At the same time, they reactivated Space Command, creating the need for another four-star. That’s five four-star positions that didn’t exist 15 years ago.

Further, arguments about being “lean” in this regard are somewhat specious. The Army had ten million soldiers on active duty at the height of World War II and some 450,000 today; both organizations had a four-star Chief of Staff.

The Army has six permanent service-only four stars (Chief of Staff, Vice Chief of Staff, CG Forces Command, CG Training and Doctrine Command [TRADOC], CG Futures Command, and CG Materiel Command); two permanent Joint component commands (US Army Europe, and US Army Pacific); and a permanent sub-component command (US Forces Korea). Hegeseth has already scuttled, problematically in my view, a plan to elevate US Forces Japan to four-star rank. All signs point to Futures Command folding back into TRADOC. Another three Army officers currently hold four-star rank by virtue of being in a Joint billet: Central Command, European Command, Special Operations Command. That’s actually rather low, as the Army tends to get a larger share of those assignments. (And the Army Guard officer will usually hold either the Chief or Vice Chief of the NGB post; the latter is currently vacant.) Regardless, that’s twelve current four-stars just in Army uniforms.

Benson is a former student, and he’s right that the Marines have only two organic four-stars, the Commandant and Assistant Commandant. Given the smaller size of the force, there are no Marine equivalents to the Army’s major commands. A third Marine, General Michael Langley, currently commands AFRICOM. Again, that number is often higher; Marines have held the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and various other Combatant Command posts.

It’s highly unlikely that we’ll downgrade any of the vices to three-star rank, fold the Air Force back into the Army or the Space Force back into the Air Force, or downgrade the National Guard Bureau to its rightful status. So, that’s fourteen four-stars that are untouchable.

The only proposals I’ve seen at the combatant command level is to merge AFRICOM back into EUCOM and NORTHCOM and SOUTHCOM. I could preach those either way. The former would create neglible savings, though, in that the component staffs of EUCOM and AFRICOM are already dual-hatted and AFRICOM has always been something of a Potemkin command. Similarly, SOUTHCOM is already lean, with a single four-star atop. Its staff is mostly one-stars and colonels, and its components are headed by two-stars with the odd exception of the Marines, who have a three-star. (Usually, it’s just the opposite, with the Marines tending to be a level down. For example, in INDOPACOM, ostensibly the main line of effort, MARFORPAC is commanded by a three-star while USARPAC, PACFLEET, and PACAF are headed by four-stars.)*

Beyond all that, as noted in the previous post, there is the not inconsiderable issue of diplomatic heft. Our general officers, particularly at the Combatant Command and Service Component level, frequently interface with foreign ministers and chiefs of defense and even heads of state. Many cultures are extremely hierarchy conscious. Sending a colonel rather than a brigadier general may well be perceived as insulting, and thus be counterproductive. Ditto a two-star rather than a four-star.

___________________________

*My teaching partner has solved this mystery for me: The Marine 3-star is a Reserve officer dual-hatted as head of Marine Forces Reserve.