Hegseth orders Pentagon to cut number of senior generals by 20%

[ThatRobGuy]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/05/politics/hegseth-orders-pentagon-cut-senior-generals

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered senior Pentagon leadership to cut the number of four-star generals and admirals by at least 20% across the military, according to a memo signed by Hegseth dated Monday and obtained by CNN. A defense official confirmed the memo’s authenticity.

As of 2023, there were 37 four-star generals and admirals across the entire military.



This will mark the third time in the past few decades such cuts (or proposed cuts) have been made to top brass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hagel-orders-20-percent-cut-in-pentagon-top-brass-senior-civilians/2013/07/16/7a004788-ee56-11e2-8163-2c7021381a75_story.html

In 2013, then–Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered a 20% reduction in the number of top brass and senior civilians at the Pentagon by 2019. This initiative aimed to trim an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 positions and was part of broader efforts to reduce military bureaucracy and overhead costs.

Gates calls for significant cuts in defense overhead

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates used the occasion of the 65th Anniversary of the Victory in Europe to declare war on duplicative overhead, bloat and needless spending in the Defense Department.

www.army.mil

In 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced plans to cut 50 general and admiral positions and eliminate 150 senior civilian roles as part of a broader effort to instill a "culture of savings and restraint" within the Department of Defense.

 

[Nithavela]

How is that done? Do they get demoted? Kicked out of the military entirely? Kicked upstairs somehow?

 

[mindlight]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/05/politics/hegseth-orders-pentagon-cut-senior-generals

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered senior Pentagon leadership to cut the number of four-star generals and admirals by at least 20% across the military, according to a memo signed by Hegseth dated Monday and obtained by CNN. A defense official confirmed the memo’s authenticity.

As of 2023, there were 37 four-star generals and admirals across the entire military.



This will mark the third time in the past few decades such cuts (or proposed cuts) have been made to top brass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hagel-orders-20-percent-cut-in-pentagon-top-brass-senior-civilians/2013/07/16/7a004788-ee56-11e2-8163-2c7021381a75_story.html

In 2013, then–Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered a 20% reduction in the number of top brass and senior civilians at the Pentagon by 2019. This initiative aimed to trim an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 positions and was part of broader efforts to reduce military bureaucracy and overhead costs.

Gates calls for significant cuts in defense overhead

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates used the occasion of the 65th Anniversary of the Victory in Europe to declare war on duplicative overhead, bloat and needless spending in the Defense Department.

www.army.mil

In 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced plans to cut 50 general and admiral positions and eliminate 150 senior civilian roles as part of a broader effort to instill a "culture of savings and restraint" within the Department of Defense.

Interesting approach to cost-cutting from a man who was more on the action level in the military than top leadership. Commentators have noticed that the military bureaucracy is top heavy for some years now.

I wonder if this also means the closure of many of the bases/operations that they run

Top heavy: U.S. military bloated by brass as officer-to-enlisted ratio dwarfs Cold War era

Key congressional leaders have floated the idea of trimming the number of generals and admirals in the armed forces. They say the ratio of high-ranking officers to enlisted personnel has ballooned out of control and might impede the readiness of the fighting force.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[wing2000]

How is that done? Do they get demoted? Kicked out of the military entirely? Kicked upstairs somehow?

...the memo does not say how it will done. Through attrition? Forced retirement? Not wearing a red hat?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

...the memo does not say how it will done. Through attrition? Forced retirement? Not wearing a red hat?

I'm guessing it'll be forced retirement.

We've been top heavy for a while.

In WWII, the U.S. had roughly 1 general for every 6,000 troops.
Today, it’s closer to 1 general for every 1,400 troops.

One could make and argument that the military has more areas of expertise now so adhering to 1940's ratios wouldn't be practical, but a 20% reduction in top brass does seem reasonable.

I suspect the reason for that it because the structures all grew during the period of back-to-back-to-back larger scale military conflicts (WW2, Korea, Vietnam), and then the administrative structures/roles stuck around after everything else was scaled back down.

I've actually seen the same things happen in regular (non-military) organizations as well.

One of the clients we worked with a few years back was in a situation where in the prior 10 years, they grew like gangbusters and grew their staff at all levels.

When their business took a bit of a downturn for them, they had attrition at the lower levels (either people leaving or getting laid off), but the "higher-up" positions remained. So they had some departments that only had 5 regular employees, and then a Manager, Director, and VP. (very top heavy) -- and it becomes rather difficult (if not impossible) to "sell" the idea to a VP that they have to go back to just being a "regular manager" again after they've already had the title and pay that goes with the "higher up" position. I would imagine the same would be true in the military.

I've never served in the military, but I would imagine telling someone who was used to being a General "Hey, we don't need this many generals anymore, so you'll have to go back to being a Major or Colonel if you want to stay" probably wouldn't be a well-received conversation, and "hey, we're going to offer you an early retirement package" is probably cleaner for all parties involved.

 

[wing2000]

I'm guessing it'll be forced retirement.

We've been top heavy for a while.

...that would be my guess as well.

Public and private organizations need a top management cleaning out from time to time. There's way too many VP's in some corporations...

 

[durangodawood]

Theres probably some awkward ones whos loyalty to the constitution is stronger than their loyalty to the person of Donald Trump.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm guessing it'll be forced retirement.

We've been top heavy for a while.

In WWII, the U.S. had roughly 1 general for every 6,000 troops.
Today, it’s closer to 1 general for every 1,400 troops.

One could make and argument that the military has more areas of expertise now so adhering to 1940's ratios wouldn't be practical, but a 20% reduction in top brass does seem reasonable.

I suspect the reason for that it because the structures all grew during the period of back-to-back-to-back larger scale military conflicts (WW2, Korea, Vietnam), and then the administrative structures/roles stuck around after everything else was scaled back down.

I've actually seen the same things happen in regular (non-military) organizations as well.

One of the clients we worked with a few years back was in a situation where in the prior 10 years, they grew like gangbusters and grew their staff at all levels.

When their business took a bit of a downturn for them, they had attrition at the lower levels (either people leaving or getting laid off), but the "higher-up" positions remained. So they had some departments that only had 5 regular employees, and then a Manager, Director, and VP. (very top heavy) -- and it becomes rather difficult (if not impossible) to "sell" the idea to a VP that they have to go back to just being a "regular manager" again after they've already had the title and pay that goes with the "higher up" position. I would imagine the same would be true in the military.

I've never served in the military, but I would imagine telling someone who was used to being a General "Hey, we don't need this many generals anymore, so you'll have to go back to being a Major or Colonel if you want to stay" probably wouldn't be a well-received conversation, and "hey, we're going to offer you an early retirement package" is probably cleaner for all parties involved.

I imagine there's enough turnover at those levels just through retirements that attrition could cover the bulk of it. Given how much more money they could make in the private sector leading organizations of similar size, early retirement is probably not a hard sell.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I suppose they might remove anyone who would refuse to follow an order to fire on American citizens if one were ever given.

 

[wing2000]

I suppose they might remove anyone who would refuse to follow an order to fire on American citizens if one were ever given.

...nah, Trump would never give such an order.....

How about firing generals who refuse to display the red hat in meetings with the Sec of Defense?

 

[Meowzltov]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/05/politics/hegseth-orders-pentagon-cut-senior-generals

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered senior Pentagon leadership to cut the number of four-star generals and admirals by at least 20% across the military, according to a memo signed by Hegseth dated Monday and obtained by CNN. A defense official confirmed the memo’s authenticity.

As of 2023, there were 37 four-star generals and admirals across the entire military.



This will mark the third time in the past few decades such cuts (or proposed cuts) have been made to top brass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hagel-orders-20-percent-cut-in-pentagon-top-brass-senior-civilians/2013/07/16/7a004788-ee56-11e2-8163-2c7021381a75_story.html

In 2013, then–Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered a 20% reduction in the number of top brass and senior civilians at the Pentagon by 2019. This initiative aimed to trim an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 positions and was part of broader efforts to reduce military bureaucracy and overhead costs.

Gates calls for significant cuts in defense overhead

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates used the occasion of the 65th Anniversary of the Victory in Europe to declare war on duplicative overhead, bloat and needless spending in the Defense Department.

www.army.mil

In 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced plans to cut 50 general and admiral positions and eliminate 150 senior civilian roles as part of a broader effort to instill a "culture of savings and restraint" within the Department of Defense.

Is it too much to hope that the cuts will be based on an analysis of actual skill and experience, without the assumption that someone was hired solely due to DEI?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is it too much to hope that the cuts will be based on an analysis of actual skill and experience, without the assumption that someone was hired solely due to DEI?

I would hope it would be based on redundancy analysis.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Sad, More jobs lost to people, that should be respected. I don't see how this is good.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sad, More jobs lost to people, that should be respected. I don't see how this is good.

What's the ideal situation?

For about 2-3 decades, I've heard calls from both a sizeable chunk of the democratic party, and the libertarian wing of the republican party, calling for a scaling back in military-related spending. (and those calls have typically been for a reduction to the tune of 20-30%)

And it also gets down to the more base level philosophical question of, "Do we keep redundant government positions intact, simply for the sake of jobs"?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

What's the ideal situation?

For about 2-3 decades, I've heard calls from both a sizeable chunk of the democratic party, and the libertarian wing of the republican party, calling for a scaling back in military-related spending. (and those calls have typically been for a reduction to the tune of 20-30%)

And it also gets down to the more base level philosophical question of, "Do we keep redundant government positions intact, simply for the sake of jobs"?

Michigan found out when you cut enough jobs, you loose even more. How do restaurants, furniture stores, grocery stores, farm stores, entertainment venues, car dealerships, and others stay in business when there is no one left to spend money? Oops also forgot hospitals and doctors.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Michigan found out when you cut enough jobs, you loose even more. How do restaurants, furniture stores, grocery stores, farm stores, entertainment venues, car dealerships, and others stay in business when there is no one left to spend money? Oops also forgot hospitals and doctors.

The old saying "should we let people dig trenches with spoons instead of shovels because it would employ more people?" would apply.

However, we should note, what you're describing are private sector positions.

And the private sector does have a vested interest in making sure there's enough people, with enough money and free time, to buy their product.
(that was Henry Ford's philosophy when he instituted the 5-day/40-hour work week. -- more plainly put, mass production needs mass consumption to sustain it)


However, we're not talking about the private sector here, we're talking about the public sector, which means they owe it to us (as taxpayers) to not have a plethora of redundant positions merely for the sake of keeping some people employed. (who could either be retiring, or working in the private sector)


If you had a town with a total population of 5000.

And a police force with 500 officers, 30 sergeants, 30 Lt's, and 15 Captains, people would understandably see that as overkill.

 

[iluvatar5150]

However, we're not talking about the private sector here, we're talking about the public sector, which means they owe it to us (as taxpayers) to not have a plethora of redundant positions merely for the sake of keeping some people employed. (who could either be retiring, or working in the private sector)

I don’t agree that the government owes that to us. I think what the government owes to us is maximizing human flourishing, which can obviously take many forms in a variety of contexts, but I don’t think that juicing employment numbers, or having certain sectors be public rather than private, should be off the table.