The United States Army, along with the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy, has struggled in recent years to fill its ranks. While all of the services met their respective recruiting goals for fiscal year 2024 (FY24) and are already off to a strong start for fiscal year 2025 (FY25), the U.S. Army could be looking to cut its active-duty force.
Military.com first reported that the largest and oldest branch of the U.S. military is quietly discussing the pruning of up to 90,000 active-duty troops. That move “underscores mounting fiscal pressures at the Pentagon and a broader shift in military strategy away from Europe and counterterrorism,” the report stated, citing three unnamed defense officials familiar with the matter.
That could see the force trimmed to between 360,000 and 420,000 uniformed personnel, down from its current strength of 450,000. It isn’t clear if any cuts would impact the Army Reserve or National Guard.
The goal would be to transform the U.S. Army from its current “blunt conventional force” into a “more agile, specialized instrument better suited for modern conflicts.”
More Than Just a Slimmer Fighting Force
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who has been highly critical of what he described as “woke” initiatives within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), has called for trimming up to 8% of the Pentagon’s budget as part of the White House’s goal of reducing federal spending. Critics of his plans have warned that cutting the DEI program won’t be enough to meet the budget goals, so reductions in combat forces would be needed.
There were 17 areas – including border operations, nuclear weapons, missile defense, and certain munitions programs – that are off-limits. Yet, as the current defense spending topped $850 billion in 2024, the remaining cuts could still be deep.
“The proposal comes as a surprise, particularly on Capitol Hill, where Republican lawmakers have been pushing for more defense spending, not less. Just last month, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) floated the idea of adding $200 billion to address threats from China, Iran, and other global adversaries,” ClearanceJobs editor Jillian Hamilton wrote in February.
A Shift Away From Europe?
The potential reduction of the size of the U.S. Army comes as the Pentagon continues to be spread thin around the globe – maintaining a presence in the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East and Europe. It is the latter that could see less emphasis from Washington.
During his recent visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the U.S. commitment to the international alliance but also called upon Europe to increase its defense spending. Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has suggested that the United States’ NATO allies should increase defense spending to 5% of their respective GDP – an increase from the 2% benchmark the alliance currently calls for.
“The United States President Trump’s made clear he supports NATO, we’re going to remain in NATO,” Rubio told reporters in Brussels, while he stressed that the U.S. wants the alliance to be stronger against any potential threat.
“The only way NATO can get stronger and more viable is if our partners, the nation states that comprise this important alliance, have more capability,” Rubio added.
Trump didn’t make clear if the U.S. would also increase spending, but the 5% call would be in contrast to Hegseth’s calls to cut defense spending, as about 3.6% of the U.S. GDP is currently spent on defense. By GDP, the U.S. is now third after Poland and Estonia, while Lithuania announced earlier this year that it would increase its defense spending to as much as 5%.
Army Cuts Even as It Faces Recruiting Challenges
Supporters of a small, leaner U.S. Army argue it would be better suited to a conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific, where much of its land-based platforms would take a backseat to the Navy’s warships and the Air Force’s aerial capabilities.
However, critics have voiced a concern that none of the branches of the military should be scaling back after years of coming up short of recruitment goals.
“If we reduce the force without a clear retention strategy, we risk losing talented people who have other options,” an official told Military.com.
