The Army is initiating a comprehensive reorganisation that includes consolidating or shutting down headquarters, retiring obsolete vehicles and aircraft, reducing Pentagon staff by up to 1,000 positions, and redeploying personnel to field units, as detailed in a recent memo and confirmed by US officials.
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a directive on Thursday to establish “a leaner, more lethal force.” The reorganisation plans, which have been under discussion for several weeks, include the consolidation of various Army commands.
According to US officials speaking anonymously about personnel matters, the restructuring could result in the elimination of up to 40 general officer positions.
These adjustments are occurring as the Pentagon faces pressure to reduce expenditure and staffing as part of broader government cutbacks advocated by President Donald Trump’s administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
Hegseth’s memo emphasises the necessity to eliminate inefficient spending and focus on enhancing air and missile defence, long-range fires, cyber capabilities, electronic warfare and counter-space operations.
The directive specifically requires merging Army Futures Command with Training and Doctrine Command, whilst combining Forces Command, Army North and Army South into a unified headquarters “focused on homeland defense and partnership with our Western Hemisphere allies.”
The plan also calls for consolidating units, including Joint Munitions Command and Sustainment Command, alongside operations at various depots and arsenals.
Officials indicate that whilst staff positions will decrease through mergers, the Army’s overall size will remain unchanged, with soldiers being reassigned to different posts.
The restructuring targets legacy equipment including Humvees and certain helicopter formations, alongside various armour and aviation units across active duty, National Guard and Reserve forces. Specific units remain unidentified.
Congressional approval remains a significant challenge.
Historically, legislators have opposed Army and Pentagon attempts to terminate programmes, often due to their presence in representatives’ constituencies.
Defence leadership has traditionally distributed headquarters, depots, troops and facilities nationwide to secure congressional backing. This strategy has complicated subsequent attempts to reduce programmes with established support.
The extent of Congressional approval for these cuts remains uncertain, as legislators may opt to preserve certain programmes through additional budget allocations.
