General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed
March 8, 2024
Forces: Background and Considerations for
Michael J. Vassalotti,
Congress
Coordinator
Section Research Manager
In the exercise of its constitutional authority over the
Statutory Framework for Congressional Management of DOD General and Flag Officers
Updated January 6, 2026
(R44389)
Jump to Main Text of Report
Summary
In the exercise of its constitutional responsibilities to shape and oversee the U.S. Armed Forces, Congress has enacted an Armed Forces, Congress has enacted an
array of laws that govern array of laws that govern
importantfoundational aspects of military officer personnel management, including aspects of military officer personnel management, including
Sofia Plagakis
appointments, assignments, grade structure, promotions, and separations. Some of these laws are appointments, assignments, grade structure, promotions, and separations. Some of these laws are
Senior Research Librarian
directed specifically at the most senior military officers, known as general and flag officers directed specifically at the most senior military officers, known as general and flag officers
(GFOs). Congress periodically reviews these laws and considers (GFOs). Congress periodically reviews these laws and considers
changes as it deems appropriate. amending them. Areas of congressional interest have included duties and grades of certain GFO positions, the Areas of congressional interest have included duties and grades of certain GFO positions, the
Barbara Salazar Torreon
number of GFOs, the proportion of GFOs to the total force, and compensation levels of GFOs.number of GFOs, the proportion of GFOs to the total force, and compensation levels of GFOs.
Senior Research Librarian
As of September 30, 2023, there were 809
Congress and the executive branch have used statutory authority to specify the grade and duties of certain GFO positions and affect the number of GFOs. As of June 30, 2025, there were 838 active-duty GFOs subject to statutory caps, active-duty GFOs subject to statutory caps,
4819 less less
than the maximum of 857 authorized by law. The current number is than the maximum of 857 authorized by law. The current number is
lowlower for the post-Cold War for the post-Cold War
era and substantially lower than the number of GFOs in the 1960s-1980s, when the Armed Forces were much larger in size era and substantially lower than the number of GFOs in the 1960s-1980s, when the Armed Forces were much larger in size
than they are today. than they are today.
However, while always very small in comparison to the total force, theThe GFO corps has increased GFO corps has increased
as a
percentage of the total force over the past five decades. over the past five decades.
In 1965, GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the
total forcetotal force
, while in 2024, in 1965, while they made up about one-they made up about one-
sixteenthfifteenth of one percent (0. of one percent (0.
063067%) of the total force%) of the total force
in 2023, indicating that , indicating that
the share of the total force made up of GFOs the share of the total force made up of GFOs
is nowhas increased by increased by
31%. This historical trend is more pronounced with respect to four-star officers (which grew from 0.0014% of the total force to 0.0029%, a 107% increase) and three-star officers (which grew from 0.0045% of the total force to 0.0103%, a 129% increase). One- and two-star officers increased less rapidly (from 0.0425% of the total force to 0.0500%, a 17.6% increase).
40%.
Some argue that this increased proportion of GFOs is Some argue that this increased proportion of GFOs is
wastefulexcessive and contributes to more bureaucratic decisionmaking and contributes to more bureaucratic decisionmaking
processes. Others counter that the increased proportion is linked to the militaryprocesses. Others counter that the increased proportion is linked to the military
’s greater 's emphasis on joint and coalition emphasis on joint and coalition
operations; core organizational requirements; management, budgeting, and program requirements; and the employment of operations; core organizational requirements; management, budgeting, and program requirements; and the employment of
automated, highly lethal, and destructive weapons systems that may require fewer personnelautomated, highly lethal, and destructive weapons systems that may require fewer personnel
.
Congress has used its authority to specify the grade and duties of certain GFO positions. For example, Congress increased the grade of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (NGB) from Lieutenant General to General in 2008. Congress also has added the Chief of Space Operations, Commander of Space Command, and, most recently, the Deputy Chief of the NGB as four-star officers. In 2016, Congress removed the statutory grade requirement from 54 GFO positions.
coupled with more discernment in employment of those weapons.
Compensation for GFOs variesCompensation for GFOs varies
. One commonly used measure of compensation, known as regular based on pay grade and years of service. Regular military compensation military compensation
(RMC)(RMC)
, includes basic pay, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and the federal tax advantage includes basic pay, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and the federal tax advantage
associated with allowances, which are exempt from federal income tax. In associated with allowances, which are exempt from federal income tax. In
20242025, the lowest-ranking GFOs , the lowest-ranking GFOs
make about $251,058may expect to make about $258,927 per year in RMC, while the highest-ranking GFOs per year in RMC, while the highest-ranking GFOs
may expect to make about $make about $
285,097291,095 per year. per year.
This report provides an overview of This report provides an overview of
Congress's framework for managing active-duty GFOs in the active-duty GFOs in the
United StatesU.S. Armed Forces—including duties, Armed Forces—including duties,
authorizations, and compensation—statutory controls, authorizations, compensation, and historical trends in the proportion of GFOs relative to the total forcehistorical trends in the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force
, criticisms and justifications of GFO to total force proportions, and statutory controls. National Guard and Reserve GFOs are not addressed in this report, . National Guard and Reserve GFOs are not addressed in this report,
unless they are servingexcept in cases in which they serve on active duty in a manner that counts against the on active duty in a manner that counts against the
statutory active-duty caps on GFOs. The report includes issues for congressional consideration in the exercise of its authority and responsibilities.
In the exercise of its constitutional responsibilities to shape and oversee the U.S. Armed Forces, Congress has enacted an array of laws that govern foundational aspects of military officer personnel management, including appointments, assignments, grade structure, promotions, and separations. Some of these laws are directed specifically at the most senior military officers, known as general and flag officers (GFOs). Congress periodically reviews these laws and considers amending them. Areas of congressional interest have included duties and grades of certain GFO positions, the number of GFOs, the proportion of GFOs to the total force, and compensation levels of GFOs.
Congress and the executive branch have used statutory authority to specify the grade and duties of certain GFO positions and affect the number of GFOs. As of June 30, 2025, there were 838 active-duty GFOs subject to statutory caps, 19 less than the maximum of 857 authorized by law. The current number is lower for the post-Cold War era and substantially lower than the number of GFOs in the 1960s-1980s, when the Armed Forces were much larger in size than they are today. The GFO corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades. In 1965, GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force, while in 2024, they made up about one-fifteenth of one percent (0.067%) of the total force, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs has increased by 40%.
Some argue that this increased proportion of GFOs is excessive and contributes to more bureaucratic decisionmaking processes. Others counter that the increased proportion is linked to the military's emphasis on joint and coalition operations; core organizational requirements; management, budgeting, and program requirements; and the employment of automated, highly lethal, and destructive weapons systems that may require fewer personnel coupled with more discernment in employment of those weapons.
Compensation for GFOs varies based on pay grade and years of service. Regular military compensation (RMC) includes basic pay, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and the federal tax advantage associated with allowances, which are exempt from federal income tax. In 2025, the lowest-ranking GFOs may expect to make about $258,927 per year in RMC, while the highest-ranking GFOs may expect to make about $291,095 per year.
This report provides an overview of Congress's framework for managing active-duty GFOs in the U.S. Armed Forces—including duties, statutory controls, authorizations, compensation, and historical trends in the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force. National Guard and Reserve GFOs are not addressed in this report, except in cases in which they serve on active duty in a manner that counts against the statutory active-duty caps on GFOs. The report includes issues for congressional consideration in the exercise of its authority and responsibilities.
Background
The Constitution provides Congress active-duty caps on GFOs.
Congressional Research Service
link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 17 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 17 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 10 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 19 link to page 22 General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Responsibilities of GFO Positions ................................................................................................... 2
Statutory Controls on GFO Authorizations ..................................................................................... 3
Current Number of GFOs .......................................................................................................... 5
Presidential Determination for Three-Star and Four-Star Positions .......................................... 6
Statutorily Defined Positions .................................................................................................... 6
Statutory Grades ................................................................................................................. 6
Statutory Duties .................................................................................................................. 7
Regular Military Compensation for GFOs ...................................................................................... 7
An Overview of Regular Military Compensation ..................................................................... 7
RMC for GFOs .......................................................................................................................... 8
Considerations for Congress............................................................................................................ 8
Proportion of GFOs in the Force ............................................................................................... 8
Historical Perspective ......................................................................................................... 8
Overview of Effects of Legislative Action from 2017 Through 2023 ................................ 9
Criticisms of Increasing the Proportion of GFOs ............................................................. 10
Justifications for Increasing the Proportion of GFOs ........................................................ 11
Recurring Questions for Congress in Managing GFO Authorizations ................................... 13
Figures
Figure 1. Minimum Number of GFOs for Joint Positions ............................................................... 5
Figure 2. GFO Authorizations, by Service Percentage .................................................................... 5
Figure 3. National Defense Outlays, FY1940-FY2028 (Projected) .............................................. 13
Tables
Table 1. Grade, Insignia, and Paygrade of General and Flag Officers ............................................ 2
Table 2. Maximum Number of GFOs, by Service, Excluding Joint Positions ................................ 4
Table 3. Number of Active-Duty General and Flag Officers ........................................................... 6
Table 4. Average Annual Regular Military Compensation for General and Flag Officers .............. 8
Table 5. Historical General and Flag Officer Levels ....................................................................... 9
Appendixes
Appendix. Selected Positions with Statutorily Specified Grades and/or Responsibilities ............ 15
Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 18
Congressional Research Service
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Congressional Research Service
link to page 6 General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Background
The Constitution provides Congress with broad powers over the Armed Forces, including the broad powers over the Armed Forces, including the
power power
“"to raise and support Armies,to raise and support Armies,
” “" "to provide and maintain a Navy,to provide and maintain a Navy,
”" and and
“"to make Rules for to make Rules for
the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.
”"1 It also provides the Senate It also provides the Senate
with the authority to provide the authority to provide
“"Advice and ConsentAdvice and Consent
”" on presidential nominations of on presidential nominations of
“"all other Officers all other Officers
of the United States,of the United States,
”" including military officers. including military officers.
12 On the basis of its constitutional authority, On the basis of its constitutional authority,
Congress has passed laws that govern important aspects of military officer personnel Congress has passed laws that govern important aspects of military officer personnel
management, including appointments, assignments, grade structure, promotions, and separations.management, including appointments, assignments, grade structure, promotions, and separations.
The most senior officers in the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force are The most senior officers in the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force are
known as called general officers. The most senior officers in the general officers. The most senior officers in the
Navy2 are known asNavy are called flag officers. flag officers.
3 The phrase The phrase
“"general and flag officers,general and flag officers,
”" or or
“"GFOs,GFOs,
”" refers to all officers in refers to all officers in
paygradespay grades O-7 through O-10 O-7 through O-10
, thereby including one-star, two-star, three-star and include all one-, two-, three-, and four-star officers. At the highest level, O-10, , and four-star officers. At the highest level, O-10,
GFOs hold the most visible and important military positions in the Department of Defense GFOs hold the most visible and important military positions in the Department of Defense
(DOD), (DOD), which is "using a secondary Department of War designation," under Executive Order 14347 dated September 5, 2025, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chiefs of the five military including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chiefs of the five military
services, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the combatant commanders. At the lowest services, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the combatant commanders. At the lowest
level, O-7, they hold positions that span an array of roles, including commanders, deputy level, O-7, they hold positions that span an array of roles, including commanders, deputy
commanders, and key staff roles in large organizations.
This report provides an overview of active-duty GFOs in the United States Armed Forces—including duties, statutory controls, authorizations, and compensation—historical trends in the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force, and issues for Congress including criticisms and justifications of GFO to total force proportions and recurring GFO oversight questions. National Guard and Reserve GFOs are not addressed in this report, unless they are serving on active duty in a manner that counts against the active-duty caps on GFOs.
Given the authority granted to GFOs, commanders, and key staff roles in defense and service-level departments and agencies.
Congress has developed a statutory framework applicable Congress has developed a statutory framework applicable
to this groupto GFOs and considers and considers
changesamendments to these laws as it deems appropriate. Congress also to these laws as it deems appropriate. Congress also
periodically reviews the number, duties, and compensation of GFOs. A frequent tension during these reviews has been DOD requests for additional GFOs versus congressional concerns that there are too many GFOs. As one senior DOD official noted during a 1997 congressional hearing,
throughout our history there has been a dialogue, just as is going on now, that has ebbed and flowed between the Congress and the military on the number of general and flag officers we need.... I think it is fair to say that over the years, the Congress has consistently taken the view that we have needed fewer general and flag officers, and that we have taken the opposite view, that we needed more than the Congress would allow. These debates tended to intensify during periods of major downsizing and restructuring of our forces, such as after World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and now after the cold war.3
periodically reviews the number, duties, and compensation of GFOs. References in this report to specific grades (ranks) within the GFO corps use the appropriate References in this report to specific grades (ranks) within the GFO corps use the appropriate
capitalized title, insignia, or paygrade as indicated incapitalized title, insignia, or paygrade as indicated in
Table 1.
1 Article II, Section 2. This section also provides that “the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law or in the Heads of Departments.”
2 The Coast Guard uses the same rank structure as the Navy. While the Coast Guard is one of the armed forces, it is not covered in this report, as it normally operates under different statutory authority (Title 14) than the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force (Title 10).
3 Testimony of Frederick Pang, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, before the Subcommittee on Personnel of the House National Security Committee, April 8, 1997, in House National Security Committee Report No. 105-6, p. 388.
Congressional Research Service
1
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Table 1. Grade, Insignia, and Paygrade of General and Flag Officers
Grade
(Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and
Grade
Space Force)
(Navy)
Insignia
Paygrade
General
Admiral
four-stars
0-10
Lieutenant General
Vice Admiral
three-stars
0-9
Major General
Rear Admiral
two-stars
0-8
Brigadier General
Rear Admiral (Lower Half)
one-star
0-7
Source: Grades from 10 U.S.C. §741; paygrades from 37 U.S.C. §201; insignias from Department of Defense,
Table 1. Grade, Insignia, and Paygrade of General and Flag Officers
Grade (Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Space Force)
Grade (Navy)
Insignia
|
Paygrade
|
|
General
|
Admiral
|
four-stars
★★★★
|
0-10
|
|
Lieutenant General
|
Vice Admiral
|
three-stars
★★★
|
0-9
|
|
Major General
|
Rear Admiral
|
two-stars
★★
|
0-8
|
|
Brigadier General
|
Rear Admiral (Lower Half)
|
one-star
★
|
0-7
|
Source: Grades from 10 U.S.C. §741; insignias from Department of Defense, available at https://dod.defense.gov/About/Insignias/Officers/; paygrades from 37 U.S.C. §201.
The GFO Population
Table 2. Number of Active-Duty General and Flag Officers
As of June 30, 2025
|
Grade
|
Army
|
Navy
|
Marine Corps
|
Air Force
|
Space Force
|
TOTAL
|
|
General/Admiral
|
11
|
8
|
3
|
11
|
3
|
36
|
|
Lieutenant General/Vice Admiral
|
51
|
34
|
18
|
37
|
5
|
145
|
|
Major General/Rear Admiral
|
88
|
68
|
30
|
69
|
10
|
265
|
|
Brigadier General /Rear Admiral (Lower Half)
|
118
|
106
|
38
|
117
|
13
|
392
|
|
TOTAL
|
268
|
216
|
89
|
234
|
31
|
838
|
Source: Department of Defense Active Duty Military Personnel by Rank/Grade and Service, June 30, 2025, available at available at
https://dwp.dmdc.osd.mil/dwp/app/dod-data-reports/workforce-reports. Includes GFOs in Service and Joint assignments.
https://dod.defense.gov/About/Insignias/Officers/.
Responsibilities of GFO Positions
While
Congress has specified Congress has specified
the functions or duties for some key functions or duties for some key
positions—GFO positions, such as members of the such as members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff,Joint Chiefs of Staff,
44 the top two officers of each service (i.e., service chiefs and vice chiefs), the top two officers of each service (i.e., service chiefs and vice chiefs),
5 5 the combatant commanders,the combatant commanders,
66 the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command,
77 the the
Commander of U.S. Cyber Command,Commander of U.S. Cyber Command,
88 and the Chief and Vice Chief of the National Guard and the Chief and Vice Chief of the National Guard
Bureau9—Bureau.9 This leaves the majority of GFO positions the majority of GFO positions
are not definedundefined in statute. In these instances, DOD uses in statute. In these instances, DOD uses
the following criteria for determining whether a the following criteria for determining whether a
position should be filled by a general or flag officer:
• general or flag officer should fill a position:nature, characteristics, and function of the position;nature, characteristics, and function of the position;
•
grade and position of superior, principal subordinates, and lateral points of grade and position of superior, principal subordinates, and lateral points of
coordination;coordination;
•
degree of independence of operation;degree of independence of operation;
•
official relations with other U.S. and foreign governmental positions;official relations with other U.S. and foreign governmental positions;
•
magnitude of responsibilities;magnitude of responsibilities;
•
mission and special requirements;mission and special requirements;
•
number, type, and value of resources managed and employed;number, type, and value of resources managed and employed;
•
forces, personnel, value of equipment, total obligation authority;forces, personnel, value of equipment, total obligation authority;
•
geographic area of responsibility;geographic area of responsibility;
•
authority to make decisions and commit resources;authority to make decisions and commit resources;
•
development of policy;development of policy;
•
national commitment to international agreements;
impact on national security and other national interests; and
national commitment to international agreements;
4 10 U.S.C. §§151-154. 5 Specifically, the Chief of Staff of the Army (10 U.S.C. §7033), the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (10 U.S.C. §7034), the Chief of Naval Operations (10 U.S.C. §8033), the Vice Chief of Naval Operations (10 U.S.C. §8035), the Commandant of the Marine Corps (10 U.S.C. §8043), the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps (10 U.S.C. §8044), the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (10 U.S.C. §9033), the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force (10 U.S.C. §9034), and the Chief of Space Operations (10 U.S.C. §9082). 6 10 U.S.C. §164. 7 10 U.S.C. §167. 8 10 U.S.C. §167b. 9 10 U.S.C. §10502 and 10 U.S.C. §10505, respectively.
Congressional Research Service
2
link to page 8 General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
• impact on national security and other national interests; and • effect on the prestige of the nation or the armed force.effect on the prestige of the nation or the armed force.
1010
Statutory Controls on GFO Authorizations
Congress has established a statutory framework for GFOsCongress has established a statutory framework for GFOs
, which that limits limits
theirGFO numbers by grade, numbers by grade,
requires presidential requires presidential
determination ofappointment to many three-star and four-star positions, and specifies the many three-star and four-star positions, and specifies the
grade and/or duties of certain key positions. This framework provides for grade and/or duties of certain key positions. This framework provides for
greater congressional control overcongressional oversight of the most senior GFO positions, while providing the most senior GFO positions, while providing
substantial latitude to the executive latitude to the executive
branch in the management of the remaining branch in the management of the remaining
GFOs.
GFO positions. Combining the maximum number of service and joint GFO statutory authorizations, the maximum number of GFO positions authorized is 857.
Positions to which DOD is requiredPositions to which DOD is required
, or may choose or may choose
, to assign a GFO may be designated as joint to assign a GFO may be designated as joint
duty assignments. duty assignments.
SuchThose joint duty positions positions
maytypically reside in joint activities (e.g., the Joint Staff, combatant reside in joint activities (e.g., the Joint Staff, combatant
command staffs).command staffs).
11 All other11 Other positions normally reside in the respective services positions normally reside in the respective services
' organizations (e.g., the Army (e.g., the Army
Staff, division, wing, or higher commands).Staff, division, wing, or higher commands).
12
12
The FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (FY2017 NDAA; P.L. 114-328) included a The FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (FY2017 NDAA; P.L. 114-328) included a
provision, codified at 10 U.S.C. §526, to reduce the number of GFOs authorized to be on active provision, codified at 10 U.S.C. §526, to reduce the number of GFOs authorized to be on active
duty for more than one year, effective as of January 1, 2023. The conference report that duty for more than one year, effective as of January 1, 2023. The conference report that
accompanied the bill highlighted congressional concerns that the military departments had not accompanied the bill highlighted congressional concerns that the military departments had not
demonstrated a willingness to implement GFO reductions directed by then-Secretary of Defense demonstrated a willingness to implement GFO reductions directed by then-Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates in 2011 and noted the context of significant reductions in personnel strength that Robert Gates in 2011 and noted the context of significant reductions in personnel strength that
occurred in the calendar year 2011-2016 occurred in the calendar year 2011-2016
time frame. 13
timeframe. 13
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY2024 NDAAThe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY2024 NDAA
; ; P.L. 118-31P.L. 118-31
) realized a set) concludes a series of legislative actions begun in the FY2017 NDAA, to of legislative actions begun in the FY2017 NDAA, to
lowerreduce congressionally congressionally
mandated limits on the number of GFOs on active duty.
Table 2 summarizes the statutory limitations by grade for GFOs for service-specific positions.
10 Criteria provided by Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, May 12, 2015. In a 2021 congressional hearing, Clifford L. Stanley, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, provided similar criteria. See, Testimony of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford L. Stanley, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Personnel, General and Flag Officer Requirements, 112th Cong., 1st sess., September 14, 2021, S.Hrg. 112-258, p. 62. 11 For GFO billet management, these positions reside in “The Joint Pool.” For detailed information on DOD GFO management, see Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1331.01E, March 31, 2022, at https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Library/Instructions/CJCSI%201331.01E.pdf.
12 10 U.S.C. §526. 13 The conference report that accompanied the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act stated, “The conferees note that despite two decades of Congressional concern the Department of Defense and the military departments have not demonstrated the willingness to implement even the reduction in the number of general and flag officer positions directed by the Secretary of Defense's Track Four Efficiencies Initiatives decision of March 14, 2011. In the context of the Department of Defense's continued requests to reduce military end strength, especially in the Army and the Marine Corps, reductions that Congress has cautiously considered and authorized, the time has come for the Department to rigorously evaluate and validate every general and flag officer position. The conferees believe that an additional 10% reduction in the number of general and flag officer positions may be appropriate by downgrading or eliminating positions in addition to the 110 positions required to be eliminated under this provision are achieved. The conferees expect that the Department of Defense and the military departments will improve efficiency by eliminating bloated headquarters and staffs while preserving the necessary number and grades of positions for general and flag officers who are responsible to train and lead our Nation's forces in battle and to bring them safely home again.” H.Rept. 114-840, p. 1013. A copy of the Track Four Efficiency Initiatives Decisions memo by Secretary Gates is available at https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/cms/sites/default/files/resources/2021-12/20110314-Track%20Four%20Efficiency%20Initiatives%20Decisions.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
link to page 10 General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Table 2. Maximum Number of GFOs, by Service, Excluding Joint Positions
As codified in 10 U.S.C. §§525 and 526
Marine
Space Force
Grade
Army
Navy
Corps
Air Force
TOTAL
General/Admiral
8
6
2
9
2
27
Lieutenant
46, less the
34, less the
17, less the
44, less the
7, less the
148, less the
General/Vice
number of
number of
number of
number of
number of
number of
Admiral
Generals
Admirals
Generals
Generals
Generals
Generals and
Admirals
Major
90
49
22
73
6
240
General/Rear Admiral
Brigadier General/
219, less the
150, less the
64, less the
171, less the
21, less the
525, less the
Rear Admiral
number in
number in
number in
number in the number in the number in the
(Lower Half)
the grades
higher grades
the grades
grades of
grades of
grades of
of Major
of Rear
of Major
Major
Major
Major
General
Admiral
General
General
General
General/Rear
through
though
through
through
through
Admiral
General
Admiral
General
General
General
through
General/Admi
ral
TOTAL
219
150
64
171
6
525
Source: Total number for each service from P.L. 118-31 §501 and 10 U.S.C. §525(a).
Notes: FY2020 NDAA (P.L. 116-92 §953) authorized Chief of Space Operations as a four-star position.
Per the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2670 (H.Rept. 118-301), the conferees “authorized the permanent increase in general and flag officer authorized strengths [in Section 501, by one per service] to accommodate the congressional requirement for a general or flag officer to serve as the lead special trial counsel, and [added] an increase of an additional Marine Corps general officer to address safety needs in the Marine Corps.”14 mandated limits on the number of GFOs on active duty, with some exceptions.14 Section 512 of the FY2024 NDAA amended 10 U.S.C. §10505 to require that the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau be appointed to serve in the grade of general and that the Secretary of Defense designate this position as one of the general officer positions to be excluded from the limitations of Section 526(a) of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Per the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2670 (H.Rept. 118-301), the conferees "authorized the permanent increase in general and flag officer authorized strengths [in Section 501, by one per service] to accommodate the congressional requirement for a general or flag officer to serve as the lead special trial counsel, and [added] an increase of an additional Marine Corps general officer to address safety needs in the Marine Corps."15 Table 3 summarizes the statutory limitations by grade for service-specific GFO positions.
Table 3. Maximum Number of GFOs, by Service, Excluding Joint Positions
|
Grade
|
Army
|
Air Force
|
Marine Corps
|
Navy
|
Space Force
|
TOTAL
|
|
GFO Maximum for all grades
|
219
|
171
|
64
|
150
|
21
|
625
|
|
2-star maximum
|
90
|
73
|
21
|
49
|
6
|
239
|
|
3- and 4-star maximum
|
46
|
44
|
18
|
34
|
7
|
149
|
|
4-star maximum
|
8
|
9
|
2
|
6
|
2
|
27
|
There are certain circumstances under There are certain circumstances under
which a general or flag officer does not which a general or flag officer does not
“count” against these caps.15 Additionally, the President "count" against the GFO caps (e.g., after retirement approval).16 The President has authority under Title 10, Section 527, of the has authority under Title 10, Section 527, of the
U.S. Code to suspend the operation of the caps in to suspend the operation of the caps in
time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress or the President.time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress or the President.
Section 526(b) of Title 10 of the Section 526(b) of Title 10 of the
U.S. Code further authorizes further authorizes
the exemption of up to 232 GFOs from exemption of up to 232 GFOs from
the limitations of Section 526(a). Unless the Secretary of Defense determines that a lower number the limitations of Section 526(a). Unless the Secretary of Defense determines that a lower number
is in the best interest of the department, the GFOs serving in the 232 authorized joint positions is in the best interest of the department, the GFOs serving in the 232 authorized joint positions
"shall beshall be
" at least those illustrated in Figure 1.17
Figure 1. Minimum Number of GFOs for Joint Positions
Source: CRS analysis of 10 U.S.C. §526(b)(2).
Note: 10 U.S.C. §526 allocates only minimum positions per service, not all positions.
Figure 2. GFO Authorizations, by Service Percentage of Maximum
|
Source: CRS analysis of 10 U.S.C. §§525 and 526.
Note: 10 U.S.C. §526 allocates minimum positions per service. Percentages are rounded and may not sum to 100%.
|
Presidential Determination for Three-Star and Four-Star Positions
Section 601 at least 75 Army officers, 53 Navy officers, 17 Marine Corps Officers, 68 Air Force Officers, and 6 Space Force Officers.16 Section 512 of the FY2024 NDAA amends 10 U.S.C. §10505 to require that the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau be appointed to serve in the grade of general and that the Secretary of Defense designate this position as one of the general officer positions to be excluded from the limitations of Section 526(a) of Title 10 of the of Title 10 of the
U.S.
Code. This position would count among those listed in Table 3.
14 H.Rept. 118-301, p. 1042. 15 Active-duty GFOs excluded from the caps include those within 60 days of retirement and GFOs transitioning between certain positions for up to 60 days. The Attending Physician of Congress is counted in addition to the number otherwise permitted for the officer’s armed force in grades above O-7. Certain reserve component GFOs serving on active duty for limited periods of time are also excluded; see 10 U.S.C. §§525 (d)-(g) and 526(c)-(g).
16 10 U.S.C. §526(b)(2).
Congressional Research Service
4
link to page 10 
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Figure 1. Minimum Number of GFOs for Joint Positions
As provided by 10 U.S.C. §526
Source: 10 U.S.C. §526. Note: 10 U.S.C. §526 does not fully allocate the joint authorizations to the Services; it allocates minimums per service.
Combining the maximum number of service and joint GFO authorizations, the maximum number of GFO positions authorized is currently 857.
Figure 2. GFO Authorizations, by Service Percentage
Source: 10 U.S.C. §§525 and 526. Note: 10 U.S.C. §526 does not fully allocate the joint authorizations to the Services; it allocates minimums per service.
Current Number of GFOs
Table 3 lists the number and flag officers on active duty, whether in service-assignment and joint assignment.
Congressional Research Service
5
link to page 19 General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Table 3. Number of Active-Duty General and Flag Officers
As of September 30, 2023
Marine
Air
Space
Grade
Army
Navy
Corps
Force
Force
TOTAL
General/Admiral
15
7
2
11
2
37
Lieutenant General/Vice Admiral
44
28
16
39
5
132
Major General/Rear Admiral
95
53
30
68
6
252
Brigadier General /Rear Admiral
113
104
37
123
11
388
(Lower Half)
TOTAL
267
192
85
241
24
809
Source: Department of Defense Active Duty Military Personnel by Rank/Grade and Service, September 30, 2023, available at https://dwp.dmdc.osd.mil/dwp/app/dod-data-reports/workforce-reports. Includes GFOs in Service and Joint assignments.
Presidential Determination for Three-Star and Four-Star Positions
Section 601 of Title 10 provides that “[t]he President may designate positions of importance and responsibility to carry the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral.... An officer assigned to any such position has the grade specified for that position if he is appointed to that grade by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Thus, with the exception of those so designated in statute, all three-star and four-star positions must be designated as such by the President. Congress can review the rationale for this designation as part of its oversight function and the Senate retains the power to confirm or reject the nomination of an individual to fill such a position. The authority of the President to designate such positions is also limited by the strength caps on GFOs found in 10 U.S.C. §§525 and 526.
Statutorily Defined Positions
Congress has established in law certain GFO positions with specified grades, designated duties, or both. Those GFOs named in 10 U.S.C. §151, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commanders of unified and specified combatant commands comprise most of these positions.
Statutory Grades
Congress has specified the grade for certain positions. For example, 10 U.S.C. §152 specifies that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff holds the rank of General or Admiral. Similar language also exists for the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top two officers of each service, the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Appendix highlights some positions with statutorily required grades. Congress may change these statutory grades. For example, in 2008, Congress increased the grade of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from Lieutenant General to General.17 Additionally, Section 502 of the FY2017 NDAA amended various statutory
17 P.L. 110-181 §1811.
Congressional Research Service
6
link to page 19 General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
provisions to eliminate the statutory grade for 54 positions.18 As explained in the report that accompanied the Senate version of the FY2017 NDAA, where the provision originated,
[t]he Committee determined that in order to effectively manage the reduction in the number of general and flag officers prescribed elsewhere in this Act, that the Secretary of Defense must be given the flexibility to assign appropriate officer grades to positions. The provision would not prohibit the position from being filled by an officer with the same, or a higher, or lower grade than the law currently requires.19
Statutory Duties
Positions with statutorily required grades typically have statutorily required duties as well. The Appendix provides excerpts of the statutorily required responsibilities, duties, or functions of certain GFO positions. Congress may change these duties. For example, in 2011, Congress changed the law to specify that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau was a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whose duties included “the specific responsibility of addressing matters involving non-Federalized National Guard forces in support of homeland defense and civil support missions.”20
Regular Military Compensation for GFOs
Military personnel, including GFOs, are compensated in three main ways: cash compensation (pay and allowances), noncash compensation (benefits), and deferred compensation (retired pay and benefits). This report discusses only the compensation elements that make up regular military
compensation (RMC).
An Overview of Regular Military Compensation
RMC is a statutorily defined measure of the major compensation elements that every servicemember receives. It is widely used as a basic measure of military cash compensation levels and for comparisons with civilian salary levels. RMC, as defined in law, is “the total of the following elements that a member of the uniformed services accrues or receives, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind every payday: basic pay, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and Federal tax advantage accruing to the aforementioned allowances because they are not subject to Federal income tax.”21 Certain GFOs receive a “personal money allowance” as well. This is not part of RMC.
18 Section 502 of the FY2017 NDAA eliminated the statutory general or flag officer grade for 54 positions, including each of the services’ senior medical officer, senior legal officer, and chief of legislative affairs. The statutory grade was also removed for the chief of each reserve component (e.g., Chief of the Navy Reserve, Director of the Army National Guard; however, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau retained the statutory designation as an O-10 position). The elimination of a statutory requirement does not necessarily affect the grade of the position, as the military services may designate the position at an equivalent, lower, or higher grade, subject to the statutory strength caps on GFOs and presidential determinations for three-star and four-star positions.
19 S.Rept. 114-255, pp. 135-36. 20 P.L. 112-81 §512. 21 Statutory definition contained in 37 U.S.C. §101(25). For more information on Regular Military Compensation, see CRS In Focus IF10532, Defense Primer: Regular Military Compensation, by Kristy N. Kamarck, and CRS Report RL33446, Military Pay: Key Questions and Answers, by Lawrence Kapp and Barbara Salazar Torreon.
Congressional Research Service
7
link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 12 General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
RMC for GFOs
Table 4 provides the average RMC that GFOs received in 2023. It assumes that all GFOs receive a basic allowance for housing (BAH) rather than living in government provided housing.22
Table 4. Average Annual Regular Military Compensation for General and
Flag Officers
(as of January 1, 2024)
Average
Basic
Average
Allowance
Basic
for
Average
Average
Allowance
Subsistence
Federal Tax
Average
Grade
Basic Pay
for Housing
(Flat Rate)
Advantage
RMC
General/Admiral
$221,900
$44,212
$3,804
$15,180
$285,097
Lieutenant General/Vice Admiral
$221,900
$44,267
$3,804
$15,091
$285,062
Major General/Rear
$217,164
$44,230
$3,804
$15,024
$280,222
Admiral Brigadier General /Rear
$188,805
$44,222
$3,804
$14,227
$251,058
Admiral (Lower Half)
Source: Selected Military Compensation Tables (OSD Compensation Greenbook, January 2024), Table B3, Detailed RMC Tables for All Personnel, (PDF p. 94), at https://militarypay.defense.gov/References/Greenbooks/. Notes: Average RMC assumes receipt of BAH rather than government-provided housing. Amounts in each column are rounded to the nearest dollar and therefore may not sum perfectly.
Considerations for Congress
Proportion of GFOs in the Force
Historical Perspective
A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force over the past five decades is provided in Table 5. A review of GFO levels indicates a 2.8% increase in the number of four-star officers (36 on September 30, 1965, versus 37 on September 30, 2023) and an 11% increase in the number of three-star officers (119 versus 132), with variations over time related to current events. At the same time, the number of one-star and two-star officers has decreased by about 43.3% (1,129 versus 640).
During this time, the size of the total force dropped by approximately 51.5%, from 2.66 million on September 30, 1965, to 1.29 million on September 30, 2023. Thus, a more salient measure may be the proportion of GFOs to the total force.
Looking at the data from this perspective, it is clear that although GFOs have always made up a very small percentage of the total force, the GFO corps has increased as a percentage of the total
22 About 17% of GFOs live in government-provided housing and therefore do not receive BAH. While this lowers the cash compensation received, they receive free housing instead. For the purposes of Table 4, the value of the free housing is assumed to be equivalent to the average BAH of their GFO peers. Calculation of proportion living in government provided housing made using Selected Military Compensation Tables (OSD Compensation Greenbook, 2019), Table A5, BAH Percentages 2019, and Table A6, Military Personnel by Pay Cell, available at https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/GreenBook%202019.pdf?ver=2019-01-16-132128-617.
Congressional Research Service
8
link to page 13 General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, whereas they made up about one-sixteenth of one percent (0.063%) of the total force in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs has increased by 31%. This historical trend is more pronounced with respect to four-star officers (which grew from 0.0014% of the total force to 0.0029%, a 107% increase) and three-star officers (which grew from 0.0045% of the total force to 0.0103%, a 129% increase). One- and two-star officers as a percentage of the total force increased less demonstrably (from 0.0425% of the total force to 0.0500%, a 17.6% increase).
These increases occurred at the same time that the size of the officer corps in general was increasing as a percentage of the total force. As indicated in the last column of Table 5, between 1965 and 2023, the officer corps increased from 12.76% of the total force in 1965 to 18.22% in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of officers increased by 42.8%.
Overview of Effects of Legislative Action from 2017 Through 2023
The FY2017 NDAA (P.L. 114-328) was enacted on December 23, 2016. Section 501 stipulates the purpose was to “reduce the number of general and flag officers on active duty by 110 from the aggregate authorized number of general and flag officers authorized by sections 525 and 526 of title 10, United States Code, as of December 31, 2015.” The FY2024 NDAA, in Section 501, codified and generally affirmed this purpose.
Overall, the reduction is for 100 GFOs, or 11% of the GFO population. With respect to the total force, GFOs made up about one-fourteenth of one percent (0.069%) of the total force in 2015, whereas they made up about one-sixteenth of one percent (0.063%) of the total force in 2023, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs has decreased by 8.7%. Four-star officers dropped by one, from 38 to 37, remaining at 0.0029% of the force. Three-star officers dropped from 141 to 132, a 6.4% population drop that reduced them from 0.0107% to 0.0103% of the force. One- and two-star officers dropped from 730 to 640, a 12.33% population drop that reduced them from 0.0556% to 0.0500% of the force.
Table 5. Historical General and Flag Officer Levels
(As of September 30th of each year)
1- & 2-
4-Star
3-Star
Star
All
All
Officers Officers Officers
GFOs
Officers
As
As
As
As
As
1- & 2-
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
4-Star 3-Star 2-Star 1-Star
Star
All
All
Total
of Total of Total of Total of Total of Total
Year Officers Officers Officers Officers Officers GFOs Officer
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
1965
36
119
n.a.
n.a.
1,129
1,284 338,822 2,655,389 0.0014%
0.0045%
0.0425%
0.048%
12.76%
1970
40
141
n.a.
n.a.
1,157
1,338 402,226 3,066,294 0.0013%
0.0046%
0.0377%
0.044%
13.12%
1975
36
118
443
584
1,027
1,181 292,424 2,128,120 0.0017%
0.0055%
0.0483%
0.055%
13.74%
1980
32
113
406
559
965
1,110 277,622 2,050,627 0.0016%
0.0055%
0.0471%
0.054%
13.54%
1985
36
125
370
519
889
1,050 308,919 2,151,032 0.0017%
0.0058%
0.0413%
0.049%
14.36%
1990
36
121
367
530
897
1,054 296,591 2,043,705 0.0018%
0.0059%
0.0439%
0.052%
14.51%
Congressional Research Service
9
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
1- & 2-
4-Star
3-Star
Star
All
All
Officers Officers Officers
GFOs
Officers
As
As
As
As
As
1- & 2-
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
4-Star 3-Star 2-Star 1-Star
Star
All
All
Total
of Total of Total of Total of Total of Total
Year Officers Officers Officers Officers Officers GFOs Officer
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
1995
35
110
274
432
706
851 237,602 1,518,224 0.0023%
0.0072%
0.0465%
0.056%
15.65%
2000
34
119
282
436
718
871 217,178 1,384,338 0.0025%
0.0086%
0.0519%
0.063%
15.69%
2005
35
128
272
439
711
874 226,619 1,389,394 0.0025%
0.0092%
0.0512%
0.063%
16.31%
2010
39
150
310
482
792
981 234,000 1,430,985 0.0027%
0.0105%
0.0553%
0.069%
16.35%
2015
38
141
310
420
730
909 230,468 1,313,940 0.0029%
0.0107%
0.0556%
0.069%
17.54%
2018
40
147
296
438
734
921 230,708 1,317,325 0.0030%
0.0112%
0.0557%
0.070%
17.51%
2019
37
142
295
409
704
883 214,661 1,325,826 0.0028%
0.0107%
0.0531% 0.0666%
16.19%
2020
45
153
281
417
698
896 215,935 1,333,461 0.0034%
0.0115%
0.0523% 0.0672%
16.19%
2021
41
156
293
405
698
895 216,369 1,333,771 0.0031%
0.0117%
0.0523% 0.0671%
16.22%
2022
39
146
283
373
656
841 213,175 1,296,309 0.0030%
0.0113%
0.0506% 0.0649%
16.44%
2023
37
132
252
388
640
809 234,252 1,286,027 0.0029%
0.0103%
0.0500% 0.0630%
18.22%
Source: CRS compilation of data produced by the Defense Manpower Data Center.
Criticisms of Increasing the Proportion of GFOs
There have been two principal criticisms raised against increasing the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force. The first criticism revolves around the increased cost of employing a GFO compared with employing a lower-ranking officer. The second relates to the belief that too many GFOs slow down decisionmaking processes. Each point is explained in more detail below.
• Cost. GFOs cost more to employ than officers of a lower rank. In part, this is due
to the higher compensation they receive. For example, the average GFO in paygrade O-7 receives $251,058 in RMC23 in 2024, while the average officer in paygrade O-6 receives $220,275. Additionally, there can be other costs associated with GFOs, particularly at higher grades, such as the costs of larger staffs, official travel, security details, and aides.24 An example of this perspective was provided by a witness at a 2011 congressional hearing, who stated, “The progression towards a more top-heavy force is not without its consequences.... The cost of
23 Title 37 U.S.C. §101(25) defines regular military compensation (RMC), as “the total of the following elements that a member of the uniformed services accrues or receives, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind every payday: basic pay, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and Federal tax advantage accruing to the aforementioned allowances because they are not subject to Federal income tax.” 24 These costs are difficult to estimate, as noted by the Government Accountability Office, DOD Needs to Update
General and Flag Officer Requirements and Improve Availability of Associated Costs, GAO-14-745, September 9, 2014, available at http://gao.gov/products/GAO-14-745. Compensation figures are from Military Compensation Tables (OSD Compensation Greenbook, 2023), Table B3, Detailed RMC Tables for All Personnel, (PDF p. 94) at https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/GreenBook%202023.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
officers increases markedly with their rank, so taxpayers are overpaying whenever a GFO is in a position that could be filled by a lower ranking officer.”25
• Decisionmaking. Another criticism is that an increasing proportion of GFOs
slows decisionmaking by adding additional layers of management between the highest echelons of command and the lowest. In a 2010 speech, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates criticized the impact of an increase in GFOs and senior civilians in making the DOD a top-heavy and overly bureaucratic organization:
During the 1990s, the military saw deep cuts in overall force structure—the Army by nearly 40 percent. But the reduction in flag officers—generals and admirals—was about half that. The Department’s management layers—civilian and military—and numbers of senior executives outside the services grew during that same period. Almost a decade ago, Secretary Rumsfeld lamented that there were 17 levels of staff between him and a line officer. The Defense Business Board recently estimated that in some cases the gap between me and an action officer may be as high as 30 layers.... Consider that a request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan—or for any other unit—has to go through no fewer than five four-star headquarters in order to be processed, validated, and eventually dealt with. This during an era when more and more responsibility—including decisions with strategic consequences—is being exercised by young captains and colonels on the battlefield.26
Justifications for Increasing the Proportion of GFOs
The increasing proportion of GFOs in comparison to the total force has been a topic of particular interest during past congressional hearings.27 During these hearings, and particularly during a 1997 congressional review of GFO authorizations, witnesses from the DOD put forth a number of rationales for this growth, including the following:
• Coalition operations. A rationale used to explain the increased proportion of
GFOs has been an increased emphasis by the United States on forging coalitions with other nations to achieve common security objectives. This has, in turn, generated a demand for senior military leaders to conduct coordinated planning, training, and operations with their peers from foreign nations. The argument is also linked to the number of contingency operations the U.S. military has conducted since the end of the Cold War, which have often involved forces from dozens of countries, including the forces of the nation in which the operations take place. Examples of these coalition operations include Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as smaller-scale contingencies such as Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo (ongoing), Somalia (ongoing), and Syria (ongoing). Contingency operations such as these are often commanded by a GFO, who usually has additional GFOs as
25 Statement by Dr. Benjamin Freeman, Project on Government Oversight, before the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 14, 2011.
26 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates speech at Eisenhower Library, delivered May 8, 2010, available at https://media.defense.gov/2018/May/07/2001913228/-1/-1/0/05082010%20GATES%20CALLS%20FOR%20SIGNIFICANT%20CUTS%20IN%20DEFENSE%20OVERHEAD.PDF.
27 See the following hearings: “Flag and General Officer Strengths,” Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 17, 1981; “General and Flag Officer Requirements,” Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, August 10, 1988; “Review of General and Flag Officer Authorizations,” Subcommittee on Personnel of the House National Security Committee, April 8, 1997, in House National Security Committee Report No. 105-6; “General and Flag Officer Requirements,” Subcommittee on Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 14, 2011, Senate Hearing 112-258.
Congressional Research Service
11
link to page 17 General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
subordinate commanders and senior staff officers. Both their experience and the authority inherent in their grade can be considered important elements to the success of complex operations. Political and diplomatic considerations can also be a factor, as the officers leading these operations are normally expected to interact with the senior military and civilian leadership of the foreign nation where the operations are occurring.
• Organizational structure. As noted previously, the increase in the proportion of
GFOs over the past 50 years has not been due to an increase in the number of GFOs, but to the much larger decrease in the size of the Armed Forces in general. In part, this slower reduction of GFOs is due to the organizational structure of the Armed Forces, which includes certain GFO positions whether the Armed Forces are comparatively large or small. For example, there was a Chief of Staff of the Air Force at the peak of the Vietnam War, when the Air Force had about 900,000 airmen, and there is one today, when the Air Force has approximately 315,000 airmen. A similar case can be made for many of the GFOs who serve on the Joint Staff, the Service Staffs, the combatant commands, and certain defense agencies. Given the organizational structure and “posture” of the Armed Forces—some of which is required by law—the amount of management “overhead” does not necessarily change in direct proportion to the size of the force. Another way of illustrating this is to consider what would happen if an Army division were disestablished: doing so would eliminate about 15,000 soldiers, but only three of them would be general officers.
• Technological changes. A fourth justification for increased GFO ratios is that
technological advances have changed the way the United States fights its wars. Modern weapons systems, much more powerful and accurate than their predecessors, require fewer personnel to deliver greater firepower. Thus, while the number of personnel a GFO commands may decline as more sophisticated equipment is substituted for manpower, the lethality of those forces may increase. From this perspective, the lethality of the weapons systems, rather than the number of people, provides the justification for an organization to be led by a very senior military officer. Additionally, the advent and development of new domains of warfare—such as space and cyber—has led to the creation of new organizations (e.g., U.S. Space Force) to exploit advantages and defend against vulnerabilities in those environments.
• Budget changes. The budgets appropriated for defense have increased, as have
expectations of their management. (DOD outlays are depicted in Figure 3.) As with the increased sophistication of operations and weaponry, increased budgets over time and responsibility for budgets that amount to over one half of federal discretionary spending may require more senior-level management.
Congressional Research Service
12
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Figure 3. National Defense Outlays, FY1940-FY2028 (Projected)
Sources: CRS Report R47582, FY2024 Defense Budget Request: Context and Selected Issues for Congress, by Cameron M. Keys and Brendan W. McGarry. Figure created by CRS using data from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2024, Historical Tables, Table 3.1 and Table 10.1, March 2023, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Budget and Economic Data, Spending Projections, by Budget Account, February 2023. Notes: Figures adjusted to estimated constant FY2024 dollars using “Total Defense” deflator in OMB Table 10.1. FY2021-FY2022 amounts from OMB; FY2023-FY2028 projections from CBO.
Recurring Questions for Congress in Managing
GFO Authorizations
Congress has a long-standing interest in the military officer corps in general, and it has periodically focused additional attention on its most senior officers. Should Congress elect to address GFO authorizations, duties, compensation, or other related topics in more detail, it may consider the following:
• What about a task or role requires a senior military officer, especially in terms of
advanced managerial skills, versus a senior civilian?
• How do advances in information technology and decisionmaking tools affect the
need for GFOs? Could use of these technologies result in flattened management structures and decrease the need for GFOs? Or do they require additional GFOs with specialized expertise?
• What is the most appropriate way to determine how many GFOs the DOD should
have? How closely should this be linked to total force size? What other factors would be useful in determining the optimal number of GFOs?
• To what extent do statutory requirements, such as the Goldwater-Nichols Act
(GNA), drive GFO requirements? Should GNA be revised to alter this effect?
• Could organizational restructuring of the Joint Staff, Service Staffs, and
combatant command staffs decrease the need for GFOs or allow positions to be held by lower pay-grade officers? Could selected organizations be merged to reduce the requirements for GFOs?
• Could military relations with international partners be restructured so as to
reduce the need for GFO representation? How important is rank equivalence when senior U.S. military personnel work with their allied peers?
Congressional Research Service
13
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
• Could National Guard and Reserve GFOs be used to reduce the need for active-
duty GFOs?
• Are there GFO positions that could be eliminated or “downgraded” to a lower
rank? Are there GFO positions that could be replaced by civilian employees? What are the costs and benefits associated with these actions? How might this affect military effectiveness?
• Can the direct and indirect costs associated with GFOs be reduced? For example,
could staff overhead costs be reduced without significantly affecting the ability of GFOs to carry out their duties?
Congressional Research Service
14
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Appendix. Selected Positions with Statutorily
Specified Grades and/or Responsibilities
Grade
Specified
Selected Duties, Responsibilities, or Functions
Position
Service
in Law
Specified in Law
Statute
Chairman of
Joint
General
•
Assisting the President and the Secretary of Defense
10 U.S.C.
the Joint
or
in providing for the strategic direction of the Armed
§§152-
Chiefs of
Admiral
Forces.
153
Staff
•
In matters related to strategic and contingency
planning, developing strategic frameworks and preparing strategic plans, as required, to guide the use and employment of military force and related activities across all geographic regions and military functions and domains, and to sustain military efforts over different durations of time, as necessary.
•
In matters relating to global military strategic and
operational integration, providing advice to the President and the Secretary on ongoing military operations; and advising the Secretary on the allocation and transfer of forces among geographic and functional combatant commands, as necessary, to address transregional, multidomain, and multifunctional threats.
•
In matters related to comprehensive joint readiness,
evaluating the overall preparedness of the joint force to perform the responsibilities of that force under national defense strategies and to respond to significant contingencies worldwide.
•
In matters relating to joint capability development,
identifying new joint military capabilities based on advances in technology and concepts of operation needed to maintain the technological and operational superiority of the armed forces, and recommending investments and experiments in such capabilities to the Secretary.
•
In matters relating to joint force development
activities, developing doctrine for the joint employment of the armed forces, and formulating policies and technical standards, and executing actions, for the joint training of the armed forces.
•
Performing such other duties as may be prescribed by law or by the President or the Secretary.
Service
Army,
General
Varies by Service. For the Chief of Staff of the
10 U.S.C.
Chiefs
Marine
or
Army:
§7033
Corps,
Admiral
•
(for
Presiding over the Army Staff.
Navy,
other
Air
•
Transmitting the plans and recommendations of the
Service
Force,
Army Staff to the Secretary and advising the Secretary
Chiefs,
and
with regard to such plans and recommendations.
see 10
Space
•
After approval of the plans or recommendations of
U.S.C.
Force
the Army Staff by the Secretary, acting as the agent of
§§8043,
the Secretary in carrying them into effect.
8033,
Congressional Research Service
15
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Grade
Specified
Selected Duties, Responsibilities, or Functions
Position
Service
in Law
Specified in Law
Statute
•
Exercising supervision, consistent with the authority
9033, and
assigned to commanders of unified or specified
9082)
combatant commands under Chapter 6 of this title, over such members and organizations of the Army as the Secretary determines;
•
Performing duties as prescribed for members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Combatant
Joint
10 U.S.C.
•
Giving authoritative direction to subordinate
10 U.S.C.
Commanders
§604
commands and forces necessary to carry out missions
§164 and
refers to
assigned to the command, including authoritative
§ 604
“com-
direction over all aspects of military operations, joint
mander of
training, and logistics.
a
•
combatant
Prescribing the chain of command to the commands and forces within the command.
command” positions
•
Organizing commands and forces within that
as “Joint
command as he considers necessary to carry out
4-star
missions assigned to the command.
officer
•
Employing forces within that command as he
positions.”
considers necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command.
•
Assigning command functions to subordinate commanders.
•
Coordinating and approving those aspects of
administration and support (including control of resources and equipment, internal organization, and training) and discipline necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command.
•
Exercising the authority with respect to selecting
subordinate commanders, selecting combatant command staff, suspending subordinates, and convening courts-martial.
Commander,
Joint
General
•
Developing strategy, doctrine, and tactics [related to
10 U.S.C.
Special
or
special operations activities].
§167
Operations
Admiral
•
Command
Preparing and submitting to the Secretary of Defense program recommendations and budget proposals for special operations forces and for other forces assigned to the special operations command.
•
Training assigned forces.
•
Conducting specialized courses of instruction for
commissioned and noncommissioned officers.
•
Validating requirements.
•
Establishing priorities for requirements.
•
Ensuring the interoperability of equipment and forces.
•
Ensuring the combat readiness of forces assigned to the special operations command.
•
Monitoring the preparedness to carry out assigned
missions of special operations forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the special operations command.
Congressional Research Service
16
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Grade
Specified
Selected Duties, Responsibilities, or Functions
Position
Service
in Law
Specified in Law
Statute
•
Managing the development and acquisition of special
operations-peculiar equipment.
Commander,
Joint
General
•
Developing strategy, doctrine, and tactics [related to
10 U.S.C.
Cyber
or
cyber operations activities].
§167b
Command
Admiral
•
Preparing and submitting to the Secretary of Defense program recommendations and budget proposals for cyber operations forces and for other forces assigned to the cyber command.
•
Exercising authority, direction, and control over the
expenditure of funds for forces assigned directly to the cyber command, and for cyber operations forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the cyber command.
•
Training and certifying assigned joint forces.
•
Conducting specialized courses of instruction for
commissioned and noncommissioned officers.
•
Validating requirements, establishing priorities for requirements, and ensuring the interoperability of equipment and forces.
•
Monitoring the promotion of cyber operation forces
and coordinating with the military departments regarding the assignment, retention, training, professional military education, and special and incentive pays of cyber operation forces.
•
Ensuring the combat readiness of forces assigned to
the cyber command.
•
Monitoring the preparedness to carry out assigned missions of cyber forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the cyber command.
Chief of the
Joint
General
•
Serving as a principal advisor to the Secretary of
10 U.S.C.
National
Defense, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
§10502
Guard
Staff, on matters involving nonfederalized National
Bureau
Guard forces and on other matters as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
•
Serving as the principal advisor to the Secretary of the
Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army, and to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, on matters relating to the National Guard, the Army National Guard of the United States, and the Air National Guard of the United States.
•
Addressing matters involving nonfederalized National
Guard forces in support of homeland defense and civil support missions as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Source: Title 10, U.S. Code. Note: Due to space considerations, this table does not include a full listing of statutory positions. Likewise, for the positions it does list, the table does not include a full description of statutorily defined functions, duties, or responsibilities.
Congressional Research Service
17
General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces
Author Information
Michael J. Vassalotti, Coordinator
Barbara Salazar Torreon
Section Research Manager
Senior Research Librarian
Sofia Plagakis
Senior Research Librarian
Acknowledgments
Lawrence Kapp, Specialist in Defense Personnel Policy, originally authored this report.
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R44389 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED
18 Code provides that "[t]he President may designate positions of importance and responsibility to carry the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral.... An officer assigned to any such position has the grade specified for that position if he is appointed to that grade by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." Thus, except for those so designated in statute, all three-star and four-star positions are to be designated as such by the President. Congress may review the rationale for this designation as part of its oversight function. The Senate retains the power to confirm or withhold confirmation of the nomination of an individual to fill such a position. The authority of the President to designate such positions is also limited by the strength caps on GFOs found in 10 U.S.C. §§525 and 526.
Statutorily Defined Positions
Congress has established in law certain GFO positions with specified grades, designated duties, or both. Those GFOs named in 10 U.S.C. §151, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commanders of unified and specified combatant commands constitute most of these positions. Title 10 U.S.C. §152 specifies that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff holds the rank of General or Admiral (O-10) "while so serving."
Appendix B provides excerpts of the statutorily required responsibilities, duties, or functions of certain GFO positions. Congress may change these duties. For example, Section 512 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81) specified that the Chief of the National Guard Bureau is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose duties include "the specific responsibility of addressing matters involving non-Federalized National Guard forces in support of homeland defense and civil support missions."18
Regular Military Compensation for GFOs
Military personnel, including GFOs, are compensated in three main ways: cash compensation (pay and allowances), noncash compensation (benefits), and deferred compensation (retired pay and benefits). This report discusses only the compensation elements that make up regular military compensation (RMC). RMC is a statutorily defined measure of the major compensation elements that every servicemember receives.19 Certain GFOs receive a "personal money allowance" as well, which is not part of RMC.
Table 4 details the notional RMC that GFOs may receive in 2025. It assumes that all GFOs receive a basic allowance for housing (BAH) rather than living in government-provided housing.20
Table 4. Annual Regular Military Compensation for General and Flag Officers
As of April 1, 2025
|
Grade
|
Basic Pay
|
Basic Allowance for Housing
|
Basic Allowance for Subsistence (Flat Rate)
|
Federal Tax Advantage
|
RMC
|
|
General/Admiral
|
$225, 698
|
$46,056
|
$3,849
|
$15,629
|
$291,095
|
Lieutenant General/
Vice Admiral
$225,698
|
$45,784
|
$3,849
|
$15,785
$291,116
Major General/
Rear Admiral
|
$224,148
|
$45, 835
$3,849
|
$15,683
$289,515
Brigadier General /
Rear Admiral(Lower Half)
|
$197,097
$45,875
$3,849
|
$15,683
$261,678
Source: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, Directorate of Compensation, Selected Compensation Tables, 1 April 2025, p. 83. On file with the authors.
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Considerations for Congress
Proportion of GFOs in the Force
Historical Perspective
A summary of the number of active-duty GFOs and the proportion of GFOs relative to the size of the active force over the past five decades is provided in Appendix A. A review of GFO levels indicates a 13.9% increase in the number of four-star officers in this period (36 on September 30, 1965, versus 41 on September 30, 2024, the end of the fiscal year) and a 39.5% increase in the number of three-star officers (119 versus 166), with variations over time related to contemporary events. Over the same time period, the number of one-star and two-star officers decreased by 41.9% (1,129 versus 656).
During this time, the size of the active force dropped by approximately 51.9%, from 2.66 million on September 30, 1965, to 1.28 million on September 30, 2024. Thus, a more salient measure may be the proportion of GFOs to the total force.
Looking at the data from this perspective, GFOs have generally made up a small percentage of the active force; however, the GFO corps has increased as a percentage of the active force over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, whereas they made up about one-fifteenth of one percent (0.067%) of the total force in FY2024, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs has increased by 39.6%. This historical trend is more pronounced with respect to four-star officers (which grew from 0.0014% of the total force to 0.0032%, a 128.6% increase) and three-star officers (which grew from 0.0045% of the total force to 0.013%, a 189% increase). One- and two-star officers as a percentage of the total force increased 20.5% (from 0.0425% of the total force to 0.0512%).
These increases occurred while the size of the officer corps in general increased as a percentage of the active force. As indicated in the last column of Table A-1, between 1965 and 2024, the officer corps increased from 12.8% of the active force to 18.2%, indicating that the share of the active force comprised of officers increased by 42.2%.
Criticisms of Increasing the Proportion of GFOs
Generally, criticisms of increasing the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force fall into two broad categories. The first criticism revolves around the increased cost of employing a GFO, compared with employing a lower-ranking officer. The second relates to the belief that too many GFOs may slow down decisionmaking processes. Each point is examined in more detail below.
- Cost. GFOs cost more to employ than officers of a lower rank, in part due to the higher compensation they receive. For example, a GFO in paygrade O-7 may expect to receive about $261,678 in RMC in 2025, while an officer in paygrade O-6 may expect to receive about $228,016.21 Additionally, there can be other costs associated with GFOs such as large staffs, official travel, and security details.22
- Decisionmaking. Another criticism is that increasing the proportion of GFOs may slow decisionmaking by adding additional layers of management between the highest and lowest echelons of command. In a 2010 speech, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates criticized the impact of an increase in GFOs and senior civilians in making the DOD a top-heavy and overly bureaucratic organization. He noted, as an example, that "The Defense Business Board recently estimated that in some cases the gap between me and an action officer may be as high as 30 layers."23
Justifications for a Higher Proportion of GFOs
Several congressional hearings have addressed the potential benefits of having a high proportion of GFOs relative to the total force.24 A 1997 congressional review of GFO authorizations describes several rationales for a relatively high proportion, including the following:
Coalition operations. Forging coalitions with other nations to achieve common security objectives can generate demand for senior military leaders to conduct coordinated planning, training, and operations with peers from foreign nations. Conducting contingency operations after the end of the Cold War often involved forces from dozens of countries, including the forces of the nation in which the operations took place. Examples of these coalition operations include those in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as smaller-scale contingencies such as Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo (ongoing), Somalia (ongoing), and Syria (ongoing). Contingency operations such as these are often commanded by a GFO, who usually has additional GFOs as subordinate commanders and senior staff officers. Both their experience and the authority inherent in their grade can be considered important elements to the success of complex operations. Political and diplomatic considerations can also be a factor, as the officers leading these operations are typically expected to interact with the senior military and civilian leadership of the participating foreign nations.
Organizational structure. The relative increase in GFOs in proportion to the active force is due in part to the organizational structure of the Armed Forces. For example, there was a Chief of Staff of the Air Force at the peak of the Vietnam War, when the Air Force had about 900,000 airmen, and there is still one in 2025, with the Air Force strength at approximately 321,000 airmen as of June 30, 2025.25 Given the organizational structure and "posture" of the Armed Forces—some of which is required by law—the amount of management "overhead" does not necessarily change in direct proportion to the size of the force.
Technological changes. A third justification for increased GFO ratios is that technological advances have changed the way the United States fights its wars. Modern weapons systems, much more powerful and accurate than their predecessors, require fewer personnel to deliver greater firepower. Thus, while the number of personnel a GFO commands may decline as more sophisticated equipment is substituted for manpower, the lethality of those forces may increase. From this perspective, the lethality of the weapons systems, rather than the number of people, provides the justification for an organization to be led by a very senior military officer. Additionally, the advent and development of new domains of warfare—such as space and cyber—has led to the creation of new organizations (e.g., U.S. Space Force, U.S. Cyber Command) to exploit advantages and defend against vulnerabilities in those environments, with additional senior positions.
Resource Management Changes. DOD budget authority and complexity have generally increased over time, as have expectations of their management. (DOD budget authority is depicted in Figure 3.) As with the increased sophistication of operations and weaponry, responsibility for budgets that amount to over one-half of federal discretionary spending may require more senior-level management.
Figure 3. Department of Defense Budget Authority, by Public Law TitleFY1948-FY2028
In billions of constant FY2025 dollars
Sources: FY2025 Budget Request: Department of Defense-Military (Subfunction 051), by Cameron M. Keys. CRS analysis of Department of Defense, National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2025, April 2024, Table 6-8.
Note: Figures for FY2026-FY2029 are projections.
Translating defense authorization laws governing policy and appropriations laws for defense and military construction into a Future Years Defense Program that illustrates policy and plans five years into the future and "record[s] and display[s] resource decisions", may require the seniority of a GFO.26
Justification for the Statutory Status Quo
As noted above, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY2024 NDAA; P.L. 118-31) realized a congressionally directed reduction of GFO billets, achieved through intensive study and oversight.27 The law does not prohibit the executive branch from further reductions, and the executive branch has initiated such a reduction. Secretary of Defense Peter B. Hegseth, who is using "Secretary of War" as a "secondary title" under Executive Order 14347 dated September 5, 2025, released a memorandum on May 5, 2025, directing the following general and flag officer reductions.
A minimum 20% reduction of 4-star positions across the Active Component;
A minimum 20% reduction of general officers in the National Guard; and
An additional minimum 10% reduction in general and flag officers with the realignment of the Unified Command Plan.28
The final list of "redundant" positions is yet to be released. Therefore, Congress may choose whether or not to await further legislative action and review any future executive branch decisions.
GFO Assignments
Assignment to any role in the uniformed military services is subject to controls provided in statutes, DOD regulations, and military department regulations. Congress has the constitutional power to make the laws that govern the armed forces.29 In carrying out these laws, the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section II), exercises command authority, which extends to the most junior leader of any unit. In statute, the Defense Secretary has "authority, direction, and control" over the Defense Department.30 The duty assignment of any servicemember, including leadership and command positions at all levels, depends on such delegated command authority.
GFOs are subject to the same command authority and to certain statutes and regulations that apply to their nomination for promotion and service in certain assignments. For joint duty assignments (JDAs), including as Combatant Commanders, other than those in statute, "Most GFO JDAs are identified and managed as 2-year assignments. The tour length for Combatant Commanders and Defense Agency directors is 3 years. Acquisition billets are governed by additional legislation that may require tour lengths of 3 or 4 years."31 Services have their own specific regulations that apply only to GFOs in service-controlled billets.
Terminology in describing assignment actions, including GFOs, can be imprecise. The terms fire, sack, axe, cashier, relieve, reassign, and dismiss are used as synonyms in various press articles and oral reporting to describe the dynamic process of a uniformed officer's change of position. The latter three terms figure in statute and in DOD issuances. Dismissal is the most severe because it expels the officer from the service altogether as punishment for misconduct. Such authority has limits in statute, especially regarding dismissal, which can occur only by sentence of court martial, unless the President orders it during war, in which case the officer is entitled to demand court martial (e.g., 10 U.S.C. §§804 and 1161). Relief and reassignment are duty changes that may be negative, positive, or neutral in character, depending on the individual situation.
Appendix B includes selected provisions of the United States Code that inform decisions related to GFO assignments.
GFO Management Considerations for Congress
Congress has established in law certain GFO positions with specified grades, designated duties, or both. Those GFOs named in 10 U.S.C. §151, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commanders of unified and specified combatant commands comprise most of these positions. Title 10, Section 152, of the U.S. Code specifies that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff holds the rank of General or Admiral (O-10). Positions with statutorily required grades typically have statutorily required duties as well. Congress may consider whether or not to adjust statutory requirements controlling GFO assignments. This could include - presidential reports to Congress in the case of §601 GFO assignments that fall outside of the assignment framework represented in Appendix B;
- a specified tour duration for Combatant Commanders;
- specified Service rotation in Combatant Command assignments, or a sense of Congress regarding a preferred Service to lead such commands; and
- more detailed education, training, or assignment history requirements (e.g., for Combatant Commanders, an assignment in the nominated theater at the O-6 level or above).
Appendix B highlights positions and selected provisions with statutory requirements that affect responsibilities, duties, or functions of certain GFO positions and GFO positions generally.
Congress Faces Recurring Questions in Managing GFO Authorizations
Should Congress elect to address GFO authorizations, duties, compensation, or other related topics in more detail, it may consider the following:
- What is the most appropriate way to determine how many GFOs DOD should have? How closely should this be linked to total force size? To what extent do statutory requirements drive GFO requirements? What other factors would be useful in determining the optimal number of GFOs?
- Are there GFO roles that could be filled by civilian employees? Which tasks or roles require a senior military officer, especially in terms of advanced managerial skills, and which tasks or roles currently held by senior military officers could be done by senior civilian personnel?
- How do advances in information technology and decisionmaking tools affect the need for GFOs? Could the use of these technologies result in flattened management structures and decrease the need for GFOs? Or do they require additional GFOs with specialized expertise?
- Could organizational restructuring of the Joint Staff, Service Staffs, and combatant command staffs decrease the need for GFOs or allow positions to be held by officers of a lower pay grade? Could selected organizations be merged to reduce the requirements for GFOs?
- How important is rank equivalence when senior U.S. military personnel work with their allied peers? Could military relations with international partners be restructured to reduce the need for GFO representation?
- Could National Guard and Reserve GFOs be used to reduce the need for active-duty GFOs?
- Are there GFO positions that could be eliminated or "downgraded" to a lower rank? What are the costs and benefits associated with these actions? How might this affect military effectiveness?
- Can the direct and indirect costs associated with GFOs be reduced? For example, could staff overhead costs be reduced without significantly affecting the ability of GFOs to carry out their duties?
Appendix A.
Historical GFO Levels
Table A-1. Historical GFO Levels
Officers
|
As Percentage of Total Force
|
|
Year
|
4-Star
|
3-Star
|
2-Star
|
1-Star
|
1- & 2-Star
|
All GFOs
|
All Officer
|
Active Force
|
4-Star Officers
|
3-Star Officers
|
1- & 2- Star Officers
|
All GFOs
|
All Officers
|
|
1965
|
36
|
119
|
n.a.
|
n.a.
|
1,129
|
1,284
|
338,822
|
2,655,389
|
0.0014%
|
0.0045%
|
0.0425%
|
0.048%
|
12.76%
|
|
1970
|
40
|
141
|
n.a.
|
n.a.
|
1,157
|
1,338
|
402,226
|
3,066,294
|
0.0013%
|
0.0046%
|
0.0377%
|
0.044%
|
13.12%
|
|
1975
|
36
|
118
|
443
|
584
|
1,027
|
1,181
|
292,424
|
2,128,120
|
0.0017%
|
0.0055%
|
0.0483%
|
0.055%
|
13.74%
|
|
1980
|
32
|
113
|
406
|
559
|
965
|
1,110
|
277,622
|
2,050,627
|
0.0016%
|
0.0055%
|
0.0471%
|
0.054%
|
13.54%
|
|
1985
|
36
|
125
|
370
|
519
|
889
|
1,050
|
308,919
|
2,151,032
|
0.0017%
|
0.0058%
|
0.0413%
|
0.049%
|
14.36%
|
|
1990
|
36
|
121
|
367
|
530
|
897
|
1,054
|
296,591
|
2,043,705
|
0.0018%
|
0.0059%
|
0.0439%
|
0.052%
|
14.51%
|
|
1995
|
35
|
110
|
274
|
432
|
706
|
851
|
237,602
|
1,518,224
|
0.0023%
|
0.0072%
|
0.0465%
|
0.056%
|
15.65%
|
|
2000
|
34
|
119
|
282
|
436
|
718
|
871
|
217,178
|
1,384,338
|
0.0025%
|
0.0086%
|
0.0519%
|
0.063%
|
15.69%
|
|
2005
|
35
|
128
|
272
|
439
|
711
|
874
|
226,619
|
1,389,394
|
0.0025%
|
0.0092%
|
0.0512%
|
0.063%
|
16.31%
|
|
2010
|
39
|
150
|
310
|
482
|
792
|
981
|
234,000
|
1,430,985
|
0.0027%
|
0.0105%
|
0.0553%
|
0.069%
|
16.35%
|
|
2015
|
38
|
141
|
310
|
420
|
730
|
909
|
230,468
|
1,313,940
|
0.0029%
|
0.0107%
|
0.0556%
|
0.069%
|
17.54%
|
|
2018
|
40
|
147
|
296
|
438
|
734
|
921
|
230,708
|
1,317,325
|
0.0030%
|
0.0112%
|
0.0557%
|
0.070%
|
17.51%
|
|
2019
|
37
|
142
|
295
|
409
|
704
|
883
|
214,661
|
1,325,826
|
0.0028%
|
0.0107%
|
0.0531%
|
0.0666%
|
16.19%
|
|
2020
|
45
|
153
|
281
|
417
|
698
|
896
|
215,935
|
1,333,461
|
0.0034%
|
0.0115%
|
0.0523%
|
0.0672%
|
16.19%
|
|
2021
|
41
|
156
|
293
|
405
|
698
|
895
|
216,369
|
1,333,771
|
0.0031%
|
0.0117%
|
0.0523%
|
0.0671%
|
16.22%
|
|
2022
|
39
|
146
|
283
|
373
|
656
|
841
|
213,175
|
1,296,309
|
0.0030%
|
0.0113%
|
0.0506%
|
0.0649%
|
16.44%
|
|
2023
|
37
|
132
|
252
|
388
|
640
|
809
|
234,252
|
1,286,027
|
0.0029%
|
0.0103%
|
0.0500%
|
0.0630%
|
18.22%
|
2024
41
|
166
|
282
|
374
|
656
|
863
|
233,581
|
1,280,652
|
0.0032%
|
0.013%
|
0.0512%
|
0.0674%
|
18.24%
|
Source: CRS compilation of data produced by the Defense Manpower Data Center.
Notes: Figures are as of September 30 of each year. N/a = not applicable.
Appendix B.
Selected Positions and Statutes
Table B-1. Selected Positions and Statutes
|
Position/Service
|
Statute
|
Grade and Requirements
|
Selected Duties, Responsibilities, or Functions
|
Appointment Duration
|
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff/Joint
|
10 U.S.C. §§152-153
|
General or Admiral - Must have served as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Service Chief, or commander of a unified or specified combatant command.
- The President may waive the above if the President determines such action is necessary in the national interest.
|
- Assisting the President and the Secretary of Defense in providing for the strategic direction of the Armed Forces.
- In matters related to strategic and contingency planning, developing strategic frameworks and preparing strategic plans, as required, to guide the use and employment of military force and related activities across all geographic regions and military functions and domains, and to sustain military efforts over different durations of time, as necessary.
- In matters relating to global military strategic and operational integration, providing advice to the President and the Secretary on ongoing military operations, and advising the Secretary on the allocation and transfer of forces among geographic and functional combatant commands, as necessary, to address transregional, multidomain, and multifunctional threats.
- In matters related to comprehensive joint readiness, evaluating the overall preparedness of the joint force to perform the responsibilities of that force under national defense strategies and to respond to significant contingencies worldwide.
- In matters relating to joint capability development, identifying new joint military capabilities based on advances in technology and concepts of operation needed to maintain the technological and operational superiority of the Armed Forces, and recommending investments and experiments in such capabilities to the Secretary.
- In matters relating to joint force development activities, developing doctrine for the joint employment of the Armed Forces, and formulating policies and technical standards, and executing actions, for the joint training of the Armed Forces.
|
Four years (except in time of war)
Term begins on October 1 of an odd-numbered year.
Service Chiefs/Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force
10 U.S.C. §7033 (for other Service Chiefs, see 10 U.S.C. §§8043, 8033, 9033, and 9082)
|
General or Admiral - "Significant experience in joint duty assignments; and ... one full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment ... as a general officer."
The President may waive the above if the President determines such action is necessary in the national interest.
|
Varies by Service.
For the Chief of Staff of the Army: - Presiding over the Army Staff.
- Transmitting the plans and recommendations of the Army Staff to the Secretary and advising the Secretary about such plans and recommendations.
- After approval of the plans or recommendations of the Army Staff by the Secretary, acting as the agent of the Secretary in carrying them into effect.
- Exercising supervision, consistent with the authority assigned to commanders of unified or specified combatant commands under Chapter 6 of this title, over such members and organizations of the Army as the Secretary determines.
- Performing duties as prescribed for members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
|
Four years, term extendable up to four years during time of war or during a national emergency declared by Congress.
Serves at the pleasure of the President.
|
Commander of a combatant command, Commander, United States Forces, Korea/Joint
|
10 U.S.C. §164 and §604
|
General or Admiral
10 U.S.C. §604 refers to "commander of a combatant command" positions as "Joint 4-star officer positions."
Joint specialty under Section 661 of Title 10; has completed a tour of duty in a joint duty assignment as a general or flag officer.
- Giving authoritative direction to subordinate commands and forces necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command, including authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations, joint training, and logistics.
- Prescribing the chain of command to the commands and forces within the command.
- Organizing commands and forces within that command as necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command.
- Employing forces within that command as necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command.
- Assigning command functions to subordinate commanders.
- Coordinating and approving those aspects of administration and support (including control of resources and equipment, internal organization, and training) and discipline necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command.
- Exercising the authority with respect to selecting subordinate commanders, selecting combatant command staff, suspending subordinates, and convening courts-martial.
|
Not specified
Normally three years; DOD policy requires two years (see footnote footnote14).
|
Commander, Special Operations Command/Joint
|
10 U.S.C. §167 in addition to §164
General or Admiral - No requirements beyond those specified in §164.
|
- Developing strategy, doctrine, and tactics [related to special operations activities].
- Preparing and submitting to the Secretary of Defense program recommendations and budget proposals for special operations forces and for other forces assigned to the special operations command.
- Training assigned forces.
- Conducting specialized courses of instruction for commissioned and noncommissioned officers.
- Validating requirements.
- Establishing priorities for requirements.
- Ensuring the interoperability of equipment and forces.
- Ensuring the combat readiness of forces assigned to the special operations command.
- Monitoring the preparedness to carry out assigned missions of special operations forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the special operations command.
- Managing the development and acquisition of special-operations equipment.
|
Not specified
|
Commander, Cyber Command/Joint
10 U.S.C. §167b in addition to §164
|
General or Admiral - No requirements specified beyond those specified in §164.
|
- Developing strategy, doctrine, and tactics [related to cyber operations activities].
- Preparing and submitting to the Secretary of Defense program recommendations and budget proposals for cyber operations forces and for other forces assigned to the cyber command.
- Exercising authority, direction, and control over the expenditure of funds for forces assigned directly to the cyber command, and for cyber operations forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the cyber command.
- Training and certifying assigned joint forces.
- Conducting specialized courses of instruction for commissioned and noncommissioned officers.
- Validating requirements, establishing priorities for requirements, and ensuring the interoperability of equipment and forces.
- Monitoring the promotion of cyber operation forces and coordinating with the military departments regarding the assignment, retention, training, professional military education, and special and incentive pays of cyber-operation forces.
- Ensuring the combat readiness of forces assigned to the cyber command.
- Monitoring the preparedness to carry out assigned missions of cyber forces assigned to unified combatant commands other than the cyber command.
|
Not specified
|
Chief of the National Guard Bureau/Joint
"Positions of importance and responsibility"
Grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral
|
10 U.S.C. §10502
10 U.S.C. §601
General - Must have had at least 10 years of federally recognized commissioned service in an active status in the National Guard in a grade above the grade of brigadier general.
- Significant joint duty experience.
- The President designates such positions serving on active duty in any grade above colonel or Navy captain.
- Other joint duty assignments.
|
Serving as a principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on matters involving nonfederalized National Guard forces and on other matters as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
Serving as the principal advisor to the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army, and to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, on matters relating to the National Guard, the Army National Guard of the United States, and the Air National Guard of the United States.
Addressing matters involving nonfederalized National Guard forces in support of homeland defense and civil support missions as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Four years, may be reappointed.
Serves at the pleasure of the President.
Source: Title 10, U.S. Code.
Note: This table does not include a full listing of statutory positions. Likewise, for the positions it does list, the table does not include a full description of statutorily defined functions, duties, or responsibilities.
Lawrence Kapp, former Specialist in Defense Personnel Policy, originally authored this report.
Footnotes
| 1.
|
U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8.
|
| 2.
|
Article II, Section 2. This section also provides that "the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
|
3.
|
The Coast Guard uses the same rank structure as the Navy. While the Coast Guard is one of the Armed Forces, it is not covered in this report, as it normally operates under different statutory authority (Title 14) than the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force (Title 10).
| 4.
|
10 U.S.C. §§151-154.
|
5.
|
Specifically, the Chief of Staff of the Army (10 U.S.C. §7033), the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (10 U.S.C. §7034), the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (10 U.S.C. §9033), the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force (10 U.S.C. §9034), the Commandant of the Marine Corps (10 U.S.C. §8043), the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps (10 U.S.C. §8044), the Chief of Naval Operations (10 U.S.C. §8033), the Vice Chief of Naval Operations (10 U.S.C. §8035), the Chief of Space Operations (10 U.S.C. §9082), and the Vice Chief of Space Operations (10 U.S.C. 9083).
| 6.
|
10 U.S.C. §164.
|
| 7.
|
10 U.S.C. §167.
|
| 8.
|
10 U.S.C. §167b.
|
| 9.
|
10 U.S.C. §10502 and 10 U.S.C. §10505, respectively.
|
| 10.
|
Criteria provided by Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, May 12, 2015. In a 2021 congressional hearing, Clifford L. Stanley, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, provided similar criteria. See Testimony of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford L. Stanley, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Personnel, General and Flag Officer Requirements, 112th Cong., 1st sess., September 14, 2021, S.Hrg. 112-258, p. 62.
|
| 11.
|
10 U.S.C. §526. For GFO billet management, these positions reside in "The Joint Pool." For detailed information on DOD GFO management, see Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1331.01E, March 31, 2022, at https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Library/Instructions/CJCSI%201331.01E.pdf.
|
| 12.
|
10 U.S.C. §526.
|
| 13.
|
The conference report that accompanied the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act stated, "The conferees note that despite two decades of Congressional concern the Department of Defense and the military departments have not demonstrated the willingness to implement even the reduction in the number of general and flag officer positions directed by the Secretary of Defense's Track Four Efficiencies Initiatives decision of March 14, 2011. In the context of the Department of Defense's continued requests to reduce military end strength, especially in the Army and the Marine Corps, reductions that Congress has cautiously considered and authorized, the time has come for the Department to rigorously evaluate and validate every general and flag officer position. The conferees believe that an additional 10% reduction in the number of general and flag officer positions may be appropriate by downgrading or eliminating positions in addition to the 110 positions required to be eliminated under this provision are achieved. The conferees expect that the Department of Defense and the military departments will improve efficiency by eliminating bloated headquarters and staffs while preserving the necessary number and grades of positions for general and flag officers who are responsible to train and lead our Nation's forces in battle and to bring them safely home again." H.Rept. 114-840, p. 1013. A copy of the Track Four Efficiency Initiatives Decisions memo by Secretary Gates is available at https://dodprocurementtoolbox.com/cms/sites/default/files/resources/2021-12/20110314-Track%20Four%20Efficiency%20Initiatives%20Decisions.pdf.
|
14.
|
The FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (FY2017 NDAA; P.L. 114-328) included a provision, codified at 10 U.S.C. §526, to reduce the number of GFOs authorized to be on active duty for more than one year, effective as of January 1, 2023. The conference report, H.Rept. 114-840, p. 1013, that accompanied the bill highlighted congressional concerns that the military departments had not demonstrated a willingness to implement GFO reductions directed by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in 2011 and noted the context of significant reductions in personnel strength that occurred in the calendar year 2011-2016 time frame. The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L. 115-232 § 596) required a "report on general and flag officer costs." William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (P.L. 116-283 § 501) provided for accounting for the number reserve GFOs, required a plan for downsizing the number of active GFOs among other purposes. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (P.L. 117-81 § 501) provided authority for transferring GFO billets among the Armed Forces. The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 P.L. 117-263 § 501) excluded lead special trial counsel of each Armed Service from the GFO strength limits.
| 15.
|
H.Rept. 118-301, p. 1042.
|
| 16.
|
Active-duty GFOs excluded from the caps include those within 60 days of retirement and GFOs transitioning between certain positions for up to 60 days. The Attending Physician of Congress is counted in addition to the number otherwise permitted for the officers' armed force in grades above O-7. Certain reserve component GFOs serving on active duty for limited periods of time are also excluded; see 10 U.S.C. §§525 (d)-(g) and 526(c)-(g).
|
| 17.
|
10 U.S.C. §526(b)(2).
|
18.
|
P.L. 112-81 §512.
| 19.
|
Statutory definition contained in 37 U.S.C. §101(25): "the total of the following elements that a member of the uniformed services accrues or receives, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind every payday: basic pay, basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and Federal tax advantage accruing to the aforementioned allowances because they are not subject to Federal income tax." For more information on Regular Military Compensation, see CRS In Focus IF10532, Defense Primer: Regular Military Compensation, by Kristy N. Kamarck.
|
20.
|
About 19% of GFOs lived in government-provided housing as of January 1, 2024 according to DOD reporting, and, therefore, seemingly did not receive BAH. While this lowers the cash compensation received, they received free housing instead. For the purposes of Table 4, the value of the free housing is assumed to be equivalent to the BAH of their GFO peers. The calculation of the proportion living in government-provided housing was made using Selected Military Compensation Tables (OSD Compensation Greenbook, 2024), Table A-7, Number Of Military Personnel... Receiving Cash Allowances, and Table A8, Number Of Military Personnel... Receiving Quarters In Kind by Pay Cell, PDF pp. 7-8, available at https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/BlendedRetirementDocuments/GreenBook%202024%20-%205.2%20percent%20-%20rev.pdf?ver=-pvWgAk1QWQ4cU-5B-nkgg%3d%3d.
| 21.
|
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, Directorate of Compensation, Selected Compensation Tables, 1 April 2025, p. 83. On file with the authors.
|
| 22.
|
These costs are difficult to estimate, as noted by the Government Accountability Office, DOD Needs to Update General and Flag Officer Requirements and Improve Availability of Associated Costs, GAO-14-745, September 9, 2014, available at http://gao.gov/products/GAO-14-745. Compensation figures are from Military Compensation Tables (OSD Compensation Greenbook, 2023), Table B3, Detailed RMC Tables for All Personnel (PDF p. 94) at https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/GreenBook%202023.pdf.
|
23.
|
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates speech at Eisenhower Library, delivered May 8, 2010, available at https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PDF/SiteCollectionDocuments/Reports/2010/May%202010/Day10/GateSpeech050810.pdf .
| 24.
|
See the following hearings: "Flag and General Officer Strengths," Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 17, 1981; "General and Flag Officer Requirements," Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, August 10, 1988; "Review of General and Flag Officer Authorizations," Subcommittee on Personnel of the House National Security Committee, April 8, 1997, in House National Security Committee Report No. 105-6; "General and Flag Officer Requirements," Subcommittee on Personnel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, September 14, 2011, Senate Hearing 112-258.
|
| 25.
|
Department of Defense Active Duty Military Personnel by Rank/Grade and Service, June 30.
|
| 26.
|
For more information on the Future Years Defense Program, see CRS In Focus IF10831, Defense Primer: Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), by Brendan W. McGarry and Alexandra G. Neenan
|
| 27.
|
See footnote 13 and see footnote 14. See also H.Rept. 114-840, p. 1013. A copy of the Track Four Efficiency Initiatives Decisions memo by Secretary Gates is available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/ce/pc/docs/archive/3-14-2011_Track_Four_Efficiency_Initiatives_Decisions.pdf.
|
| 28.
|
Secretary of Defense Peter B. Hegseth, Memorandum For Senior Pentagon Leadership, Subject: General/Flag Officer Reductions, available at https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/05/2003704210/-1/-1/1/MEMORANDUM-DIRECTING-GENERAL-AND-FLAG-OFFICER-REDUCTIONS.PDF.
|
| 29.
|
U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cls. 14 (to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces), 16 (to govern such part of the militia in federal service).
|
| 30.
|
10 U.S.C. § 113.
|
| 31.
|
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Joint Staff, Manpower And Personnel Actions Involving General And Flag Officers, CJCSI 1331.01E, Washington, DC, March 31, 2022, p. C-1. Based on 10 U.S.C. § 664. See also Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DOD Joint Officer Management Program, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DOD INSTRUCTION 1300.19, Washington, DC, May 18, 2023, p. 27, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/130019p.pdf?ver=2018-04-03-114842-923.
|