General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces: Background and Considerations for Congress

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 Armed Forces, Congress has enacted an

array of laws that govern important aspects of military officer personnel management, including
Sofia Plagakis
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

(GFOs). Congress periodically reviews these laws and considers changes as it deems appropriate.
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.
Senior Research Librarian

As of September 30, 2023, there were 809 active-duty GFOs subject to statutory caps, 48 less

than the maximum of 857 authorized by law. The current number is low 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. However, while always very small in comparison to the total force, the GFO corps has increased as a
percentage of the total force
over the past five decades. GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the
total force in 1965, while 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 is now 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).
Some argue that this increased proportion of GFOs is wasteful and contributes to more bureaucratic decisionmaking
processes. Others counter that the increased proportion is linked to the military’s greater 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.
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.
Compensation for GFOs varies. One commonly used measure of compensation, known as 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 2024, the lowest-ranking GFOs make about
$251,058 per year in RMC, while the highest-ranking GFOs make about $285,097 per year.
This report provides an overview of active-duty GFOs in the United States Armed Forces—including duties, authorizations,
and compensation—historical 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, unless
they are serving on active duty in a manner that counts against the 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
power “to raise and support Armies,” “to provide and maintain a Navy,” and “to make Rules for
the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” It also provides the Senate with
the authority to provide “Advice and Consent” on presidential nominations of “all other Officers
of the United States,” including military officers.1 On the basis of its constitutional authority,
Congress has passed laws that govern important aspects of military officer personnel
management, including appointments, assignments, grade structure, promotions, and separations.
The most senior officers in the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force are known as
general officers. The most senior officers in the Navy2 are known as flag officers. The phrase
“general and flag officers,” or “GFOs,” refers to all officers in paygrades O-7 through O-10,
thereby including one-star, two-star, three-star, and four-star officers. At the highest level, O-10,
GFOs hold the most visible and important military positions in the Department of Defense
(DOD), 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
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, Congress has developed a statutory framework applicable
to this group and considers changes 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
References in this report to specific grades (ranks) within the GFO corps use the appropriate
capitalized 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,
available at https://dod.defense.gov/About/Insignias/Officers/.
Responsibilities of GFO Positions
While Congress has specified functions or duties for some key positions—such as members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff,4 the top two officers of each service (i.e., service chiefs and vice chiefs),5
the combatant commanders,6 the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command,7 the
Commander of U.S. Cyber Command,8 and the Chief and Vice Chief of the National Guard
Bureau9—the majority of GFO positions are not defined in statute. In these instances, DOD uses
the following criteria for determining whether a position should be filled by a general or flag
officer:
• nature, characteristics, and function of the position;
• grade and position of superior, principal subordinates, and lateral points of
coordination;
• degree of independence of operation;
• official relations with other U.S. and foreign governmental positions;
• magnitude of responsibilities;
• mission and special requirements;
• number, type, and value of resources managed and employed;
• forces, personnel, value of equipment, total obligation authority;
• geographic area of responsibility;
• authority to make decisions and commit resources;
• development of policy;
• 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.10
Statutory Controls on GFO Authorizations
Congress has established a statutory framework for GFOs, which limits their numbers by grade,
requires presidential determination of many three-star and four-star positions, and specifies the
grade and/or duties of certain key positions. This framework provides for greater congressional
control over the most senior GFO positions, while providing substantial latitude to the executive
branch in the management of the remaining GFOs.
Positions to which DOD is required or may choose to assign a GFO may be designated as joint
duty assignments. Such positions may reside in joint activities (e.g., the Joint Staff, combatant
command staffs).11 All other positions normally reside in the respective services (e.g., the Army
Staff, division, wing, or higher commands).12
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 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. 13
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY2024 NDAA; P.L. 118-31)
concludes a series of legislative actions begun in the FY2017 NDAA, to lower 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 There are certain circumstances under
which a general or flag officer does not “count” against these caps.15 Additionally, the President
has authority under Title 10, Section 527, of the U.S. Code to suspend the operation of the caps in
time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress or the President.
Section 526(b) of Title 10 of the U.S. Code further authorizes exemption of up to 232 GFOs from
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
shall be 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 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.P
DF.
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