EXCLUSIVE: Hegseth to double cuts to generals, admirals in major Pentagon shakeup

Fox News ^ | 09/29/2026 | Morgan Phillips

[DFG]

War Secretary Pete Hegseth will announce plans to reduce by 20% the number of positions reserved for generals and admirals during his State of the Force address on Wednesday.

Hegseth approved reduction plans for the Army, Navy, Air Force and the military's joint pool earlier this month, according to memos seen by Fox News Digital. The services were directed to implement the plans and complete the reductions by Jan. 1, 2027.

Wednesday's address in Quantico, Va. is expected to lay out Hegseth's priorities for the military in the year ahead, with the reduction in senior leadership positions among the changes he will unveil.

The new target doubles the 10% overall reduction in general and flag officer positions Hegseth ordered last year as part of his effort to streamline the military's senior ranks. That earlier directive separately called for a 20% reduction in active-duty four-star positions and a 20% reduction in National Guard general officers.

Hegseth dubbed that effort "less generals, more GIs," arguing that reducing senior headquarters positions would push resources and authority toward troops closer to the fight.

The latest reductions apply to billets — positions designated for generals and admirals — rather than an across-the-board removal of 20% of the officers currently serving in those ranks, a War Department source told Fox News Digital.

At least some of the positions will be downgraded rather than eliminated altogether. In a Sept. 16 memo approving reductions to the military's joint pool, Hegseth directed officials to establish O-6 requirements for general and flag officer positions identified for downgrade, allowing colonels and Navy captains to fill those jobs.

[ealgeone]

Good. Lest we look like the RN which has more admirals than ships.

[bray]

The Pentagon has waste too that needs to be cut.

[bray]

The Pentagon has waste too that needs to be cut.

[ChuckHam]

The US military is top heavy in all officer ranks. Far too many junior and mid-level officers doing jobs NCOs and SNCOs should and can do.

[KeyLargo]

ALL CHIEFS AND NO INDIANS.

[Jeff Chandler]

the RN which has more admirals than ships

That's an exaggeration, but not by much:

40 admirals
60 ships

[Responsibility2nd]

Perfumed Princes at the Pentagon has been a thing for far too long....

 

"Perfumed princes" is a famous critical term coined by retired U.S. Army Colonel David Hackworth to describe self-serving, careerist military top brass and bureaucrats in the Pentagon. [1, 2, 3]

Meaning and Origin

• The Definition: Hackworth used the phrase to label high-ranking commanders and generals whom he believed prioritized personal ambition, office politics, and rank privileges over the lives and well-being of ordinary soldiers on the front lines ("the grunts"). [1, 2, 3]

• The Creator: Col. David Hackworth was one of the most decorated soldiers in U.S. history, serving in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War before becoming a fierce military critic, journalist, and author. [1, 2]

• The Critique: He argued that these leaders were disconnected from actual combat reality, overly bureaucratic, and responsible for flawed military strategies. [1, 2, 3]

Legacy

The phrase remains a staple in military commentary and political discourse, frequently invoked by critics to challenge perceived disconnects between high-level defense leadership and boots-on-the-ground realities. [1]

 

[Carry_Okie]

While I agree that the top levels are particularly overstaffed, we should be mindful that, in time of a real war, it is much harder to staff-up the officer corps than enlisted men.

That means it needs to be overstaffed in peacetime. What the correct level is I have no idea.

[DIRTYSECRET]

A $1.5 trillion budget should fix it as long as the GOP is in charge.

[mosaicwolf]

"The US military is top heavy in all officer ranks. Far too many junior and mid-level officers doing jobs NCOs and SNCOs should and can do."

Amen Brother!

[Thud]

Why not fire all of them? Our flag ranks as a group have been threats to national security for almost twenty years.

[packrat35]

Those 60 ships are not combat ready. I think he meant combat ready ships.

[Bernard]

Does the Navy still have more Admirals than ships? I know it’s not a 1-1 relationship, but a smaller top end and more junior officers nicknamed Patton and Sherman would be nice.

[hanamizu]

“...in time of a real war, it is much harder to staff-up the officer corps than enlisted men.”

---

I’m not ex-military, but I think history proves you wrong on this one. Yes, privates come in by large numbers, but experienced NCOs who turn them into effective soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen are harder to come by/create than officers.

[Carry_Okie]

but experienced NCOs who turn them into effective soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen are harder to come by/create than officers.

I don't doubt that either. I think both are true.

[ealgeone]

Mark Felton lied to me!!

[Leaning Right]

It depends on what you mean by “ship”. As Jeff noted, the Royal Navy has 60 ships. But 18 of them are small, lightly-armed coastal patrol vessels. These ships are unfit for serious deployment anywhere far from Britain.

Subtract one more. That’s for the HMS Victory, which is a bit out of date (launched in 1778).

So now we’re down to 41 seagoing ships and 40 admirals.

[ealgeone]

Yes....I think Felton was referring to actual combat ships.

Either way, it's a sad case for the RN.

[Colinsky]

it is much harder to staff-up the officer corps than enlisted men.

“When they get in trouble, they send for the sons of bitches.”

--Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, upon being summoned to take top command of the Navy after Pearl Harbor