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.
Key Republican senators, including Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (Mississippi), say they were blindsided by the announcement Hegseth included in his "State of the Force" address late last month.
Doubling last year's 10% reduction target, Hegseth says his priority is "less generals, more GIs," arguing that reducing senior headquarters positions would push resources and authority toward troops closer to the fight.
Wicker, however, is concerned that he was not consulted before the decision was made, and other senior Republicans are questioning whether too many experienced and highly qualified generals and admirals are being pushed out because of politics and what impact that might have on military readiness in the future.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is handling the Pentagon's request for an emergency supplemental spending package as well as the annual defense spending bill, likewise said the sudden and large reduction in generals and admirals raises questions and concerns.
This comes on the heels of U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll's departure from the service. He resigned earlier in September after months of friction and disagreements with Hegseth, particularly over personnel decisions, the firing of senior officers, and disagreements over Army transformation, readiness and modernization priorities.
"We've always been top-heavy," comments Bob Maginnis, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who served across various command and staff positions in four infantry divisions and at the Pentagon for more than 20 years.
"When you compare this to World War II, when we had 7 million under arms, well, we had fewer generals then than we have today, with less than 2 million," he notes.
Maginnis recognizes that Hegseth is trying to reduce bureaucracy, saying the decision is about retention and the proliferation of rank.
"I'm not a fan of an overabundance of admirals and generals," he tells AFN.
While he does not see this solving "the military issues," he does think there are too many "prima donnas" who are unnecessary for the smooth operation of the services.
Maginnis adds that he spent years working with "very capable" colonels who "didn't need to be flag officers to do their job," and says he has "always been sympathetic of honing down the number of general officers."
