In what could be a sign of threats to come, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has unveiled radical plans to cut defense spending that would reduce troop levels, especially in brigade combat teams and aviation units. 

The budget office considered three options: 

Option 1 is a proportional reduction that shrinks all active forces by 20%, shifting forces to regions where the U.S. faces the greatest perceived threat.   

Option 2 relies heavily on allies to deter or delay aggression and focuses reductions on ground combat and tactical aviation while increasing the Navy and long-range strike capabilities. “It would call for reductions in conventional forces, such as brigade combat teams and fighter aircraft, and increases long-range strike capabilities,” the report says. 

Option 3 reduces combat forces dedicated to regional conflicts but boosts the Navy, Space Force and intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities. “It avoids the use of large ground forces to seize and hold territory in regional conflicts in favor of engaging enemies at standoff ranges,” the report says.  

By 2031, the active-duty Army would have about 396,000 soldiers under Option 1, 347,000 under Option 2, and 349,000 under Option 3. The Army would lose six brigade combat teams under Option 1, and 11 under Options 2 and 3. 

The CBO calls these “illustrative” examples that over five years would reduce defense spending by about $1 trillion by 2031. This would be similar in scale to the 1990s, when defense spending was reduced at the end of the Cold War. Many details would have to be worked out. The three options all save about the same amount but have vastly different allocations for the services. 

The CBO suggests the force reduction is an alternative to other unappealing options, such as capping military pay, asking retirees to pay a larger share of their health care and reducing housing allowances for active-duty troops. 

The budget office acknowledges there are risks to each option. A smaller force would be slower to react to conflicts and have fewer forces to work with if there were several small attacks over a large area, the report says. “According to some analysts, demonstrating the ability to respond fast enough to deny a great power its objective requires a large military force with assets staged around the world,” it says. 

The full report is available here.