What the Pentagon’s proposed command shake-up would change inside US military

This change would significantly dilute the autonomy and influence of commands that have traditionally overseen US operations in some of the world’s most volatile regions, including the Middle East and Europe.

A new focus on the Western Hemisphere

Another major element involves reshaping how the US military operates closer to home. Northern Command and Southern Command, which together oversee defence of the US homeland and military activity across Latin America and the Caribbean, would be merged under a new headquarters known as US Americas Command, or Americom.

Pentagon officials had also explored the idea of creating a separate Arctic Command reporting to Americom, but that option appears to have been dropped.

If adopted, the remaining combatant commands would include Indo-Pacific Command, Cyber Command, Space Command, Strategic Command, Transportation Command and Special Operations Command.

Why the Pentagon wants change

Supporters of the plan argue that the current command structure has become too sprawling and slow. A senior defence official involved in the discussions said the aim is to speed up decision-making and improve how the military commands and controls forces, warning that “decay” has set in under the existing system.

The proposal aligns closely with the administration’s newly released national security strategy, which states that the United States will no longer act as the guarantor of the global order everywhere at once.

Concerns on Capitol Hill

The Pentagon has shared few details with US Congress so far, frustrating members of both the Senate and House Armed Services committees. Lawmakers have responded by requiring the Defence Department to submit a detailed assessment of the costs, risks and alliance implications of any realignment.

Under provisions in the annual defence policy bill, funding to implement the changes would be withheld until at least 60 days after Congress receives that blueprint.

Pushback from former leaders

Not everyone is convinced consolidation is wise. Former defence secretary Chuck Hagel has warned that folding regional commands together risks weakening the military’s ability to anticipate and manage crises.

Different regions have distinct political, cultural and security dynamics, Hagel noted, and specialised commands help build relationships and local expertise. Over-centralisation, critics argue, could blunt that edge.

Other ideas that were debated

Pentagon officials considered more radical options before settling on the current proposal. Some plans would have reduced the number of combatant commands to six, while others suggested organising the military by operational domain, such as land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.

Another proposal floated the idea of a Pentagon-based “Joint Task Force War” that could take over global operations during conflicts, but it failed to gain support due to concerns about confusion and loss of regional insight.

What happens next

Any reorganisation would require approval from both US Defence Secretary Hegseth and President Donald Trump. If adopted, the changes would be incorporated into the Pentagon’s Unified Command Plan, the document that defines the roles and responsibilities of the military’s top headquarters.

For now, the proposal underscores a deeper shift in US defence thinking: fewer commands, fewer top generals, and a more inward-looking posture in an increasingly complex world.