Is the Military Recruiting Crisis Over? Not quite.
In early February, U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) announced its best December in 15 years, enlisting 346 soldiers daily. By the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, the Army also met its goal of recruiting 55,000 new active-duty soldiers.
President Trump and other administration officials immediately took credit for the feat, with newly-confirmed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claiming that America’s youth want to serve under Trump’s “bold & strong ‘America First’ leadership.” The President made similar remarks on April 21 at the White House Easter Roll, stating that, “[The military has] had the highest number of recruits enlistments [in]…28 or 29 years,” and that, “It’s all happened–since November 5th.”
While the Army, and all of the U.S. military, may be rebounding from its recruitment woes, it is too early for the White House to declare victory. Recruitment is still an ongoing challenge and is likely to worsen if the administration continues its endeavor to reshape the military.
It is therefore critical to understand where the recruitment crisis currently stands, where it is headed, and the impacts of U.S. policy on the development of the nation’s future force.
The Recruitment Crisis is Real, but Not New
Recently, the U.S. military has faced challenges in recruiting new personnel. In FY2022, the Army missed its quota by over 25%. The service did not fare any better in FY2023, again falling short of its goal to add 65,500 new active-duty soldiers. The Navy and Air Force experienced a similar fate in FY2023, each missing the mark by several thousand recruits. Only the Marine Corps and Space Force have achieved their active and reserve component recruiting objectives.
The inability of the military to meet its recruitment goals is well-documented by the Department of Defense (DoD). Nearly all of the DoD Inspector General’s Top Management and Performance Challenges reports from FY2016 to FY2025 raise concerns about “Building the Future Force” and “Increasing Military Readiness,” of which recruitment is a critical part. These challenges have gained the attention of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, garnering over 30 mentions during Secretary Hegseth’s confirmation hearing in January.
However, the recruitment crisis is not a new phenomenon—it is a dilemma as old as the all-volunteer force itself. Historical trends show that ever since the draft was abolished in early 1973, military recruitment has risen and fallen with the economic tide. When the economy is strong, fewer Americans enlist due to higher-paying opportunities in the civilian workforce. By contrast, when military wages compete with civilian jobs, enlistment is more stable. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, military recruitment benefited from wage stagnation and a poor economy. But those conditions do not last forever. In 2018, confronted with a U.S. economy that saw its fastest growth since 2005, the Army failed to reach its recruitment goal for the first time since, not coincidentally, 2005 as well. Thus, recruitment has always been one of the military’s most pressing challenges and should be viewed as the norm, not the exception.
The COVID-19 Pandemic Helps to Explain the Crisis
But the economy does not explain everything. Even in a U.S. economy that was devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic, military recruiting was still hit particularly hard. For one, recruiters were limited in their capacity to have in-person interactions. The services also decided to temporarily shut down their basic trainings. More critically, however, recruits struggled to meet many of the military’s standards for enlistment.
Today, less than 30% of American youth are qualified for military service due to a variety of physical and academic deficiencies. The pandemic added fuel to the fire by reducing the already small percentage of the U.S. population eligible to serve. With schools closed, students were forced to continue their learning online. Evidence shows that school systems were unprepared for the shift to a virtual classroom. Students struggled to adapt to the new learning environment, leading to poorer academic performance. Social isolation also increased the rate of obesity among U.S. adults. All of these trends hurt military recruitment, and the services tried to compensate by adjusting their enlistment requirements. For example, in December 2022, the Navy scaled down its entrance exam score, and, in 2023, the Air Force loosened its body fat restrictions.
Mental illness is another critical factor. During the first year of the pandemic, the prevalence of anxiety and depression among Americans was six times higher than the previous year. Today, 22.8% of the adult U.S. population suffers from some form of mental illness, with the highest percentage between the ages of 18-25—the average age range of military recruits. While mental illness is not a disqualifier to military service, it may dissuade Americans from deciding to join the military, fearing that they will be viewed unfavorably or be unable to obtain a security clearance. Ultimately, the military is only able to recruit from the available pool of civilians, many of whom, for a variety of reasons, are unable or disinclined to serve.
Recruitment Has Rebounded, but it is Too Early to Declare Victory
Last October, DoD announced that recruitment rose 12.5% in FY2024 compared to the previous year. With nearly all services meeting their FY2024 goals, recruitment seems to be on the mend. However, the problem is not resolved, and it is misleading for the White House to take complete credit for this progress.
Recruiting is rebounding largely because the military services overhauled their approaches. Last year, the Army’s budget proposal included several provisions for improved recruiting. The service increased its marketing and advertising budget by 10% and dedicated $675 million to enlistment bonuses and quick ship contracts, where recruits report to basic training within a month of enlistment. Similarly, over the last year, the Navy created more opportunities for a younger, tech-savvy recruitment pool by adding a robotics specialization to its ranks. It also improved the quality of life for its sailors, including by opening 24/7 fitness centers and creating more access to parking. The Air Force implemented similar incentives, like reinstating its college loan repayment program and accelerating naturalization opportunities.
The services started experiencing positive results from their efforts more than a year ago—well before President Trump was elected in November. During a media roundtable in October 2024, Major General Johnny Davis, USAREC Commander, stated that “[Recruiting momentum] really started in February 2024, after about a year of putting many of these initiatives together, and it hasn’t slowed down.” In the same discussion, Brigadier General Christopher Amrhein, Commander of the Air Force Accessions Center (AFAC) and Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS), claimed that since 2023, over 10,000 recruits joined the Air Force and Space Force due to the new policy changes and incentives. Similarly, the Navy attributed its FY2024 success in part to its decision to expand opportunities for sailors and marines. It is important to note that this recruitment success occurred despite a U.S. economy that recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic faster than expected. Accordingly, the services overcame the normally predictable correlation between a strong economy and poor recruitment, thereby developing an effective recruiting strategy during periods of low unemployment.
While the White House plays a dominant role in shaping military and defense policy, the credit for recruiting rebounds belongs to the military services, their respective recruiting commands, and most importantly, the individual recruiters who interact with American youths and communities each and every day. However, the White House is in danger of slowing, and even reversing, this momentum if it continues to attack current service members and those who are considering military service.
A Blow to Recruiting
President Trump is prompting a massive reshaping of the U.S. military. The negative impact that his administration’s actions will have on recruitment should not be overlooked. Shortly after his inauguration, the President signed a series of executive orders eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the military—directing, for example, the Pentagon to ban transgender people from serving. Similarly, the Pentagon ordered the Army, Navy, and Air Force to halt their cooperation with organizations like the Black Engineer of the Year Awards (BEYA), an annual conference with which the military partners to recruit top science talent. The White House is also purging top military officers and the boards at U.S. military academies and colleges, claiming they are “woke” and unfit for leadership. In late February, General C.Q. Brown, Jr., former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Admiral Lisa Franchetti, former Chief of Naval Operations, were fired from their posts—two moves that prompted concern but received little pushback from Congress. Moreover, the political and sports worlds entered a frenzy when the Pentagon wiped information from its website pages that were allegedly DEI-related, including the Army career of baseball player Jackie Robinson.
While the administration’s policies are relatively nascent and FY2025 is still underway, many are concerned about the effects of these policies on recruitment. Although Jackie Robinson’s information was restored and the administration has defended its other actions, the President should exercise caution—creating too much chaos and division could hurt the military’s ability to develop a talented and lethal fighting force. In response to abandoning BEYA and other similar organizations, military officials noted that their ability to recruit talented minorities will be diminished. The veteran community is also speaking out against the administration’s actions, stating that attacks on diversity will “affect recruitment and demoralize minorities already serving,” making it harder for Americans to “have any sense of belonging in the armed forces.” It is one matter to remove or prevent people from serving on the grounds of incompetence. But by barring and discouraging qualified Americans from serving because of their race, ethnicity, gender, or political ideology, the administration is degrading both the military and broader U.S. national security.
Diversity is not only a moral imperative, but more importantly, a practical one. If the military is the nation’s preeminent institution for preserving the Constitution and protecting the American people, it must embrace a diverse talent base. The Trump administration is presenting a false choice between lethality and diversity. Promoting diversity does not make the military less combat effective or mean that, to be more inclusive, it must lower its standards. Becoming an Army Ranger or F-16 pilot has nothing to do with race or gender—it is about meeting the standards. In 2020, General (ret.) Mark Milley stated that diversity improves “the system, the military, our problem-solving capabilities, and warfighting readiness.” That sentiment holds true today. DoD policy should acknowledge the role that different ideas, backgrounds, and talents play in making the military a better fighting force, while maintaining its focus on its ultimate mission: Winning the nation’s wars.
Increasing Opportunities and Propensity to Serve
Less hostility towards DEI programs will attract more Americans to serve in the military. But there are several other approaches the military can take to bolster recruitment, including increasing both the opportunities and the propensity to serve. For the most part, the services are already implementing these strategies.
The military is creating opportunities to prepare Americans for service who otherwise may not be able to reach the standards on their own. The Army’s Future Soldier Preparatory Course, established in 2022, is a hallmark of this effort. With a 95% graduation rate, the program has improved recruits’ fitness and test scores without compromising Army regulations and standards. The Navy has taken a similar approach with its Future Sailor Preparatory Course. Launched a year ago, the program sends roughly 90% of its recruits to Navy basic training and has produced several Honor Graduates. Additionally, the Air Force is implementing plans to restructure AFAC and AFRS under a new Airman Development Command, a move the service expects will better facilitate recruitment and training. Aside from basic training preparatory courses, investing in ROTC and JRTOC programs, which train the military’s future officers and offset the cost of college, should also be a top priority.
Increasing the propensity to serve is equally important. Dr. Katie Helland, Director of Military Accession Policy for the DoD, notes that today’s youth are both uninterested in the military and uninformed about what serving actually entails. Only 15% of young adults have a parent who served, which is down from 40% in 1990. West Point’s Modern War Institute observes a similar trend, in that the American public lacks familiarity with military service. Dispelling misperceptions of military service is critical to overcoming recruitment challenges. To do that, the services need to follow the Army’s lead and overhaul their budgets to include more provisions for recruiting. They also need to implement programs such as the Air Force’s “We Are All Recruiters,” which enables airmen and guardians, regardless of occupational specialty, to find and attract the best of America’s talent.
Altogether, each service should continue to enhance its current approaches by prioritizing the opportunities, incentives, and standard of living for its troops and prospective recruits. The Trump administration would be wise to support this strategy, which is already seeing immense success.
Moving Forward
While there is no single solution that will completely solve the recruitment crisis, the military is adopting the right approaches. DoD should strive to meet the public in the middle. If today’s youth are unfit for service, then the military should invest in programs that improve recruits’ mental and physical fitness. If Americans are unfamiliar with what it is like to serve and the opportunities available to them, then the military should empower recruiters to mobilize and engage with their communities. The best solution encourages a wide pool of recruits to join the military without compromising on standards. In the words of General Davis, “We will not lower standards, we will not sacrifice quality for the sake of quantity. ” Making military service contingent on anything other than meeting the specified qualifications and standards is dangerous for U.S. national security, as it prevents countless numbers of willing and capable Americans from fairly serving and defending their nation.
Views expressed are the author’s own and do not represent the views of GSSR, Georgetown University, or any other entity. Image Credit: U.S. Army Cadet Command