Why it Matters
The Pentagon shed more than 78,000 civilian employees in 2025, roughly one tenth of its civilian workforce, without consistently conducting the legally required analysis of what that would mean for military readiness, workload, or operational capacity. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released May 29, 2026 found that the Department of Defense civilian workforce reduction was carried out in ways that bypassed the department's own procedural guardrails, leaving officials unable to fully account for the consequences. With the FY 2026 budget already projecting additional cuts, the GAO is warning that the Department of Defense (DOD) risks repeating the same mistakes without a plan to learn from the first round.
The Big Picture
Federal law is explicit on this point. Under Section 129a(b) of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the Secretary of Defense cannot reduce civilian workforce programmed full-time equivalent levels without first conducting an appropriate analysis of the impacts across seven specific elements, including readiness, workload, and lethality. That legal requirement exists precisely because civilian employees are not interchangeable with contractors or uniformed personnel. They provide institutional continuity, technical expertise, and logistical support that keeps military operations functional.
What the GAO found is that the law was honored inconsistently at best. Of 40 DOD components examined, 22 had programmed reductions to their civilian workforces in at least one fiscal year between FY 2023 and FY 2025. GAO selected 14 of those components for closer review. Eleven conducted some form of impact analysis, but the report notes that even among those 11, the analysis was not consistently conducted or documented as required. Three components conducted no meaningful analysis at all.
The reason, according to component officials, was not indifference. DOD had simply never issued clear guidance on when and how to conduct and document the required analysis. The statutory obligation existed; the operational infrastructure to fulfill it did not.
Political Backlash
The Trump administration launched a government-wide initiative to shrink the federal civilian workforce, and DOD was a primary target. Two mechanisms drove the bulk of the cuts: a deferred resignation program, effectively a buyout offer that encouraged voluntary departures, and a hiring freeze.
DOD approved approximately 53,200 applications for deferred resignations. The hiring freeze resulted in roughly 59,500 fewer civilian employees brought on board in 2025 than in comparable recent years. Together, these actions account for the bulk of the 78,000-plus reduction in DOD's civilian headcount.
The critical distinction the GAO draws is that these reductions happened outside the normal programming process, meaning they bypassed the structured planning cycle through which workforce decisions are typically made and analyzed. GAO interviewed officials from 12 selected components about the analysis conducted to support these reductions. The finding was blunt: component officials reported significant challenges in conducting the required analysis for these reductions. The speed and scale of the cuts, driven by political directives rather than budget cycles, left little room for the deliberate impact assessments the law requires.
What officials said they found
Despite the procedural shortcomings, component officials did share preliminary observations about the effects of the DOD civilian workforce reduction. On the benefit side, some officials pointed to organizational optimization, or the idea that streamlining staff can improve efficiency and eliminate redundant functions. These are the arguments typically advanced by proponents of workforce reduction.
On the challenge side, officials identified strained workforce capacity. When tens of thousands of people leave an organization in a compressed timeframe, the institutional knowledge, project continuity, and day-to-day operational capacity they carried does not automatically redistribute to those who remain. In a department responsible for sustaining military readiness across global operations, that strain is not an abstraction.
The GAO report does not quantify the readiness impact in specific operational terms; that level of detail would require the kind of systematic analysis DOD failed to conduct. That absence of data is itself the problem the report is trying to address.
Moving forward
The single recommendation GAO issued is directed at the Secretary of Defense: ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness develops and implements a plan to collect and share lessons learned from the 2025 workforce reduction efforts conducted outside the programming process. The plan should specifically address the deferred resignation programs and the hiring freeze.
This is a foundational project management practice. Organizations that make large-scale operational changes, particularly ones with legal compliance requirements attached, are expected to document what worked, what did not, and what the downstream effects were. DOD has no such plan in place.
DOD concurred with the recommendation. Concurrence is the first step while implementation is another matter, and the GAO report leaves that question of the plan of action unanswered.
The Bottom Line
The report was mandated by a provision in House Report 118-301, the document accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2024, produced by the House Armed Services Committee. That Congress directed GAO to examine this issue reflects longstanding concern on Capitol Hill about whether DOD's civilian workforce decisions are being made with adequate analytical rigor.
With the FY 2026 budget already projecting more reductions than in prior years, the window for getting the analytical framework right is narrowing.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.