More people are joining the military. A shaky US job market could be boosting the numbers.
After years of shortfalls, military recruiting numbers are seeing a jump.
Economic factors like unemployment rates and job openings impact military recruitment.
Recruiting officials say the factors helping drive recruitment are complex.
Military recruiting numbers are up — the Army met its annual goal of recruiting 61,000 troops months early and signs indicate Navy numbers are in good shape. But what is it exactly that is driving the jump? Recruiting officials say it's complicated.
For the past several years, the Army and Navy fell thousands of new recruits short, a trend that only began to reverse at the end of last year — which the new administration has promoted as stemming from President Donald Trump's leadership and a surge of patriotism.
The shift seems to turn on a shaky economy that's hiring less and the soaring costs of higher education, recruiting officials told BI. While the US labor market has relatively low unemployment, layoffs in the federal workforce, federal policy uncertainty, and 2025 recession fears have left companies hesitant to hire and employees less likely to quit.
Fewer job openings and a slowing economy have historically pushed more young job seekers toward the military. That doesn't tell the whole story, though.
Nearly 75% of young Americans cannot meet the health, fitness, and academic standards required to join the military, presenting a major challenge for recruiters.
To confront the problem, the Army and Navy have made herculean efforts to usher not-yet-qualified young people into what are effectively pre-boot camps where they can lose weight, improve run times, and boost their test scores before officially joining. These changes instituted in recent years are paying off with a higher number of recruits in the pipeline, paving the way for the services to better meet their annual goals.
But the services may also be benefiting from a shifting economic landscape in which the steep cost of higher education and fewer openings in the traditional labor market could mean that more young people are looking for alternative career paths with a promise of stability and education benefits.
Instead of solely focusing on unemployment rates to understand why more and more young people may be choosing to enlist, a more accurate way to view military recruiting is through the lens of the Beveridge Curve, which compares how the unemployment rate stacks up against job vacancies, said Col. Lee Evans, Army Recruiting Command's director of market intelligence.
Low unemployment and a high number of job openings indicate a growing labor market. Lately, however, lower unemployment has been met with limited job openings — meaning the economy is slowing, as shown in the chart below.
Postings on the job-search platform Indeed decreased by 10% throughout 2024, and the federal nonfarm job openings rate has been trending down since 2022. Job seekers are scrambling as opportunities dry up across tech, computer science, government agencies, and more, factors that could be a boon for military recruiting.
"What we've seen over the last couple years is that unemployment rates remain relatively low, right around 4%, but we've seen the job openings rate decrease," Evans said.
"Many times, that provides a skills mismatch out in the labor market," he said. "And we're postured well to compete in that arena, because we have so many offerings within the Army."
Evans added that in a volatile job market, young people might be more attracted to the military's career opportunities with transferable skills for later civilian life, like working as an electrician or HR specialist. Gen Z is already turning toward traditionally blue-collar technical careers.
However, other jobs, including those in combat arms like artillery or infantry, can be much more difficult to transfer to the civilian sector.
Brig. Gen. Christopher Amrhein, the commander of the Air Force Recruiting Service, told BI that young people are increasingly seeking jobs in air traffic control, firefighting, and cybersecurity, roles likely to lend a degree of long-term stability outside the service.
Amrhein said another positive figure for recruiting is the surplus of soon-to-be recruits waiting in the military's "delayed entry program," which serves as a sort of holding pattern for future recruits to depart for boot camp at a later date.
"From that standpoint, we're still garnering more and more talent in our Air Force and Space Force of an unbelievable quality," he added.
Economic instability and fewer job openings aren't the only factors at play. The exorbitant cost of college has helped maintain a steady demand for college ROTC programs, Evans said.
In 2023, a quarter of US adults under 40 had outstanding student loan debt. The military offers an alternative to debt for future officers: it can cover all or some of a student's tuition in exchange for four to eight years of service.
Brig. Gen. Sara Dudley, the deputy commanding general of Army Recruiting Command, told BI that young people appear to be taking more time to decide what path they want to take, be it military service or something else.
"It's really a couple of years after high school that they're ready to commit to making what feels like a big decision," she said.
Enlisting is enticing for recent high school grads and twentysomethings, a chance to learn new skills and unlock generous education benefits with the GI Bill and tuition assistance programs. Many also carry on a family tradition of service in uniform, a longtime source of recruits that shrinks with each generation. Enlisted troops make up roughly 80% of the force.
For those with or pursuing a bachelor's degree, a few years as an officer may be an increasingly attractive way for young people to build professional experience without the stress of student loans or an immediate post-grab job hunt. A similar trend occurred in 2009, following the widespread financial instability of the 2008 recession.
America's slower birth rates aren't yet showing up in recruitment data, though the drop seems poised to hit the services soon. In 2007, the US saw over 4.3 million births. But the 2008 financial crisis prompted a drop that has largely persisted since.
"That 2007 to 2008 timeframe, that's just now starting to get into our recruitable population," Evans said, referring to the military's eligible pool of young people.
Even as military recruitment stands to gain from a costly higher education system and an unsteady job market, lower birth rates could present a new enduring challenge.
"We're going to see that come into our recruitable population, and we know we're going to have to adapt to it," he said. "And we're already preparing for that."
Have a tip or story to share? Reach out to these reporters at kbaker@insider.com and allisonkelly@businessinsider.com or via Signal at KelseyBaker75.75 and alliekelly.10; here's our guide to sharing information securely.
Read the original article on Business Insider

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
33 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Points of Light, founded by the Bush family, aims to double American volunteerism by 2035
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Bush family's nonprofit Points of Light will lead an effort to double the number of people who volunteer with U.S. charitable organizations from 75 million annually to 150 million in 10 years. The ambitious goal, announced in New Orleans at the foundation's annual conference, which concluded Friday, would represent a major change in the way Americans spend their time and interact with nonprofits. It aspires to mobilize people to volunteer with nonprofits in the U.S. at a scale that only federal programs like AmeriCorps have in the past. It also coincides with deep federal funding cuts that threaten the financial stability of many nonprofits and with an effort to gut AmeriCorps programs, which sent 200,000 volunteers all over the country. A judge on Wednesday paused those cuts in some states, which had sued the Trump administration. Jennifer Sirangelo, president and CEO of Points of Light, said that while the campaign has been in development well before the federal cuts, the nonprofit's board members recently met and decided to move forward. 'What our board said was, 'We have to do it now. We have to put the stake in the ground now. It's more important than it was before the disruption of AmeriCorps,'' she said in an interview with The Associated Press. She said the nonprofit aims to raise and spend $100 million over the next three years to support the goal. Points of Light, which is based in Atlanta, was founded by President George H.W. Bush to champion his vision of volunteerism. It has carried on his tradition of giving out a daily award to a volunteer around the country, built a global network of volunteer organizations and cultivated corporate volunteer programs. Speaking Wednesday in New Orleans, Points of Light's board chair Neil Bush told the organization's annual conference that the capacity volunteers add to nonprofits will have a huge impact on communities. 'Our mission is to make volunteering and service easier, more impactful, more sustained," Bush said. "Because, let's be honest, the problems in our communities aren't going to fix themselves.' According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and AmeriCorps, the rate of participation has plateaued since 2002, with a noticeable dip during the pandemic. Susan M. Chambré, professor emerita at Baruch College who studied volunteering for decades, said Points of Light's goal of doubling the number of volunteers was admirable but unrealistic, given that volunteer rates have not varied significantly over time. But she said more research is needed into what motivates volunteers, which would give insight into how to recruit people. She also said volunteering has become more transactional over time, directed by staff as opposed to organized by volunteers themselves. In making its case for increasing volunteer participation in a recent report, Points of Light drew on research from nonprofits like Independent Sector, the National Alliance for Volunteer Engagement and the Do Good Institute at the University of Maryland. Sirangelo said they want to better measure the impact volunteers make, not just the hours they put in, for example. They also see a major role for technology to better connect potential volunteers to opportunities, though they acknowledge that many have tried to do that through apps and online platforms. Reaching young people will also be a major part of accomplishing this increase in volunteer participation. Sirangelo said she's observed that many young people who do want to participate are founding their own nonprofits rather than joining an existing one. 'We're not welcoming them to our institutions, so they have to go found something,' she said. 'That dynamic has to change.' As the board was considering this new goal, they reached out for advice to Alex Edgar, who is now the youth engagement manager at Made By Us. They ultimately invited him to join the board as a full voting member and agreed to bring on a second young person as well. 'I think for volunteering and the incredible work that Points of Light is leading to really have a deeper connection with my generation, it needs to be done in a way that isn't just talking to or at young people, but really co-created across generations,' said Edgar, who is 21. Karmit Bulman, who has researched and supported volunteer engagement for many years, said she was very pleased to see Points of Light make this commitment. 'They are probably the most well known volunteerism organization in the country and I really appreciate their leadership,' said Bulman, who is currently the executive director of East Side Learning Center, a nonprofit in St. Paul. Bulman said there are many people willing to help out in their communities but who are not willing to jump through hoops to volunteer with a nonprofit. 'We also need to recognize that it's a pretty darn stressful time in people's lives right now,' she said. "There's a lot of uncertainty personally and professionally and financially for a lot of people. So we need to be really, really flexible in how we engage volunteers." ___
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What is the bond market and why is everybody so worried about it?
The bond market doesn't make headlines nearly as often as its more exciting cousin, the stock market, but when it does, look out. At least twice in 2025, bond investors have reacted negatively to U.S. President Donald Trump's policies, spooked first by his trade war and more recently by the growing U.S. government debt. Those join a list of other recent bond market tantrums that suggest investors have growing concerns about the state of government finances around the world. But just what is the bond market, how does it work and why is it such a problem when investors get jittery about it? The Financial Post explains. The bond market is a financial market where governments, companies and investors can issue, buy and sell debt in the form of — you guessed it — bonds. For governments, selling a new bond raises the funds needed to finance public spending, while a business might use the proceeds for corporate operations or an acquisition. In return, bonds provide investors with periodic interest payments, usually at a fixed interest rate, and guarantee the repayment of the principal at maturity. Government bonds can come in a range of durations from months all the way up to decades. For example, U.S. government debt ranges from one-month Treasury bills to 30-year Treasury bonds. Investors are especially focused on the U.S. bond market because it is the largest in the world, worth about US$47 trillion. This accounts for about 40 per cent of the US$142 trillion global bond market as of 2025, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a U.S. industry trade group. As of the fourth quarter of 2024, investors held US$28 trillion of government debt in Treasuries. Investors buy government bonds because they are seen as safe, especially in contrast to stocks, which can carry more risk, especially during economic turbulence. Bonds pay out steady interest, and there is little risk the government of a major economy such as the U.S. will not repay the principal at maturity — or at least that's the theory. In reality, investors increasingly appear to be questioning whether government bonds, in particular those issued by the U.S., are such a safe bet. Carl Gomez, chief economist and head of market analytics for CoStar Group, said the bond market, like any other market for financial assets, depends on buyers and sellers making trades based on their expectations regarding market conditions. And some recent decisions by the U.S. government have investors feeling like they are taking on more risk with bonds, he said. When Trump unveiled his plan for massive tariffs on other countries on 'Liberation Day' in April, it sent shockwaves through the stock market. Although normally investors would buy bonds as a counterweight to equity risk, something unexpected happened. There was a selloff in the bond market as well, signalling that buyers were losing confidence in the U.S. as a safe place to store their money. The 10-year Treasury yield spiked from less than four per cent on April 4 to 4.5 per cent on April 8, while the 30-year yield topped five per cent. 'People are worried the independence of the Fed could be eroded to some extent, people are worried that the U.S. administration's policies have not been friendly to the allies or to the providers of capital for the U.S. market,' said Jason Daw, the head of North American rates strategy at Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) Capital Markets. 'This has led the market to believe that (foreign) investors are going to be investing less in the U.S and maybe more in their domestic markets.' And with the U.S.'s massive debt, investors question the government's fiscal prudence, weakening demand for U.S. bonds. Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill lead to the second big spike in yields this year. Introduced in May, the bill included extended tax cuts and an increase to the national debt ceiling, and would add nearly US$4 trillion to America's US$36 trillion in debt if passed. In the immediate aftermath of the tax bill announcement on May 22, the 10-year yield closed at 4.58 per cent, its highest level since 2023. To make matters worse, credit rating agency Moody's Corp. downgraded America's credit rating due to the country's inability to manage its ballooning debt. Following that up, there was tepid demand at a US$16 billion 20-year Treasury bond auction, another key indicator of the bond market's woes, pushing yields to 5.1 per cent. 'When the government goes to borrow, they auction up the bonds, and get the money from the Treasury,' Gomez said. 'If there are fewer buyers, then that price is going to come down, and the yields will need to go up on those bonds to make them sellable.' When people talk about trouble in the bond market, they often talk about yields spiking. The yield on a bond is how much you would expect to earn on your money per year if you held the bond through to maturity, including both interest payments and price return. While the interest payment on a bond is usually fixed, yields adjust to prevailing expectations about where interest rates are heading. For example, if investors think they will be able to buy a new bond at an interest rate of five per cent, they aren't likely to want an existing bond with an interest rate of only four per cent. So the price of that older bond falls. The big thing to remember is that yields and prices are inversely related: If yields go up or spike, it means the value of the bonds people are holding goes down. 'Similar to how the value of a stock or the equity market could change, the value of bonds changes depending on people's expectations of future interest rates and depending on when you purchase the bond (which could be) at a value that is above or below its maturity level,' said Daw. If bond buyers are concerned that the U.S. fiscal position is deteriorating, they are likely going to want a higher return to offset the risk of lending to Uncle Sam. So, yields go up, and prices go down. Bond yields have been rising across the globe — a striking reversal in a long-term trend of declining yields that persisted over the past 20 to 30 years thanks to modest inflation and economic stability. With inflation higher post-COVID and due to economic jitters from the U.S.-initiated trade war, there is less demand for especially long-term government bonds globally, making it more expensive for governments to borrow. If the U.S. has trouble selling its bonds at rates that allow it to service its debt, it could be forced to raise interest rates to higher and higher levels to placate investors seeking compensation for taking on the greater risk. Increasing interest rates could create a vicious cycle of higher rates making it more expensive for the government to service its debt, leading to bigger deficits and more debt, producing greater risk that buyers will want to be compensated for with higher interest rates. Most importantly, the U.S. relies on the sale of its Treasury bonds to fund its operations. If buyers don't want to buy bonds, the government could struggle to pay its bills, especially if there aren't sufficient tax revenues, Gomez said. 'Ultimately, it can lead to a financial crisis,' he said. 'It circles down across the whole financial system into the real economy.' Gomez pointed to Greece as an example. The country toppled into a government debt crisis in 2007, exacerbated by the global financial crisis, and struggled to recover. Major financial rating agencies flagged Greek bonds with 'junk' status in 2010. The country's unemployment rate hit a record 28 per cent in 2014, and poverty and homelessness snowballed. 'This doesn't usually happen to a well-developed country like the United States, given its position in the world,' Gomez said, noting the Fed could step in and be 'the buyer of last resort.' Still, this could lead to major inflation risks caused by 'printing money' and potentially call into question America's long-term debt sustainability, which would result in higher interest rates over the long run, he said. Although Canada's bond market typically follows the same direction as its southern neighbour, Gomez said it has hit a resistance point due to the Bank of Canada cutting interest rates out of step with the U.S. Federal Reserve. Canadian bond yields are getting tugged upward, influenced by what is occurring in the U.S., but they are also being pulled down by the central bank. 'Everybody probably expected at the end of last year that we'd see lower interest rates, lower mortgages,' Gomez said. 'But what's really happening is that the bond market and bond yields in Canada are just going sideways.' If the Fed starts cutting rates more than the Bank of Canada, Daw said it is likely the Canadian bond market will underperform the U.S. Treasury market over the next six to 12 months. Canada's central bank is in a tight spot, as it weighs the upside risks to inflation against the downside risks to growth brought on by U.S. tariffs. The other factor weighing on Canadian market sentiment is the expectation that the federal government and provinces will be issuing plenty of bonds this year to increase spending to support the economy through the trade war. When the supply of bonds goes up, this puts downward pressure on bond prices and upward pressure on bond yields. Canada's debt position doesn't look as grim as the U.S., but it is growing. The U.S. debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio was 123 per cent in 2024, while Canada's amounted to 110.8 per cent — but Canada's debt to GDP ratio has been on an upward path since 2022 and is markedly higher than its pre-pandemic levels (where it hovered around the 90 per cent range). Why everyone is worried about the bond market — especially Donald Trump Bond market volatility spells trouble for investors Gomez predicted that the Canadian bond market will outperform the U.S. but added that inflation and global factors will still influence yields. 'The thing about the U.S. is that it is still the centre of the capital markets across the world,' said Gomez. 'So, what happens in the U.S. invariably starts impacting the rest of the world.' • Email: slouis@ Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet
Donald Trump and his team have spent a fair amount of time recently trying to convince the public that the president's policy toward Russia's war in Ukraine is having a positive impact. In mid-March, for example, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted, 'I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment.' Two months later, Trump participated in a two-hour phone meeting with Vladimir Putin, and the Republican touted the discussion as a possible breakthrough. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' the American president declared, adding that his chat would 'immediately' lead to new diplomatic negotiations. Soon after, Kyiv came under a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack, described by Ukrainian officials as the largest aerial assault on the country since the war began. It was soon followed by Ukraine's surprise drone attack that proved disastrous for Russia, and that jolted global perceptions. This in turn led Russia to launch one of the largest barrages of missiles and drones of the war at targets across Ukraine. This does not look like 'the 10th yard line of peace.' It was against this backdrop that Trump has apparently come up with a new metaphor. The New York Times reported: As Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, sat beside him watching in silence, President Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences for a while before anyone could intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday,' the Republican added. 'I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.'' So, a few things. First, comparing this conflict to a dispute among children on a playground is unhelpful, and Trump complaining about anyone engaging in juvenile behavior is unwise, given everything we know about his temperament and frequent tantrums. Second, the idea that the White House is prepared to let Russia and Ukraine 'fight for a while' overlooks the inconvenient fact that they've already been fighting for a while. Indeed, Russia invaded Ukraine back in February 2022 — more than three years ago — which Trump described at the time as 'genius' and part of a 'wonderful' strategy. But let's also not lose sight of the evolution of the American president's thinking. Trump's Plan A for the war in Ukraine was ending the conflict within 24 hours by way of a secret strategy he assured voters was real. When it became obvious that this strategy didn't actually exist, Trump moved on to Plan B: He told Russia that if it failed to end the conflict quickly, the White House 'would have no other choice' but to impose new economic sanctions. When Putin ignored those threats and Trump failed to follow through, the American president floated Plan C (international economic penalties designed to force a ceasefire), Plan D (Trump-backed bilateral talks between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Plan E (bilateral talks between Trump and Putin). Plan F — White House passivity — is now increasingly coming into focus. Trump's latest plan to end the conflict is apparently to stop trying to end the conflict. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on