Pentagon Orders Services to Cut PCS Moves by 50% Over Next 5 Years
The Pentagon has directed the military services to cut the amount of money they spend on permanent change-of-station, or PCS, moves for troops in half by 2030 as part of an ongoing effort to reduce spending.
The services are tasked with cuts that amount to an initial 10% of the $5 billion PCS budget in 2027 and that increase annually -- hitting 50% by 2030, according to a May 22 memo that was publicly released Wednesday. The memo, by the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, says the services should target 'discretionary move' budgets.
Pentagon leaders framed the push to cut those PCS moves as a way to reduce costs and provide stability for families. However, department officials did not offer clear definitions on what moves are discretionary and what guardrails will be put in place to keep the cuts from affecting families or careers.
Read Next: Pentagon Diverts $1 Billion from Army Barracks to Fund Border Mission
Tim Dill, a top official in the Pentagon's Office for Personnel and Readiness, told reporters that the department is giving the services four months to come up with plans to 'reduce the frequency of PCS moves for service members, driving much needed efficiencies for the department and improving the quality of life for warfighters and military families.'
The memo charges each service to consider altering troop career pathways or just how many opportunities service members get to serve outside of their specialties.
Dill wants the service to 'look at where is a move absolutely necessary to accomplish' giving troops 'the right leadership opportunities,' and where 'a move [is] not necessary to accomplish it.'
While the emphasis is being placed on 'discretionary moves,' officials at the Pentagon on Wednesday struggled to define the term, and one explained it as moves that include operational travel inside the U.S., rotational travel to or from overseas, and individual service member training travel -- three categories that include a broad majority of military moves.
The memo and Pentagon officials stressed the outcome of the changes should be a boon for families, but they stopped short of offering guarantees on all possible scenarios.
The overall idea is also not entirely new. Several years ago, the Marine Corps made a push to offer more opportunities for families to stay put for longer as part of an overhaul of its retention policies.
When asked whether a possible outcome of the new policy would be more family separations, given the tightening budget for moves, Dill said they were 'not dictating the way in which this needs to be done and we would want to hear from the services, their concerns … about some of the examples you named.'
'We understand there's some risks associated with some of the methods,' Dill added.
Dill also pushed back on the idea that the new policy, framed as protecting military families, would result in single service members bearing the brunt of the burden to support jobs in less popular or less family friendly locations.
'This is not a policy where we just think we need to take the moves away from the families and put it on someone else -- it's for everyone,' he said.
Dill also said he is aware that some military locations are just broadly unpopular, and the department is 'very open' to talking to the services about those dynamics. But Dill also said he thought 'that there are service members out there that are perfect for any installation, but we want to make sure that where we can, we match up with service member preferences as much as possible.'
According to officials, cutting PCS moves is separate from another effort to address problems with the privatization of PCS household goods shipments and shortcomings with the contractor that is taking over those shipments.
In a memo Tuesday to senior leaders and combatant commanders, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced he ordered U.S. Transportation Command to address what he called "recent deficiencies" in performance by the company that manages the $7.2 billion contract to run the department's moving process.
Military families have reported numerous issues with scheduling and executing moves that included issues such as packers not showing up, delayed pickups and deliveries, and surprise cancellations.
Related: Hegseth Orders Review of Defense Department's Support for Homeschooling
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NASA, Pentagon push for SpaceX alternatives amid Trump's feud with Musk
NASA and Pentagon officials moved swiftly this past week to urge competitors to Elon Musk's SpaceX to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft after President Donald Trump threatened to cancel Space X's contracts and Musk's defiant response. Government officials were especially stunned after Musk responded to Trump with a salvo of his own: SpaceX would stop flying its Dragon spacecraft, a move that would leave the space agency with no way to transport its astronauts to the International Space Station. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. Musk later recanted his threat. But it alarmed officials at NASA, which entrusts SpaceX with the lives of its astronauts, and at the Pentagon, which relies heavily on the company to launch its most sensitive satellites. The worried reaction within space and national security agencies highlights the risks of the government's heavy dependence on SpaceX for crucial tasks, including classified missions. SpaceX, with billions of dollars in government contracts, flies people and cargo to the ISS, launches satellites for the Pentagon and develops satellites used by intelligence agencies. The concerns are compounded by the fact that its competitors have been slow to catch up, leaving SpaceX's dominance largely unchallenged and the government with few options. This account is based on interviews with a dozen people in industry and government who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations. One NASA official said that watching the feud between Trump and Musk play out on social media Thursday at first was 'entertaining.' But once Musk called for decommissioning Dragon, 'it turned really terrifying.' There was a similar reaction in the Pentagon, where a person said staff officers 'looked at each other and said, 'oh, it's not funny anymore.' There was a realization that we're not watching TV. This is a real issue.' Musk's behavior has worried NASA officials before. In 2018, NASA ordered an investigation into SpaceX's safety culture after Musk appeared to take a small hit of marijuana on the Joe Rogan podcast. But his sudden threat on social media to cut off NASA's access to the orbiting space station, which has cost NASA some $100 billion over its lifespan, 'crossed a line,' one former space agency official said. 'When you realize that he's willing to shut everything down just on an impulse, that kind of behavior and the dependence on him is dangerous. … I can tell you there is deep concern within NASA.' The rift between Musk and Trump was also fueled by the White House's withdrawal of Jared Isaacman's nomination to be NASA administrator. Isaacman had flown to space twice with SpaceX and was seen as closely aligned with Musk. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment. Since Thursday's exchange, at least three commercial space companies, RocketLab, Stoke Space and Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin, have been contacted by government officials about the status of their rockets and when they might be available for government missions, according to four people familiar with the inquiries. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.) Officials at Sierra Space, which is developing a Dream Chaser spaceplane that could deliver cargo to the space station, were in a meeting with NASA officials on Thursday as the Trump-Musk feud was getting underway. 'Sierra Space stands ready to ensure uninterrupted support for the International Space Station,' Fatih Ozmen, the company's CEO, said in a statement to The Post. He added that 'NASA mentioned to us that they want diversity and do not want to rely on a single provider.' Dream Chaser 'is in final testing and integration at Kennedy Space Center,' Ozmen said. 'We are working closely with NASA leadership to fly the vehicle later this year.' The company is also working on a variant of Dream Chaser to carry astronauts, he said, 'which NASA is studying.' Musk's declaration also rattled staffers on Capitol Hill. A key congressional committee asked about the status of Boeing's Starliner space capsule vehicle, according to a person with knowledge of the inquiry. NASA intends to use Starliner to fly crews to the space station along with SpaceX's Dragon capsule. The spacecraft is years behind schedule, however, and during its first human spaceflight mission to the ISS last summer, it ran into so many problems that NASA decided it was unsafe to return to the crew with Boeing. But with Musk threatening to end Dragon, the congressional aide wanted to know when Starliner would be ready to fly again. In recent months, NASA has said little about the status of Starliner. But in response to reporters' questions, the agency issued a statement late Friday saying that it is planning for a Starliner flight to the space station 'in early 2026, pending system certification and resolution of Starliner's technical issues.' NASA is still evaluating whether the capsule would fly with astronauts on board or with cargo only. Even though he later recanted, Musk's threat to curtail NASA's use of Dragon could be damaging to a company that has been one of the government's most trusted partners, said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. 'It's almost like an embargo of the space station,' he said. 'Musk was saying he is going to cut NASA off from its own laboratory in space.' Harrison said the threat was reminiscent of Musk's refusal to activate the Starlink Internet system so that Ukraine could carry out an attack on Russian forces in 2022. That decision also prompted an outcry that the nation's defenses should not be in the hands of a single person or company. Given that SpaceX has experience operating its Starlink Internet satellite constellation, it had been considered to be a natural choice for Trump's proposed Golden Dome missile defense shield, which would rely on swarms of satellites in orbit. But Musk's threat was so impulsive that it will undoubtedly rattle defense officials, Harrison said, who would not look favorably on the 'idea that the nation's missile defenses could be held hostage to the twittering whims of Elon Musk.' For NASA's astronauts, Musk's social media post 'got very personal' because it could impact their ability to fly, said Garrett Reisman, a former NASA astronaut who previously worked at SpaceX. 'We shouldn't overreact to a fit of pique on social media. But when your hopes and dreams are tied up in this, you can't help but think, 'Oh my goodness am I going to fly in space?'' The Pentagon has recently made an effort to broaden the military and space industrial base, allowing for competition to drive down cost and increase innovation. The Space Force last year released a strategy that said the service would seek to avoid 'overreliance on any single provider or solution.' To allow more companies to vie for lucrative space contracts, the Pentagon recently created two 'lanes' of launch competitions. Lane 1 allows new entrants to bid on individual contracts to launch satellites that are smaller and not as vital; Lane 2 would be reserved for more powerful and proven rockets that would hoist satellites that cannot risk failure. SpaceX, however, has continued to dominate those missions. Its Falcon 9 rocket launches at an unprecedented cadence, while those of its competitors, including the United Launch Alliance's Vulcan, Blue Origin's New Glenn and RocketLab's Neutron, are still largely unproven. New Glenn has launched just once; Vulcan twice; Neutron not at all. And even before Musk's social media posting, the Pentagon publicly expressed worry about the pace of Vulcan's development even though it has won certification to fly national security missions. In a statement to the House Armed Services Committee last month, U.S. Space Force Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy said that contractors like ULA must 'establish a culture of accountability, and repair trust deficit to prove to the [Service Acquisition Executive for Space] that they are adopting the acquisition principles necessary to deliver capabilities at speed, on cost and on schedule.' From a legal and practical standpoint, the threats by the president and Musk would be difficult to carry out, said procurement specialists. If either the government or the company opted out, they would face major financial penalties, government procurement experts said. And if the contractor pulled out, it could affect its ability to win future contracts. Still, some had warned about Musk's foray into politics and the consequences for his companies. In an interview last year, Peter Beck, the CEO of RocketLab, which is seeking to compete for national security launch contracts, predicted that Musk's acquisition of Twitter, now X, and time at Trump's side could end up hurting his businesses. 'It certainly makes people uncomfortable,' he said at the time. 'At the end of the day, if you're delivering important national security missions, the buck stops with the CEO.' Related Content To save rhinos, conservationists are removing their horns Donald Trump and the art of the Oval Office confrontation Some advice from LGBTQ elders as WorldPride kicks off amid fears
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
It's a really bad time to be an expert in Washington
At the Pentagon, 14 advisory boards have been dismantled, with curt, thank-you-for-your-service notes sent to Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the boards dealt with obscure matters. But others focused on vital issues, like rethinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal as China's nuclear buildup, Russian President Vladimir Putin's episodic nuclear threats and Trump's ambitious demand for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system have changed the nature of nuclear strategy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also gone: the board of experts who were trying to learn lessons from China's astoundingly successful hack into the country's telecommunications networks -- where, by all accounts, the hackers remain to this day. Then came historians at the State Department and the climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which employed experts in weather, oceans, climate and biodiversity. Advertisement The National Weather Service lost so many people that the agency had to hire some back. No such luck for researchers relying on the National Science Foundation, where projects are disappearing every month. Advertisement No one killed off the expert advisory board at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it deliberated whether healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. They did not have to. While it weighed the pros and cons, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues announced that they had already made their decision. When the history of these tumultuous past four months is written, it will doubtless focus on the moments when teams from the Department of Government Efficiency shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, when the president issued tariff threats to much of the world and when he went to war with Harvard. Less noticed, perhaps, may be the devastation of the expert class, which once dominated the city, moving between think tanks and government offices, generating alternative views in its best moments, engaging in groupthink at its worst. Today, the experts are swelling the ranks of Washington's suddenly unemployed. To the MAGA faithful, each one of these disbanded groups is a victory for a trimmer government that follows the president's wishes. To them, the National Security Council was the heart of the so-called deep state, whose members testified against Trump during his first impeachment inquiry. The raft of advisory committees mostly slowed down decision-making, they argued, when they were not undercutting policies they did not like. Worse yet, they were the source of leaks. So if an advisory committee of experts was not needed to help James K. Polk, the 11th president, figure out how to spread the United States to the West Coast, why do we need them to figure out the strategy for adding Greenland and Canada? (The expansionist Polk has been restored to a place of pride in the Oval Office -- his portrait now hangs just below and to the right of Thomas Jefferson's.) Advertisement Part of Trump's problem with experts is their portrayal as neutral arbiters, more interested in the data than presidential spin. That is what has led to the White House this week trying to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that, yes, the new tax bill could really add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, no matter the spin. Lacking the authority to fire the budget experts there, the White House turned to casting them as politically biased. And while every new president replaces board members and demands some fealty to the new leader's ideology, what has happened in the past four months seems to some in the federal government more like China's cultural revolution, where the only good ideas are the ones that flow from the leader, and both research reports and intelligence findings should support the president's desires. And when they are not, trouble follows. Just ask the National Intelligence Council, a small subset of intelligence experts -- many drawn from academia -- what happened when it came to the conclusion that the Venezuelan government was not controlling a criminal gang, an argument that Trump had used to justify deportations. The experts were told to 'do some rewriting' so the material could not be used against the president and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. After the intelligence findings were left unchanged, the board's leadership resisted and was removed. The whole institution is being moved into Gabbard's organization, where its independent judgments can be better controlled. Advertisement At the Environmental Protection Agency, self-protective action has replaced scientific inquiry. 'We've taken the words 'climate' and 'green energy' off every project document,' one scientist still in the government's employ said recently, refusing to speak on the record for obvious reasons. Veterans of Trump's first term say these changes are a manifestation of the president's bitter memories. 'I think somebody convinced President Trump, based on his experience in his first administration, that his own staff would be the biggest obstructionists,' H.R. McMaster, Trump's second national security adviser, said at a conference on artificial intelligence and national security Wednesday. (Trump's current national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is one of around a half dozen across both terms.) While McMaster, now at Stanford, said he did not object to shrinking the National Security Council staff, he worried that also lost would be the capacity to run 'a deliberative process, which I think would be kind of nice on some of these issues, like tariffs, to clarify what you are trying to achieve.' 'Deliberative process' appears to be exactly what Trump is trying to avoid. And if that means eviscerating the expert class, so be it. It helps explain why the Department of Government Efficiency was given license to wipe out USAID. McMaster is hardly alone in concluding that some of the aid agency's programs had 'drifted.' Many Democrats say they agree, though almost never on the record. But McMaster gave voice to the question raised all over Washington when he asked, 'Should you just crush the entire organization or recognize there is a mission for that organization to advance American interests?' It was crushed, with foreign service officers, child health experts and others locked out of the offices. And that has led to both professional and personal angst. Advertisement 'If you work in the field of maternal and child health, you are in trouble,' said Jessica Harrison Fullerton, a managing director at the Global Development Incubator, a nonprofit that is trying to fill some of the gaps USAID's dismantlement left. 'Not only are you devastated by the impacts on the people you have been serving, but your expertise is now being questioned and your ability to use that expertise is limited because the jobs are gone.' In fact, what many of Washington's experts discovered was that crushing the organizations -- and putting their experts out on the street -- was the point of the exercise. It helped create a frisson of fear, and reinforced the message of who was in control. It has also led to warnings from more traditional Republicans that Trump's demand for loyalty over analysis is creating a trap for himself. 'Groupthink and a blinkered mindset are dangers for any administration,' said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which, in the days of bipartisanship, described itself as a bipartisan think tank. 'Pulling from multiple sources in and outside of government to develop solid options for foreign policy decision makers is the way to go.' Well, maybe in the Washington of a previous era. Within a 200-yard radius of USAID, DOGE teams moved into the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank that had significant private funding and money from Congress. They shuttered it, from its Cold War archives to the Kennan Institute, one of the country's leading collections of scholars about Russia. At a moment when superpower conflict is back, it was the kind of place that presented alternative views. Advertisement DOGE was unimpressed. Like their USAID colleagues in another part of the Ronald Reagan Building, they were soon stuffing their notes into cartons and discovering their computer access had been shut down. (The Wilson Center also sponsored book writers, including some from The New York Times.) The war on expertise has raised some fundamental questions that may not be answerable until after the Trump administration is over. Will the experts stick around -- after hiding out in the private sector or changing professions -- only to reoccupy the 'swamp'? And more immediately, what damage is being done in what may be the country's defining challenge: the competition with China over artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, electric vehicles, quantum computing? That is what many in the intelligence agencies worry about, not least because Europe is already openly recruiting disillusioned American scientists, and China's intelligence services are looking for the angry and abandoned. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who writes often on the U.S.-China technological and military competitions, told an audience at the AI Summit on Wednesday that America is not acting like it understands that 'China has emerged as a full-spectrum competitor.' 'Our secret sauce,' he said, has been the American ability to 'recruit the most talented people in the world. Einstein didn't come from America.' 'The idea that we would be taking action that would undermine that makes no sense to any strategic thinker,' he said. Of course, those strategic thinkers rank among the suspect class of Washington experts. This article originally appeared in
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Washington Post
NASA, Pentagon push for SpaceX alternatives amid Trump's feud with Musk
Federal officials at NASA and the Pentagon moved swiftly this week to urge competitors to Elon Musk's SpaceX to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft after President Donald Trump threatened to cancel Space X's contracts and Musk's defiant response. Government officials were especially stunned after Musk responded to Trump with a salvo of his own: SpaceX would stop flying its Dragon spacecraft, a move that would leave the space agency with no way to transport its astronauts to the International Space Station.
