03-20-2025

Revisions to the 2022 Unified Command Plan

MemorandumView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: A presidential memorandum approving and ordering the implementation of revisions to the 2022 Unified Command Plan (UCP). This plan is a classified document that sets the missions and responsibilities for the U.S. military's top-level commanders, known as Combatant Commanders.

Money: There is no direct financial impact specified in the memorandum. Costs or savings would be detailed within the classified Unified Command Plan itself and reflected in future Department of Defense budget proposals.

Your Impact: The direct impact on an average American is minimal. This action deals with the high-level organization of the military and does not directly alter daily life, taxes, or services. Its effects are primarily on military structure and foreign policy implementation.

Status: This presidential memorandum, dated March 14, 2025, directs the implementation of the revised plan. As an executive action, it does not move through the legislative process of introduction or committee review. It is now in effect.

What's Actually in the Bill

This executive memorandum is not a bill but a directive from the President in his capacity as Commander in Chief. It approves and orders the Secretary of Defense to implement an updated version of the Unified Command Plan (UCP), a foundational document that organizes the U.S. military's command structure. The UCP assigns missions, geographic areas of responsibility, and specific functions to the various Combatant Commands (COCOMs), which are the highest level of military command.

Core Provisions:

  • The President formally approves the revised 2022 Unified Command Plan.
  • The President directs the Secretary of Defense to implement these revisions.
  • The Secretary of Defense is instructed to notify Congress about the changes on the President's behalf, as required by law.
  • The memorandum is authorized for publication in the Federal Register, making the directive a matter of public record.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The stated purpose, inherent in the action, is to ensure the U.S. military's command structure is aligned with current strategic priorities. The UCP is reviewed at least every two years by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to adapt to changing global threats and national security needs. Changes can include shifting boundaries between commands, creating new commands, or reassigning responsibilities for specific missions like missile defense or cybersecurity.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Defense, National Security.
Timeline: The memorandum was signed on March 14, 2025, and directs immediate implementation.
Scope: The UCP has a global scope, organizing all U.S. military forces worldwide under a system of geographic and functional commands. Geographic commands cover specific regions like Europe (USEUCOM) or the Indo-Pacific (USINDOPACOM), while functional commands have worldwide responsibilities, such as U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) or U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

Post-World War II Reorganization (1940s-1980s):

The concept of unified command emerged from the lessons of World War II, where inter-service friction sometimes hindered operations. In 1946, the Joint Chiefs of Staff created the first "Outline Command Plan," the precursor to today's UCP, to establish clear command arrangements for peacetime. This system was formalized and has evolved over the decades, most significantly with the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, which clarified the chain of command and strengthened the role of the Combatant Commanders.

Post-Cold War & 21st Century Adaptation (1990s-Present):

The end of the Cold War and the rise of new threats prompted further evolution. The UCP is now updated biennially to reflect the current security environment. Major changes have included the creation of U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) for homeland defense after the 9/11 attacks, the establishment of U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) in 2007 to focus on that continent, and the growing importance of commands focused on global functions like cyber warfare and space operations.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • A biennial review of the Unified Command Plan is legally mandated, making this update a routine, albeit critical, part of military administration.
  • The current geopolitical landscape, with strategic competition involving China and Russia and other global threats, necessitates that the military's command structure is optimized to meet these challenges.
  • Recent discussions and reports preceding this update have included debates over consolidating commands to cut costs, the U.S. role in NATO, and the force posture in the Pacific, all of which could be addressed in the classified details of the revised UCP.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects the Department of Defense and its service members, but it has no immediate, tangible impact on most Americans.

What Could Change for You:

The revisions to the UCP are internal to the military. Any impact on the average citizen would be indirect and long-term, resulting from shifts in U.S. foreign policy or military priorities that these changes are designed to support.

Potential Benefits:

  • A more efficient and effective military command structure could enhance national security and better protect U.S. interests abroad.
  • Realigning commands might lead to long-term cost savings within the Department of Defense.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • There are no direct short-term costs or disruptions for the general public. Military personnel and their families may be affected by changes in assignments or stationing depending on the specific revisions.

Long-term:

  • Significant shifts in the UCP could reflect major changes in U.S. strategic priorities, potentially altering American military presence and engagement around the world. For example, a greater focus on one region could mean fewer resources allocated to another.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Active duty military personnel, Department of Defense civilian employees, and defense contractors whose work is tied to specific command headquarters or missions.
Secondary Groups: U.S. allies and partner nations who coordinate with specific U.S. combatant commands. Communities surrounding major military bases could see economic effects if command structures are significantly altered.
Regional Impact: The impact is global but concentrated in regions where command boundaries or responsibilities are shifted. For instance, past UCP changes have altered the areas of responsibility for commands covering the Middle East, Africa, and the Pacific.

Bottom Line: This executive action is an internal reorganization of the military's top-level command structure with no direct effect on the daily lives of most citizens.

Where the Parties Stand

Party positions on the high-level concept of the UCP are generally not sharply defined, as both support a strong national defense. Disagreements typically arise over the specific strategic choices reflected in the classified details of the plan.

Republican Position: "Peace Through Strength"

Core Stance: Generally favor a robust and forward-deployed military posture, with a strong emphasis on maintaining U.S. leadership in key alliances like NATO.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Support for clear command and control to ensure warfighting effectiveness.
  • ⚠️ Concerns often arise if revisions are perceived as weakening U.S. global leadership, such as relinquishing command of NATO forces or reducing force presence in critical regions like the Indo-Pacific.
  • ✗ Opposition to changes seen as unilateral or made without sufficient consultation with Congress and combatant commanders.

Legislative Strategy: Key Republican members of the Armed Services Committees have expressed that they will use congressional oversight and the "power of the purse" to challenge any changes they deem strategically unsound.

Democratic Position: "Investing in 21st Century Security"

Core Stance: Generally support a military structure that is adaptable, efficient, and aligned with modern threats, including non-military challenges. There is often an emphasis on ensuring civilian control over the military.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Support for aligning military structure with evolving global challenges and for ensuring clear civilian oversight of defense policy.
  • ⚠️ Concerns may be raised if changes are seen to over-militarize foreign policy or lack transparency.
  • ✗ Opposition to military structures that are seen as bloated, inefficient, or poorly suited for contemporary threats like cyberattacks or climate change.

Legislative Strategy: Democrats typically use the congressional hearing process to question the strategic rationale behind UCP changes and ensure they align with the administration's broader foreign policy and national security goals.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's action is based on his constitutional role as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" and statutory authorities granted by Congress.

U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

The memorandum also cites two specific federal statutes:

  • 10 U.S. Code § 161: This law requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to periodically review the missions and force structures of the combatant commands and to recommend any necessary changes to the President through the Secretary of Defense. It also requires that Congress be notified of changes.
  • 3 U.S. Code § 301: This statute allows the President to delegate functions vested in the presidency to the heads of executive departments, such as directing the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress.

Constitutional Implications:

Commander in Chief Power: The authority to organize the military's command structure is a core component of the President's power as Commander in Chief.
Precedent: The establishment and revision of the Unified Command Plan by the President is a long-standing practice dating back to 1946, consistently understood to fall within executive authority.
Federalism: This action pertains exclusively to the federal government's authority over the U.S. Armed Forces and has no implications for the powers reserved to the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

There are no significant legal vulnerabilities. The President is acting within a well-established framework of constitutional and statutory authority. Legal challenges are highly unlikely.

Your Action Options

Because this is a completed executive action dealing with internal military organization, direct public action to support or oppose the memorandum itself is not applicable in the same way as for a pending bill in Congress. However, citizens can influence the underlying strategic decisions that shape future UCP revisions.

TO INFLUENCE FUTURE DEFENSE POLICY

5-Minute Actions:

  • Contact Your Representatives/Senators: Call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to share your views on overall military strategy and priorities. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I believe U.S. defense policy should prioritize [e.g., competition with China, counter-terrorism, NATO, etc.]."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write to Armed Services Committees: Send a detailed email to the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee with your informed perspective on national security strategy.
  • Engage with Advocacy Groups: Join and support organizations that align with your views on defense policy and America's role in the world, whether they advocate for a stronger military presence globally or for more restraint.