Earlier this year the Army Futures Command was returned to the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, where its essential functions resided before AFC's establishment as a separate major command in Austin, Texas. “You can push those people back out to the field, generate combat power at the echelons that we need, instead of potentially having staff that is too big, or multiple headquarters, paying for multiple general officers’ homes,” according to a Defense official. (Ref: Hegseth issues Army a lengthy to-do list - Defense One).

Recently, the Air Force decided to not pursue its planned Integrated Capabilities Command, which was slated to become an independent command focused on developing the service’s future requirements into new systems. “This restructuring will accelerate the delivery of combat power, improve efficiency and shorten the decision timeline,” Air Force Sec. Troy Meink said in a statement. (Ref: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/10/17/us-air-force-scraps-plan-for-new-capabilities-command/)

Almost simultaneously, another Air Force planned major command now appears to be gone -- the Space Futures Command, which was meant to assess service needs 10 to 15 years out. According to Breaking Defense, the “collapse of Army Futures Command” was a factor in the Air Force’s rethink about the approach to Space Futures Command. However, even as this particular Futures Command reportedly "is dead", service officials are said to be discussing a replacement structure to plan for the future fight. That replacement could oversee an existing unit called SWAC [Space Warfighting and Analysis Center (SWAC)] and perhaps become a so-called "super-SWAC" aimed at satisfying future needs. Read more from Breaking Defense here [No future for Space Futures Command, sources say - Breaking Defense].

Given the Army and Air Force reversals, how many more existing military commands, or contemplated new commands, could be on the Department of War chopping block? Take the Navy, for example, with substantial interest in the "futures" of its ship and aircraft fleets. A glimpse was offered by a mid-year report that "could include 'eliminating up to five high-level admiral positions' within the US Navy ... those admirals oversee the construction of the sea service’s warships and combat aircraft." [Ref: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/will-firing-top-level-navy-leadership-hurt-us-military-power]. Changes in top-level leadership imply organizational changes. Stay tuned.

A final observation noted by Breaking Defense says it all: "This is not a good year to expand commands/bureaucracy in the Pentagon."