Demographics of the U.S. Military

Demographics of the U.S. Military

Today, women represent 16 percent of the enlisted forces and 19 percent of the officer corps.
Today, women represent 16 percent of the enlisted forces and 19 percent of the officer corps. Ismael Ortega/U.S. Air Force via Reuters

Deployed around the world, the armed forces are a pillar of U.S. power and influence abroad. But many civilians are unfamiliar with their composition. How much does the military resemble U.S. society?

Last updated July 13, 2020 9:00 am (EST)

Today, women represent 16 percent of the enlisted forces and 19 percent of the officer corps.
Today, women represent 16 percent of the enlisted forces and 19 percent of the officer corps. Ismael Ortega/U.S. Air Force via Reuters
Backgrounder
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

Introduction

The U.S. military has taken significant steps over the past decade to build a more diverse and inclusive force that attracts the country’s top talent. In particular, the services have opened more doors for women in recent years, ending restrictions on combat roles. However, women and racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in parts of the military, particularly at the highest levels of leadership. The military has also opened its ranks to openly gay individuals, but it has maintained broad prohibitions on those who are transgender.

What are the military services?

More From Our Experts

The organizational structure of the U.S. military is complex. The Department of Defense has three military departments—Army, Navy, and Air Force—but there are six armed services. The Army is organized within its own department, while the navy and Marine Corps both fall under the Department of the Navy, and the Air Force and the newly established Space Force are services within the Department of the Air Force.

More on:

Defense and Security

Race and Ethnicity

Women and Women's Rights

United States

U.S. Department of Defense

The Coast Guard is by law “a military service and a branch of the armed forces” but is part of the Department of Homeland Security. That is because the coast guard is predominately a law enforcement agency, although it does deploy with the navy and marine corps on certain missions. Collectively, the three maritime forces are sometimes called the sea services.

Additionally, there are seven reserve military forces [PDF], which will not be discussed here.

How big are the military services?

The United States ended the draft for military service in 1973, transitioning to the all-volunteer force that exists today. At that time, the active component of the military, excluding the coast guard, comprised 1.9 million men and women, or about 1 percent of the population. Now, there are about 1.3 million active-duty personnel, or less than one-half of 1 percent of the U.S. population.

More From Our Experts

The army is the largest U.S. military service, followed by the navy, air force, marine corps, and coast guard. The space force became its own branch of the armed services in late 2019 and is still developing.

How old are service members?

The military, which has strict age limits, is younger than the civilian population, but the numbers differ significantly by service. The age ranges of the services vary most on the enlisted side: the coast guard tends to have older members, and marines tend to be younger. About 70 percent of enlisted marines are twenty-four years old or younger, compared with about 30 percent of enlisted coast guard members.

More on:

Defense and Security

Race and Ethnicity

Women and Women's Rights

United States

U.S. Department of Defense

How affluent are enlisted recruits?

Most members of the military come from middle-class neighborhoods. The middle three quintiles for household income were overrepresented among enlisted recruits, and the top and bottom quintiles were underrepresented.

Where are enlisted recruits from?

Enlisted military members come from all fifty states and the District of Columbia, but some contribute more than others. In absolute terms, the top five for recruitment in 2018 were California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and New York, which is reflective of their relatively large populations.

Another way of analyzing this data is to look at representation ratios, which show recruits as a share of a jurisdiction’s residents between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four. From this perspective, the picture is significantly different. A ratio of 1.0 means the jurisdiction’s share of recruits in 2018 was equal to its share of eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds.

South Carolina had the highest representation ratio, at 1.5, meaning it contributed 50 percent more than its share of the country's eighteen- to twenty-four-year-old population. Florida, Hawaii, Georgia, and Alabama round out the top five. On the other end of the spectrum—jurisdictions that contribute fewer recruits than their share of eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds, or those with ratios less than 1.0—are Washington, DC, North Dakota, Massachusetts, Utah, and Rhode Island.

How racially and ethnically diverse is the military?

Federal agencies categorize race into five groups—white, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Ethnicity, which the government considers distinct from race, is divided into two categories: Hispanic or Latino, and not Hispanic or Latino. The racial and ethnic diversity of enlisted recruits varies considerably across the services and between genders.

Racial diversity decreases at the upper echelons of the military. While the officer corps has similar levels of racial diversity as the general population, those with higher ranks—generals in the air force, army, and marine corps, and admirals in the coast guard and navy—are disproportionately white. There is an even greater ethnic disparity in the top ranks.

At what levels are women serving?

When the draft ended in 1973, women represented just 2 percent of the enlisted forces and 8 percent of the officer corps. Today, those numbers are 16 percent and 19 percent, respectively, a significant increase over the past half century.

Again, the numbers vary widely by service. Women accounted for about one-fifth of the officers in every military service except the marine corps, where they made up just 8 percent of the total. In the army, air force, and coast guard, the ratio of women officers was higher than that for women enlisted.

Do LGBTQ+ individuals serve in the military?

The military does not report data on LGBTQ+ service members.

President Barack Obama’s administration allowed openly gay individuals to serve in the military with its repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 2010. Prior to that, gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals could serve but were forced to conceal their sexual orientation.

In 2016, President Obama allowed transgender individuals to also serve openly in the armed forces, but the policy shift was later reversed by President Donald J. Trump. Today, the military does not accept transgender recruits, with few exceptions, but it allows those who entered between the 2016 decision and Trump’s reversal to continue to serve.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Trade

President Trump doubled almost all aluminum and steel import tariffs, seeking to curb China’s growing dominance in global trade. These six charts show the tariffs’ potential economic effects.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.