The Pentagon's pay[1] review, conducted every four years, has found that service members are paid just as well, if not better, than similar civilians.

The review, known as the Quadrenial Review of Military Compensation[2], or QRMC, was unveiled Wednesday and reported that "the department's compensation package is strongly competitive with the civilian labor market," a senior defense official told reporters.

However, the official, who spoke on background to brief the press, also acknowledged what many troops have known for years -- that "there are areas for some improvements" in non-pay benefits like barracks, dining facilities and medical care "that will ultimately benefit service members, their families and the department as a whole."

Read Next: Widow of Air Force Missileer Who Died of Cancer Secures VA Benefits After Yearslong Fight[3]

The review, which is ultimately just a set of recommendations for lawmakers on Capitol Hill, comes on the heels of a massive 14.5% raise for the lowest military ranks that was passed by Congress last month[4] -- over the objections of the Biden administration.

According to the official, that pay bump will mean that the most junior enlisted service members jumped from making more money than 92 out of 100 of their civilian peers all the way up to 94 out of 100. Enlisted service members overall jumped from the 83rd percentile up to the 88th percentile.

A second official who spoke with reporters noted that the benchmark for military pay is currently set for the 70th percentile, but one of the report's recommendations is that Congress increase that threshold to 75 "so that … regular military compensation would exceed 74 out of 100 comparable civilians."

However, while the report didn't call for major pay hikes[5], it did recommend several tweaks to the benefits that troops get as part of their service.

"The targeted non-cash compensation, such as improving the barracks, getting greater access to medical care, improving dining facilities, child care ... may offer better returns on our investment for service members and families than simply increases in basic pay," the second official said.

Military.com has reported extensively on the fact that, while troops often receive special pay and allowances that their civilian counterparts don't get, their ability to actually make use of those benefits is spotty.

In September 2023, for example, a government watchdog report found[6] that the military's youngest and most vulnerable troops -- tens of thousands of service members -- who depend on barracks housing had been forced to live in rooms that were dangerous, disgusting or downright unlivable. Sometimes, they were even forced to be the ones to clean up these conditions themselves.

Meanwhile, the recruiting[7] websites for all the services note that housing is one of the key benefits afforded to service members, with the Marine Corps[8] compensation page[9] even saying that recruits are making "a reciprocal commitment" with Marines and that the Corps will "invest in you."

In other cases, service members reported that, while they were able to get a housing allowance, its power was significantly diminished because they were stuck in[10] an area with little available housing[11].

The defense official who spoke to reporters conceded that they have also gotten reports of troops not being able to make use of their food allowance either because of bad food or dining facility schedules that don't line up with the hours that troops work.

In November, Military.com reported[12] that soldiers at Fort Carson[13], Colorado, had recurring problems with food running out too quickly or that it was undercooked or stored at dangerous temperatures. These problems were occurring despite the fact that soldiers have no choice but to contribute an average of $460 per month from their Basic Allowance for Subsistence, or BAS, to the base.

A 2022 report[14] from the Government Accountability Office found that the Army[15] does not adequately track how often its food services are used by service members.

"We're also aware of those concerns from service members," the official said, before adding that the review recommends a "Quality of Life" review that would be designed to study such issues.

The official also said that the report proposes that the way the Basic Allowance for Housing[16] -- or BAH[17] -- is calculated be changed from providing a set amount based on the rank of the service member and the number of their dependents to "potentially setting BAH rates on the basis of number of bedrooms."

"We still obviously need to do some work on this, as to what it would look like ultimately but ... what the analysis recommended, and we believe would be appropriate, is a defined number of bedrooms based upon with or without dependents, and then by paygrade," they added.

Ultimately, it is up to lawmakers on Capitol Hill to take up the report's recommendations and draft policy changes and legislation.

Related: Biden Signs Defense Bill with Junior Enlisted Pay Hike, Ban on Treatments for Transgender Military Kids[18]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[19].

Read more

A soldier counts his money

The Pentagon's pay[1] review, conducted every four years, has found that service members are paid just as well, if not better, than similar civilians.

The review, known as the Quadrenial Review of Military Compensation[2], or QRMC, was unveiled Wednesday and reported that "the department's compensation package is strongly competitive with the civilian labor market," a senior defense official told reporters.

However, the official, who spoke on background to brief the press, also acknowledged what many troops have known for years -- that "there are areas for some improvements" in non-pay benefits like barracks, dining facilities and medical care "that will ultimately benefit service members, their families and the department as a whole."

Read Next: Widow of Air Force Missileer Who Died of Cancer Secures VA Benefits After Yearslong Fight[3]

The review, which is ultimately just a set of recommendations for lawmakers on Capitol Hill, comes on the heels of a massive 14.5% raise for the lowest military ranks that was passed by Congress last month[4] -- over the objections of the Biden administration.

According to the official, that pay bump will mean that the most junior enlisted service members jumped from making more money than 92 out of 100 of their civilian peers all the way up to 94 out of 100. Enlisted service members overall jumped from the 83rd percentile up to the 88th percentile.

A second official who spoke with reporters noted that the benchmark for military pay is currently set for the 70th percentile, but one of the report's recommendations is that Congress increase that threshold to 75 "so that … regular military compensation would exceed 74 out of 100 comparable civilians."

However, while the report didn't call for major pay hikes[5], it did recommend several tweaks to the benefits that troops get as part of their service.

"The targeted non-cash compensation, such as improving the barracks, getting greater access to medical care, improving dining facilities, child care ... may offer better returns on our investment for service members and families than simply increases in basic pay," the second official said.

Military.com has reported extensively on the fact that, while troops often receive special pay and allowances that their civilian counterparts don't get, their ability to actually make use of those benefits is spotty.

In September 2023, for example, a government watchdog report found[6] that the military's youngest and most vulnerable troops -- tens of thousands of service members -- who depend on barracks housing had been forced to live in rooms that were dangerous, disgusting or downright unlivable. Sometimes, they were even forced to be the ones to clean up these conditions themselves.

Meanwhile, the recruiting[7] websites for all the services note that housing is one of the key benefits afforded to service members, with the Marine Corps[8] compensation page[9] even saying that recruits are making "a reciprocal commitment" with Marines and that the Corps will "invest in you."

In other cases, service members reported that, while they were able to get a housing allowance, its power was significantly diminished because they were stuck in[10] an area with little available housing[11].

The defense official who spoke to reporters conceded that they have also gotten reports of troops not being able to make use of their food allowance either because of bad food or dining facility schedules that don't line up with the hours that troops work.

In November, Military.com reported[12] that soldiers at Fort Carson[13], Colorado, had recurring problems with food running out too quickly or that it was undercooked or stored at dangerous temperatures. These problems were occurring despite the fact that soldiers have no choice but to contribute an average of $460 per month from their Basic Allowance for Subsistence, or BAS, to the base.

A 2022 report[14] from the Government Accountability Office found that the Army[15] does not adequately track how often its food services are used by service members.

"We're also aware of those concerns from service members," the official said, before adding that the review recommends a "Quality of Life" review that would be designed to study such issues.

The official also said that the report proposes that the way the Basic Allowance for Housing[16] -- or BAH[17] -- is calculated be changed from providing a set amount based on the rank of the service member and the number of their dependents to "potentially setting BAH rates on the basis of number of bedrooms."

"We still obviously need to do some work on this, as to what it would look like ultimately but ... what the analysis recommended, and we believe would be appropriate, is a defined number of bedrooms based upon with or without dependents, and then by paygrade," they added.

Ultimately, it is up to lawmakers on Capitol Hill to take up the report's recommendations and draft policy changes and legislation.

Related: Biden Signs Defense Bill with Junior Enlisted Pay Hike, Ban on Treatments for Transgender Military Kids[18]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[19].

Read more

Sen. Joni Ernst speaks at the SASC confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth

A key senator who had been seen as a potential barrier to Pete Hegseth's confirmation as defense secretary has come out in support of him, signaling that Hegseth is now likely on a glide path to getting approved.

In a Tuesday evening interview with a radio station[1] in her home state, followed by a written statement, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, announced that she will vote to confirm Hegseth. Signs had been pointing in that direction, including her friendly exchange with Hegseth during his confirmation hearing hours earlier on Tuesday, but the comments made Ernst's position official and suggested any remaining hurdles to Hegseth's confirmation were falling.

"After four years of weakness in the White House, Americans deserve a strong secretary of defense," Ernst said in her written statement. "Our next commander in chief selected Pete Hegseth to serve in this role, and after our conversations, hearing from Iowans, and doing my job as a United States senator, I will support President Trump's pick for secretary of defense."

Read Next: Widow of [2]Air Force[3] Missileer Who Died of Cancer Secures [4]VA Benefits[5] After Yearslong Fight[6]

Some other Republicans seen as potential "no" votes on Hegseth, including Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, still haven't explicitly stated their position on him. But Ernst's voice was considered highly influential in the debate over him, and he can still be confirmed with a couple of GOP "no" votes even if all Democrats oppose him.

Ernst became an outsized figure in the debate over Hegseth's nomination because her personal story seemed to make her an obvious foil to him. She is a female combat veteran and sexual assault survivor, while he has said women shouldn't serve in combat and has been accused of sexual assault.

When President-elect Donald Trump first announced Hegseth was his choice to lead the Pentagon, Ernst had a tepid reaction, telling reporters[7] that "he's going to have to explain" himself.

But after two closed-door meetings with Hegseth -- and an intense pressure campaign from Trump supporters that included threats of primary election challenges -- Ernst's tone began to soften. After the second meeting, she put out a statement saying she would "support Pete through this process" and that she looks "forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources."

The hearing happened Tuesday and was highly contentious[8] for the typically collegial Senate Armed Services Committee.

At the hearing, Ernst laid out three areas of concern she wanted Hegseth to address: getting the Pentagon to pass an audit, keeping combat jobs open to women, and preventing military sexual assault.

In response, Hegseth promised to make auditing the Pentagon a priority, said he believes women should be able to serve in combat if "the standards remain high," and vowed to appoint a senior official to oversee sexual assault prevention efforts. Hegseth did not say how that official would differ from existing positions charged with overseeing sexual assault policies, such as the under secretary of defense for personnel or the director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.

Hegseth's assurances were enough for Ernst.

"As I serve on the Armed Services Committee, I will work with Pete to create the most lethal fighting force and hold him to his commitments of auditing the Pentagon, ensuring opportunity for women in combat while maintaining high standards, and selecting a senior official to address and prevent sexual assault in the ranks," she said in her statement Tuesday evening.

Another senator who also expressed early skepticism of Hegseth, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also released a supportive statement after Tuesday's hearing.

When allegations first surfaced that Hegseth had committed sexual assault, as well as mismanaged funding at two conservative veterans organizations and had a history of excessive drinking, Graham called the allegations "very disturbing."

But after a closed-door meeting with Hegseth, Graham dismissed allegations based on "anonymous sources" and told "Meet the Press" that he was "in a good place with Pete."

In his statement after Tuesday's hearing, Graham, who does not sit on the Armed Services Committee, commended Hegseth for doing a "very good job answering difficult questions."

"Democratic attacks were overly personal and fell flat," Graham added. "With today's performance, I believe Pete Hegseth's path to confirmation has been assured."

Hegseth needs only a simple majority to be confirmed, meaning he can lose up to three GOP senators and still be approved with Vice President-elect JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote, assuming all Democrats vote against him. The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to vote to advance Hegseth's nomination as soon as Monday, after which the full Senate would need to vote to confirm him.

Related: Hegseth Grilled About Women in Combat, Officer Purge in Confirmation Hearing[9]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[10].

Read more

Sen. Joni Ernst speaks at the SASC confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth

A key senator who had been seen as a potential barrier to Pete Hegseth's confirmation as defense secretary has come out in support of him, signaling that Hegseth is now likely on a glide path to getting approved.

In a Tuesday evening interview with a radio station[1] in her home state, followed by a written statement, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, announced that she will vote to confirm Hegseth. Signs had been pointing in that direction, including her friendly exchange with Hegseth during his confirmation hearing hours earlier on Tuesday, but the comments made Ernst's position official and suggested any remaining hurdles to Hegseth's confirmation were falling.

"After four years of weakness in the White House, Americans deserve a strong secretary of defense," Ernst said in her written statement. "Our next commander in chief selected Pete Hegseth to serve in this role, and after our conversations, hearing from Iowans, and doing my job as a United States senator, I will support President Trump's pick for secretary of defense."

Read Next: Widow of [2]Air Force[3] Missileer Who Died of Cancer Secures [4]VA Benefits[5] After Yearslong Fight[6]

Some other Republicans seen as potential "no" votes on Hegseth, including Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, still haven't explicitly stated their position on him. But Ernst's voice was considered highly influential in the debate over him, and he can still be confirmed with a couple of GOP "no" votes even if all Democrats oppose him.

Ernst became an outsized figure in the debate over Hegseth's nomination because her personal story seemed to make her an obvious foil to him. She is a female combat veteran and sexual assault survivor, while he has said women shouldn't serve in combat and has been accused of sexual assault.

When President-elect Donald Trump first announced Hegseth was his choice to lead the Pentagon, Ernst had a tepid reaction, telling reporters[7] that "he's going to have to explain" himself.

But after two closed-door meetings with Hegseth -- and an intense pressure campaign from Trump supporters that included threats of primary election challenges -- Ernst's tone began to soften. After the second meeting, she put out a statement saying she would "support Pete through this process" and that she looks "forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources."

The hearing happened Tuesday and was highly contentious[8] for the typically collegial Senate Armed Services Committee.

At the hearing, Ernst laid out three areas of concern she wanted Hegseth to address: getting the Pentagon to pass an audit, keeping combat jobs open to women, and preventing military sexual assault.

In response, Hegseth promised to make auditing the Pentagon a priority, said he believes women should be able to serve in combat if "the standards remain high," and vowed to appoint a senior official to oversee sexual assault prevention efforts. Hegseth did not say how that official would differ from existing positions charged with overseeing sexual assault policies, such as the under secretary of defense for personnel or the director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.

Hegseth's assurances were enough for Ernst.

"As I serve on the Armed Services Committee, I will work with Pete to create the most lethal fighting force and hold him to his commitments of auditing the Pentagon, ensuring opportunity for women in combat while maintaining high standards, and selecting a senior official to address and prevent sexual assault in the ranks," she said in her statement Tuesday evening.

Another senator who also expressed early skepticism of Hegseth, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also released a supportive statement after Tuesday's hearing.

When allegations first surfaced that Hegseth had committed sexual assault, as well as mismanaged funding at two conservative veterans organizations and had a history of excessive drinking, Graham called the allegations "very disturbing."

But after a closed-door meeting with Hegseth, Graham dismissed allegations based on "anonymous sources" and told "Meet the Press" that he was "in a good place with Pete."

In his statement after Tuesday's hearing, Graham, who does not sit on the Armed Services Committee, commended Hegseth for doing a "very good job answering difficult questions."

"Democratic attacks were overly personal and fell flat," Graham added. "With today's performance, I believe Pete Hegseth's path to confirmation has been assured."

Hegseth needs only a simple majority to be confirmed, meaning he can lose up to three GOP senators and still be approved with Vice President-elect JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote, assuming all Democrats vote against him. The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to vote to advance Hegseth's nomination as soon as Monday, after which the full Senate would need to vote to confirm him.

Related: Hegseth Grilled About Women in Combat, Officer Purge in Confirmation Hearing[9]

© Copyright 2025 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[10].

Read more

More Articles …