The graph illustrates the number of personnel in each branch of the U.S. Military for the year 2025. The x-axis lists the military branches: Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. The y-axis represents the number of personnel, ranging from 41,689 to 452,823. Among the branches, the Army has the highest number of personnel with 452,823, followed by the Navy with 337,209 and the Air Force with 321,211. The Marine Corps and Coast Guard have 170,201 and 41,689 personnel, respectively. The data is displayed in a bar graph format, effectively highlighting the distribution of military personnel across the different branches.

Throughout the 19th century, the share of military personnel employed by the United States government was below 0.2 percent of the total population in most years. There were noticeable spikes in enlistments and conscriptions during the American Civil War (1861-65), the First World War (1917-18*), and Second World War (1941-45*), as well as smaller increases during the Mexican-American War (1946-48) and the Spanish-American War (1898), but figures were generally much lower than the post-WWII era.

Following the Second World War, the United States abandoned many of its isolationist positions as it sought to become the world's leading superpower. This involved stationing millions of troops in overseas bases during the Cold War, in strategically important locations such as West Germany, Japan, and Taiwan. Additionally, involvement in conflicts such as the Korean War (1950-1953) and Vietnam War (1964-1973*) kept military employment high, usually between 1-2 percent until the 1970s. Figures remained just below the one percent mark until the 1990s, when the end of the Cold War and the growing influence of technology in conventional warfare saw a decrease in demand for many traditional combat roles. Despite U.S. involvement in a number of overseas conflicts in the 21st century, military personnel represented less than 0.5 percent of the total population in most years between 2000 and 2016.

The U.S. Army remains the largest branch of the American military, with 449,344 active duty personnel in 2023. While the Army leads in numbers, the newly established Space Force had just 8,879 active duty members, highlighting the evolving nature of modern warfare and the increasing importance of space-based capabilities. Confidence in military remains high Despite fluctuations in force size, public trust in the U.S. military remains strong. In 2024, 61 percent of Americans expressed a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the armed forces, a slight increase from the previous year. While a slightly higher share of Republicans have shown more confidence in the military, trust in the institution remains high across party lines. Global commitments The United States continues to invest heavily in its military capabilities, with defense spending reaching 916.02 billion U.S. dollars in 2023. This substantial budget supports not only domestic defense needs but also enables the U.S. to respond to global crises, as evidenced by the over 40 billion euros in military aid provided to Ukraine following Russia's invasion. The high level of spending, which translates to about 2,220 U.S. dollars per capita.

At the end of the fiscal year of 2024, it is estimated that there will be ** Generals serving the United States Army, and a total of ******* enlisted personnel. Military personnel The military departments in the United States are: the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Marine Corps, and the U.S. Coast Guards. The President of the United States is the military’s overall head and forms the military policy with the U.S. Department of Defense. The U.S. military is one of the largest militaries in term of number of personnel. The largest branch of the United States Armed Forces is the United States Army. The United States Army is responsible for land-based military operations. The active duty U.S. Army personnel number has decreased from 2010 to 2021. In 2010, there were ******* active duty U.S. Army members, as compared to ******* in 2021. The number of active duty U.S. Navy personnel has decreased slowly over the past 20 years. In 2021, there were ******* active duty Navy members in the United States Navy. The United States Navy personnel are enlisted sailors, commissioned officers, and midshipmen. Sailors have to take part in Personnel Qualification Standards, to prove that they have mastered skills. The United States Air Force is the aerial warfare service branch of the United States. The active duty U.S. Air Force personnel numbers also decreased between 1995 and 2015, although has started to increase slightly since 2015. The number decreased again in 2021, when the Air Force had ******* personnel.

United States US: Armed Forces Personnel: Total data was reported at 1,348,400.000 Person in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 1,347,300.000 Person for 2015. United States US: Armed Forces Personnel: Total data is updated yearly, averaging 1,546,000.000 Person from Sep 1985 (Median) to 2016, with 29 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 2,240,000.000 Person in 1989 and a record low of 1,347,300.000 Person in 2015. United States US: Armed Forces Personnel: Total data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Defense and Official Development Assistance. Armed forces personnel are active duty military personnel, including paramilitary forces if the training, organization, equipment, and control suggest they may be used to support or replace regular military forces.; ; International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance.; Sum; Data for some countries are based on partial or uncertain data or rough estimates.

In 2025, there were estimated to be approximately 34,500 active-duty United States military personnel in Germany, the highest of any European country.

Actual value and historical data chart for United States Armed Forces Personnel Percent Of Total Labor Force

In 2023, there were around 1.11 million active duty U.S. Armed Forces personnel stationed within the United States. In that year, there were 156,418 U.S. Armed Forces personnel stationed in California, the most of any state.

This graph shows the total number of active duty U.S. military personnel by service branch as of 2010. At this time there were 323,139 military personnel in the Navy and 329,640 personnel in the Air Force.

As of May 2025, China had the largest armed forces in the world by active duty military personnel, with about *********** active soldiers. India, the United States, North Korea, and Russia rounded out the top five largest armies. Difference between active and reserve personnel Active personnel, also known as active duty in the United States and active service in the United Kingdom, are those individuals whose full-time occupation is being part of a military force. Active duty contrasts with a military’s reserve force, which are individuals who have both a military role and a civilian career. The number of active duty forces in the U.S. is much larger than its reserve membership. What is the strongest army? The strength of a country’s armed forces is not only determined by how many personnel they maintain, but also the number and quality of their military equipment. For example, looking only at personnel does not factor in the overwhelmingly higher number of nuclear warheads owned by Russia and the United States compared to other countries. One way to answer this question is to look at the total amount of money each country spends on their military, as spending includes both personnel and technology. In terms of countries with the highest military spending, the United States leads the world with an annual budget almost ***** times larger than second-placed China.

The average for 2020 based on 12 countries was 173083 people. The highest value was in Brazil: 762000 people and the lowest value was in Suriname: 2000 people. The indicator is available from 1985 to 2020. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Armed forces personnel, total in United States was reported at 1395000 in 2020, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. United States - Armed forces personnel, total - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on November of 2025.

Graph and download economic data for Total Population: All Ages including Armed Forces Overseas (POP) from Jan 1952 to Dec 2025 about population and USA.

United States - Total Population: All Ages including Armed Forces Overseas was 343157.45000 Thous. in December of 2025, according to the United States Federal Reserve. Historically, United States - Total Population: All Ages including Armed Forces Overseas reached a record high of 343157.45000 in December of 2025 and a record low of 156309.00000 in January of 1952. Trading Economics provides the current actual value, an historical data chart and related indicators for United States - Total Population: All Ages including Armed Forces Overseas - last updated from the United States Federal Reserve on December of 2025.

There were 449,344 active duty U.S. Army members in 2023. This amount represents a slight decrease in comparison to the number recorded in the previous year. Overall, there were 1.27 million active duty U.S. Department of Defense members, including officers and enlisted personnel in 2023.

United States US: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data was reported at 3.149 % in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 3.222 % for 2016. United States US: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data is updated yearly, averaging 4.864 % from Sep 1960 (Median) to 2017, with 58 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 9.063 % in 1967 and a record low of 2.908 % in 1999. United States US: Military Expenditure: % of GDP data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Defense and Official Development Assistance. Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. Such expenditures include military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country). Excluded are civil defense and current expenditures for previous military activities, such as for veterans' benefits, demobilization, conversion, and destruction of weapons. This definition cannot be applied for all countries, however, since that would require much more detailed information than is available about what is included in military budgets and off-budget military expenditure items. (For example, military budgets might or might not cover civil defense, reserves and auxiliary forces, police and paramilitary forces, dual-purpose forces such as military and civilian police, military grants in kind, pensions for military personnel, and social security contributions paid by one part of government to another.); ; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security.; Weighted average; Data for some countries are based on partial or uncertain data or rough estimates.

In the fiscal year of 2019, 21.39 percent of active-duty enlisted women were of Hispanic origin. The total number of active duty military personnel in 2019 amounted to 1.3 million people.

Ethnicities in the United States The United States is known around the world for the diversity of its population. The Census recognizes six different racial and ethnic categories: White American, Native American and Alaska Native, Asian American, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. People of Hispanic or Latino origin are classified as a racially diverse ethnicity.

The largest part of the population, about 61.3 percent, is composed of White Americans. The largest minority in the country are Hispanics with a share of 17.8 percent of the population, followed by Black or African Americans with 13.3 percent. Life in the U.S. and ethnicity However, life in the United States seems to be rather different depending on the race or ethnicity that you belong to. For instance: In 2019, native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders had the highest birth rate of 58 per 1,000 women, while the birth rae of white alone, non Hispanic women was 49 children per 1,000 women.

The Black population living in the United States has the highest poverty rate with of all Census races and ethnicities in the United States. About 19.5 percent of the Black population was living with an income lower than the 2020 poverty threshold. The Asian population has the smallest poverty rate in the United States, with about 8.1 percent living in poverty.

The median annual family income in the United States in 2020 earned by Black families was about 57,476 U.S. dollars, while the average family income earned by the Asian population was about 109,448 U.S. dollars. This is more than 25,000 U.S. dollars higher than the U.S. average family income, which was 84,008 U.S. dollars.

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) make up approximately 4-5% of the total U.S. Armed Forces (U.S. Department of Defense, 2017); however, little is known about their experiences and general well-being. Recent studies that have explored the well-being of service members suggest a lack of adequate representation of AAPIs in research and also identify AAPIs as having the highest rates of suicide within the military (Eisen et al., 2012; Foynes et al., 2015; Pietrzak et al., 2015; Schoenbaum et al., 2014). Social interactions and teamwork are essential to efficient operations and functioning in the military. Positive social experiences, such as strong unit cohesion, may serve as a protective factor against negative life events, whereas instances of discrimination may place chronic strain on an individual’s well-being (Adams et al., 2017; Adler & Castro, 2013; Williams et al., 2016). To address a significant gap in the current literature and develop a better understanding of AAPIs in the military, this study examined how AAPIs’ social experiences in the U.S. military influence their health and well-being. Significant relationships were identified between perceived workplace discrimination and unit cohesion, perceived discrimination and health outcomes, and unit cohesion and health outcomes. Implications for policy, practice, and theory, limitations of the current study, and future directions for research are discussed.

A defense contractor is a business organization or individual that provides products or services to a military or intelligence department of a government. Products typically include military or civilian aircraft, ships, vehicles, weaponry, and electronic systems, while services can include logistics, technical support and training, communications support, and engineering support in cooperation with the government.

Security contractors do not generally provide direct support of military operations. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, military contractors engaged in direct support of military operations may be legitimate targets of military interrogation.

In the United States, defense contracting has taken an increasingly larger role. In 2009, the Department of Defense spent nearly $316 billion on contracts. Contractors have assumed a much larger on-the-ground presence during American conflicts: during the 1991 Gulf War the ratio of uniformed military to contractors was about 50 to 1, while during the first four years of the Iraq War the U.S. hired over 190,000 contractors, surpassing the total American military presence even during the 2007 Iraq surge and 23 times greater than other allied military personnel numbers. In Afghanistan, the presence of almost 100,000 contractors has resulted in a near 1-to-1 ratio with military personnel.The surge in spending on defense services contractors that began in 2001 came to a halt in 2009, leading to the Better Buying Power initiative of 2010.

For years there has been a tremendous gap in our understanding of the mental health effects of deployment and the efforts by military forces at trying to minimize or mitigate these. Many military forces have recently systematized the mental support that is provided to support operational deployments. However, the rationale for doing so and the consequential allocation of resources are felt to vary considerably across North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) International Security Assistance (ISAF) partners. This review aims to compare the organization and practice of mental support by five partnering countries in the recent deployment in Afghanistan in order to identify and compare the key methods and structures for delivering mental health support, describe bottlenecks and illustrate new developments. Information was collected through document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key military mental healthcare stakeholders. The review resulted from close collaboration between key military mental healthcare professionals within the Australian Defense Forces (ADF), Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), United Kingdom Armed Forces (UK), Netherlands Armed Forces (NLD), and the United States Army (US). Key stakeholders were interviewed about the mental health support provided during a serviceperson's military career. The main items discussed were training, prevention, early identification, intervention, and aftercare in the field of mental health. All forces reported that much attention was paid to mental health during the individual's military career, including deployment. In doing so there was much overlap between the rationale and applied methods. The main method of providing support was through training and education. The educative focus was to strengthen the mental resilience of individual soldiers while providing a range of mental healthcare services. All forces had abandoned standard psychological debriefing after critical incidents. Instead, by default, mental healthcare professionals acted to support the leader and peer led “after action” reviews. All countries provided professional mental support close to the front line, aimed at early detection and early return to normal activities within the unit. All countries deployed a mental health support team that consisted of a range of mental health staff including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, mental health nurses, and chaplains. There was no overall consensus in the allocation of mental health disciplines in theatre. All countries (except the US) provided troops with a third location decompression (TLD) stop after deployment, which aimed to recognize what the deployed units had been through and to prepare them for transition home. The US conducted in-garrison ‘decompression’, or ‘reintegration training’ in the US, with a similiar focus to TLD. All had a reasonably comparable infrastructure in the field of mental healthcare. Shared bottlenecks across countries included perceived stigma and barriers to care around mental health problems as well as the need for improving the awareness and recognition of mental health problems among service members. among service personnel as well as the need for improving the awareness and recognition of symptoms as being indicative of a mental health problems among service members. This analysis demonstrated that in all five partners state-of-the-art preventative mental healthcare was included in the last deployment in Afghanistan, including a positive approach towards strengthening the mental resilience, a focus on self-regulatory skills and self-empowerment, and several initiatives that were well-integrated in a military context. These initiatives were partly/completely implemented by the military/colleagues/supervisors and applicable during several phases of the deployment cycle. Important new developments in operational mental health support are recognition of the role of social leadership and enhancement of operational peer support. This requires awareness of mental problems that will contribute to reduction of the barriers to care in case of problems. Finally, comparing mental health support services across countries can contribute to optimal preparation for the challenges of military deployment.