In a sweeping move to prioritize battlefield readiness and reduce administrative burden, the U.S. Army is slashing a significant portion of its mandatory training curriculum — a decision that removes or makes optional key courses such as combat lifesaving, law of war education, and resilience training.
Under new regulations, commanders will now have the authority to determine which courses their units truly need, a shift Army leaders say will allow soldiers to spend more time on tough, realistic field training.
“What our Army senior leaders are trying to do is make sure that they have as much time available so that they can focus on those things,” said Command Sgt. Maj. Chris Mullinax, the Army’s top enlisted leader for operations, planning, and training.
“There’s no distractions, there’s no burdens and our war fighters are focused on war fighting and that is absolutely tough, realistic training in the field.”
Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement
This change reflects a broader transformation under Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, who directed the cuts to “reduce administrative burdens” and return control to unit-level commanders.
The Army now mandates just 16 annual training courses per soldier — down from 27. The list of optional training now includes significant programs once considered vital, such as:
- Combat Lifesaver certification
- Law of war education
- Code of conduct training for captured personnel
- Online SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training
- Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) training
- Safety and occupational health courses
- Resiliency training
Mullinax emphasized that the revised model is not a total elimination but a targeted delegation of authority. “Not every organization needs to do those tasks at any given time,” he explained.
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
“Part of the message is saying to our commanders that, ‘hey, we trust you… you can assess your organization and manage that risk appropriately.’”
Perhaps the most controversial element of the reform is the complete removal of resilience training from the Army’s official leadership and development regulation.
The program, once a cornerstone of the Army’s Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness initiative, aimed to help soldiers navigate the stressors of military life.
It provided training on emotional strength, family stability, and coping mechanisms for adversity — particularly geared toward young soldiers and those deemed high-risk for mental health issues.
The previous training doctrine noted that the resilience program “had positive impacts on the psychological health of soldiers,” and that commanders integrating these lessons into daily routines saw benefits in team cohesion and emotional awareness.
Yet under the new regulation, the Army now considers the program “outdated.”
Mullinax pushed back on concerns of neglecting soldier well-being, stating, “Our resiliency training is happening every day, all the time, in good formations… it is built through a culture focused on a strong warrior ethos, tough, realistic training.”
Still, not everyone agrees. Retired Army Reserve Maj. Gen. Tammy Smith, who last served as special assistant to the assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and Reserve affairs, voiced concern that the removal could have long-term cultural consequences.
“Of course, we all learned resiliency by falling off the obstacle course and getting back up and that sort of thing,” Smith said. “But I didn’t have a language for it.
Without resiliency training, I could perhaps tell them, well stop crying. Buck up.”
She argued that the formal program helped leaders connect with struggling soldiers in meaningful ways, especially on personal issues that influence job performance.
“Where do I as a leader get my language now to talk to them about their own resiliency without at least some of this particular training?” she asked. “I don’t think we can assume people are just going to get it by taking it completely away.”
The move to reduce online training is in part a response to longstanding soldier complaints. Many within the ranks have criticized the heavy volume of required online coursework, which often overlapped with field responsibilities and deployment preparations.
Soldiers frequently found themselves completing training modules after hours, a reality even acknowledged by Mullinax.
“Some of these training modules are 40 hours, 80 hours,” he said. “Just imagine every soldier being required to do those things over an entire formation over time. It adds up to a lot of time back to the organization and to the soldiers.”
Public figures like Elon Musk have even mocked the perceived bloat of mandatory military education, sarcastically engaging with soldiers on social media over the volume of required online classes.
This isn’t the first time the Army has scaled back its professional development curriculum.
The service previously removed 346 hours of Professional Military Education (PME) courses, including lessons on Army doctrine, leadership, stress management, and even grammar.
The rationale: much of the content was deemed redundant or unnecessary for all soldiers.
While some worry that the flexibility given to commanders may create inconsistencies across units, Army leaders argue that the change will foster smarter, more relevant training.
A sustainment brigade, for example, may not require the same level of CBRN or combat lifesaver training as an infantry unit preparing for deployment.
Training requirements for soldiers in specialized fields — such as medics or CBRN specialists — will remain in place. But for all others, commanders now hold the reins.
Whether a unit conducts SERE training or resilience classes will depend on its mission, risk profile, and leadership’s judgment.
The Army has no dedicated unit or office to track the long-term effects of these training cuts, but Mullinax said outcomes will be gauged as they always have been — through conversations between leaders.
Whether this new model leads to a leaner, more efficient fighting force or creates gaps in readiness and soldier welfare remains to be seen.
For now, Army leadership is betting on a more agile approach — one that trusts commanders to shape their soldiers without micromanagement from higher headquarters.
But as Maj. Gen. Smith cautioned, “If they take it out of the regulation, and they remove all requirements from it, it will be something that eventually people don’t know about, incorporate or take into account. We’ll come to a place where we don’t know how to talk about it.”
The Army’s challenge now will be to maintain a force that is not only ready to fight, but resilient enough to endure the battles both on and off the field.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.