Trump Signs Into Law the 2026 Military Pay Raise. Here’s How Much You’ll Get

Are military members paid too much? In short -- No. One of the main studies used by Congress in the RAND Arroyo Center report was the latest one completed in 2025. In my opinion, it's not a valid study for an informed decision on this topic. Here is why.

The study referenced appears to be a 2019 RAND Arroyo Center report titled Setting Military Compensation to Support Recruitment, Retention, and Performance (RR-3197)

In 2025, another study was rigorously completed within its scope — Analyzing compensation as a strategic tool for manpower goals using historical data and economic modeling. In short, it was not designed as a fair or comprehensive "apples-to-apples" comparison of day-to-day roles, responsibilities, or schedules.

The core question is whether the study conducted a fair comparison when addressing roles, responsibilities, and work schedules.

No—the study did not perform a detailed, direct comparison of roles, responsibilities, or work schedules between military personnel and civilians (or across military branches/types).

The analysis centered on compensation efficiency in economic and human resources terms: Was pay set too high relative to benchmarks? Did it over- or under-incentivize certain outcomes? Were adjustments (e.g., annual pay raises) aligned with civilian wage growth or inflation? It highlighted issues like pay potentially exceeding benchmarks until around 2019 while still achieving strong recruiting/retention.

Roles and responsibilities were not the primary lens. Military service involves unique demands (e.g., deployments, combat risks, 24/7 readiness, frequent relocations, hierarchical structure, and legal obligations like the Uniform Code of Military Justice), which differ fundamentally from most civilian jobs.

Work schedules were not a central focus. Military life often includes irregular hours, shift work, field exercises, deployments, and on-call status—far from standard 9-to-5 civilian roles. The report did not systematically compare or adjust compensation for these factors in a granular way (e.g., via job evaluation metrics like those in civilian sector pay studies that factor in hours, stress, or hazard).

Instead, comparability relied on broad DoD-established benchmarks (e.g., pay roughly matching civilian wages for similar education/experience levels) plus retention/recruiting success metrics. Some have long criticized these benchmarks for not fully capturing military-unique burdens, risks, and lifestyle demands.

NOT COVERED:

Medical Hazards - Example, When injuries surged: From 2009 to 2010, genital injuries among troops in Afghanistan increased dramatically—from 4.8% to 9.1% of all war casualties arriving at the main U.S. military medical facility in Germany, representing a 90% increase. [Source Washington Post 08/11/2011]

The surge was particularly steep starting in September 2010. The U.S. Army didn't deploy its pelvic protection system (known as PUGS - Pelvic Protection Undergarment System) until June 2011 [army.mil - 02/23/2012]

Congress and the Army expedited action only came after 18+ months of mounting casualties.

Vietnam War: When the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program was created in 1965, combat warriors received $10,000 in life insurance coverage. That was a flat number. In comparison, the corporate world during that same era shows that the median employer-provided life insurance coverage was $20,000 or one year's salary, with some offering up to three times annual salary, and the ability to buy more term life insurance. The disparity is even more striking when you consider the relative risk. Corporate employees worked in air-conditioned offices while servicemembers faced daily mortal danger, yet the financial protection for a warrior's family was significantly less. The disparities have since been improved.

Yes, this is historical information, but the 2019 and 2025 reports are based on historical data. It demonstrates that the roles, responsibilities, and work schedules are inherently different and must be recognized.