Twenty years ago, military communities across the country braced for the impact of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, which was the largest, most complex and most expensive in history. With 222 closures, realignments and mission changes, BRAC 2005 reshaped America’s defense infrastructure, shifting the process from routine downsizing to strategic transformation.

Now, the idea of BRAC — or something like it — is resurfacing. A new administration has launched a government-wide efficiency initiative through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). With the Pentagon managing 26 million acres of U.S. real estate, base closures and realignments may be back on the table.

For defense communities, this isn’t unfamiliar, but the path forward is uncertain. Are we heading into a sixth BRAC round? Will it mirror the transformational changes of 2005, the downsizing of the ’80s and ’90s, the closures of the ’70s, or will it take on an entirely new form?

The stakes are high for local economies but also for military readiness. And before any decisions are made, key questions must be asked.

If the goal is quick savings, base closures may not deliver. BRAC has never been a rapid cost-cutting tool. Savings take decades, if they come at all. BRAC 2005 showed that without a corresponding reduction in force structure, closures often created new costs — relocating missions, moving personnel, and rebuilding infrastructure — on top of long-term environmental liabilities. A future round is unlikely to be any less expensive.

The alternative? A hasty, unstructured approach — closing bases quickly to chase savings. The Department of Defense tried this in the 1970s and ’80s, and history shows it doesn’t work. Without transparency or planning, closures devastated local economies and triggered political backlash so intense that future closures became nearly impossible. That’s why BRAC was created in the first place: to ensure structure, fairness and accountability in making difficult — but necessary — decisions.

BRAC isn’t perfect. It’s often called the best worst tool we have. No community welcomes closure or downsizing, and the reality is that recovery can take decades. More than 200 communities have faced this challenge, and there are no shortcuts, despite what some may promise.

For nearly 50 years, our organization, the Association of Defense Communities, has represented more than 300 military communities. We have always trusted DOD and Congress to make decisions about infrastructure in the interest of national security. But we believe those decisions must be made through a fair, transparent, strategic and criteria-driven process. And when tough calls are made, communities must receive the support to respond and recover.

Despite repeated requests from DOD, BRAC has stalled since 2005 — not just due to political resistance, but also because of its deep and lasting impacts. BRAC 2005 was transformational but also highly disruptive. If future decisions are rushed or driven solely by cost, we risk undermining readiness and stability at a moment when our homeland is no longer a sanctuary.

It’s time for DOD and Congress to clarify where this conversation is headed. Uncertainty delays investment in housing, schools and local infrastructure. Military families feel that instability most acutely, which is why clear plans and predictable processes matter.

Our nation’s security starts at home — in America’s defense communities. Whatever comes next, we stand ready to adapt, support and strengthen the long-term readiness of our military and the communities that serve alongside them.

Karen Holt is president of the Association of Defense Communities.