South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law today.
The move, marking the first-ever suspension of democratic rights in South Korea since the end of military dictatorship in 1987, is poised to send a tremendous political shockwave through South Korean society.
Presumably, the decision is driven in large part by Yoon’s motivation to navigate through his mounting domestic political struggles and to confront what he views as the opposition party’s efforts to upend his presidency.
South Koreans have been strongly displeased with Yoon’s governance. For months, Yoon’s approval rating has languishing in the low 20s — recently falling as low as 17%. In a November survey, 58% of South Koreans stated they would like to see Yoon’s resignation or impeachment. This was expected to get worse against the backdrop of a looming corruption scandal involving Yoon, his wife, and a political broker over alleged election interference.
In light of this, a growing number of opposition party politicians have begun to call for Yoon’s impeachment in the National Assembly.
From Yoon’s perspective, the overall destabilizing political situation is being caused by the opposition party’s strident campaign to undermine his rule. Alarmed that his legitimacy is increasingly at stake and in need of a breakthrough, Yoon appears to have found a solution in martial law, which would suspend the National Assembly and other political gatherings that could cause “social disorder.”
In the martial law declaration speech, Yoon called for an urgent need to “normalize” the country and explicitly criticized the opposition-dominated National Assembly’s various activities undermining his governance — including its 22 attempts to impeach his administration officials since his inauguration and cutting of 4.1 trillion won from his administration’s proposed budget for next year.
Following the announcement, South Korean lawmakers gathered in the National Assembly and voted to lift the martial law. What happens next remains to be seen, but today’s shocking event may very well serve against Yoon’s presumed intention to safeguard his rule, by potentially driving South Korean public opinion toward greater support of impeachment.
The martial law declaration may evoke vivid and sensitive memories of military dictatorship across South Korean society and be perceived by many South Koreans as a direct challenge to their democratic system.
James Park is a Research Associate at the Quincy Institute’s East Asia Program. His research interests include South Korean foreign policy and domestic politics, Chinese security issues, and U.S. policy vis-à-vis East Asia.
Top photo credit Republic of Korea President-elect Yoon, Suk-yeol conducts an office call with his staff and personnel from Combined Forces Command at Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea, April 7, 2022. President-elect Yoon visited Humphreys to receive an overview of United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, U.S. Forces Korea’s ironclad commitment to strengthening the US-ROK Alliance and providing a strong robust combined defense posture to maintaining peace, security, and stability of the Korean peninsula. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Kris Bonet)
Nearly a quarter century after the Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin the contract to develop the Joint Strike Fighter Program into the F-35, the government finally admitted the jet will never live up to Lockheed’s ambitious promises — used to sell the $2 trillion boondoggle to nearly 20 countries around the world.
The Government Accountability Office released a report last month detailing the ongoing challenges the program faces. The first paragraph of the highlights page includes this sentence:
“The program plans to reduce the scope of Block 4 to deliver capabilities to the warfighter at a more predictable pace than in the past.”
The casual reader will be forgiven for possibly glossing over the passage because of its anodyne wording. But the statement is a profound admission that the F-35 will never meet the capability goals set for the program. “Reduce the scope of Block 4” means that program officials are forgoing planned combat capabilities for the jets.
Block 4 is the term to describe ongoing design work for the program. It began in 2019 and was termed as the program’s “modernization” phase. In reality, Block 4 is just a continuation of the program’s initial development process. Officials were unable to complete the F-35’s basic design within the program’s initial budget and schedule. Rather than making that embarrassing admission and requesting more time and money from Congress, Pentagon officials claimed the initial development process was complete (it was not) and they were moving on to “modernization.” What they really did was simply reclassify initial development work with a fancy rebrand.
So, when program officials say they plan to “reduce the scope of Block 4,” they are saying the F-35 will not have all the combat capabilities that were supposed to be a part of the original design.
This is a remarkable development. The American people have been paying a premium for more than two decades to develop and build the most sophisticated strike fighter jet in history. Pentagon officials, politicians, and defense industry executives have been saying for years that the United States needed the F-35 and all its planned capabilities to maintain a qualitive technological advantage over potential rivals. The combat capabilities at the top of the “scope” of Block 4 included some related to electronic warfare, weapons, communication, and navigation according to the GAO. These top-level capabilities were the ones for which the American people supposedly needed to pay a premium.
By admitting that the program cannot deliver the jets that were promised is really an admission that the entire project is a failure. The implications of that could be profound beyond the money that has been wasted throughout the past quarter century. There are 19 countries that either already are, or will shortly, operate F-35s after buying them from the United States. Several countries like the United Kingdom, Norway, and Italy have been a part of the program well before Lockheed Martin won the contract to develop the F-35. These countries have invested heavily in the program with the expectation that they would receive the most combat capable aircraft in history. All have seen their costs rise throughout the years and now they find out that the jets will never live up to the hype.
So, in addition to being a military disaster, the F-35 many also prove to be a foreign relations disaster as well. F-35 boosters in the United States sold the jet to the leaders of these countries with elaborate pitches of the combat capabilities they planned to deliver. There were also promises made early in the process about the program’s affordability, which seem comical today. The next time an American attempts to sell a “transformative” weapon abroad, they shouldn’t be terribly surprised if a potential customer expresses skepticism. F-35 customers have paid a fortune above the quoted price, receiving only a fraction of what was promised. The United States may find a shrinking market for weapons exports in the years ahead.
This should be a moment of deep reflection for the entire national security establishment. The F-35 was never going to live up to expectations because its very concept was deeply flawed. Trying to build one jet that could serve as a multi-role aircraft to meet the needs of just a single military branch is a highly risky proposition. When you try to build a single jet to meet the multi-role needs of at least 15 separate militaries, while also being a global jobs program and political patronage scheme, you get a $2 trillion albatross.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: August 18, 2025, Washington, District Of Columbia, USA: Top European leaders in the Oval Office, Monday, August 18, 2025. (Credit Image: Daniel Torok/White House/ZUMA Press Wire)
Last month, Lithuania’s former foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis pithily diagnosedEurope as being stuck in a perpetual geopolitical Groundhog Day. Landsbergis is quite correct, though for reasons that would leave him unsmiling.
Europe’s problem is not its hesitance to confront Russia, one quality it enjoys in ample abundance, but its insistence on prioritizing short-term measures over a realistic strategy for ending the war in Ukraine.
This lack of a strategic vision has resulted in an “act first, think later” mentality, incentivized on the level of the European bureaucracy and the domestic politics of the EU’s biggest players. Nowhere is this better observed than on the perennial question of the several hundred billion euros’ worth of Russian assets held by Euroclear in Belgium.
European leaders have embarked on a renewed push to seize these assets, frozen at the start of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, in a bid to find funding sources for Ukraine’s war effort.
The latest scheme along these lines seeks to provide Ukraine with a zero-interest €140 billion “reparation loan” from the frozen Russian assets. This loan will only be repaid if Russia agrees to provide sizable reparations to Ukraine.
There is little to say on the mechanics of this plan that has not already been raised by the Belgian government, which is being strong-armed by EU leadership, Germany, and several other European states into shouldering nearly all the risks without being provided any clear benefits.
"There's no free money. There are always consequences," said Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever. "I explained to my colleagues yesterday that I want their signature saying: 'If we take Putin's money, we use it, we're all going to be responsible if it goes wrong.’"
And things will indeed go wrong in that there is no plan for forcing repayment on Russia, which means the full risks and costs will functionally be assumed by European member states.
This plan’s only major innovation over prior schemes is its supposed workaround on the thorny issue of legality. Greenlighting outright seizure of Russia’s sovereign assets will undermine the credibility of European financial institutions and exercise a chilling effect on non-Western investors at a time when European countries are facing significant long-term macroeconomic pressures.
Proponents claim that the plan, because it is a loan subject to conditional Ukrainian repayment, technically does not dispute Russia’s sovereign claim over its assets. This bureaucratic workaround will be of ill solace to international investors. The complex machinery of global financial institutions runs on predictability and widespread agreement on a set of predetermined rules of the game about market relations and the property rights that underpin them.
If the EU bestows itself the ex nihilo right to commandeer someone else’s assets, something not established in international law or recognized by anyone else as a legitimate practice, it will be seen and treated as an expropriation in all but name with the full consequences to Europe’s reputation that this entails.
If the goal is to secure from Russia something that can reasonably be called Ukraine reparations, this can be accomplished in a much easier and safer way. There is a widespread recognition in Moscow that Russia is unlikely to get its European assets back. The real question is the terms on which the Kremlin will lose its money, and here, regardless of what some European leaders say, Russia’s legal ownership over these assets does give it leverage in determining their fate.
As my colleagues George Beebe and Anatol Lieven previously suggested, the West should open a negotiating cluster as part of the Ukraine peace talks to utilize the frozen assets toward a postwar international reconstruction fund for Ukraine. Depending on how talks progress, the West can offer to allocate part of the money to support people and territories that end up on Russia’s side of the postwar delimitation line.
An overseeing U.N. committee can ensure that funds used in this way go exclusively toward humanitarian, non-military projects.
The precise apportionment for Russian-controlled territories is itself subject to negotiations and will depend on what the rest of the peace deal looks like, but the West can and should argue that the lion’s share will go to Ukraine in exchange for Moscow’s agreement to unfreeze assets held by Western companies in Russia. This deal negates any concerns about financial blowback against Europe, as Russia would have to relinquish its sovereign claim over the frozen assets in order for them to be utilized toward the international reconstruction fund.
Linking these assets to a broader war termination framework rather than seizing them now strengthens the West’s negotiating position in determining the contours of a peace deal. It generates additional financial incentives, especially if coupled with a roadmap to sanctions relief, for Moscow to come to the negotiating table.
It’s not difficult to see why Europeans have revived asset seizure schemes after a string of failed initiatives along similar lines. Drying funds for Kyiv and gradual American disengagement from the war have stirred European leaders, whose goal is to sustain Ukraine’s war effort for as long as possible, to contemplate steps previously thought impossible or too risky.
It falls on the White House to convey to our allies that achieving a lasting settlement is in Western interests precisely because it frees Europe from the burdens of indefinitely financing this war, and to work on a continuous basis to secure European and Ukrainian consensus on a viable war termination framework.
keep readingShow less
Chris Pratt (Joe Seer/Shutterstock); Israel flag (Shutterstock); Stephen Curry (Reuters)
A newly created firm called Show Faith by Works is carrying out a $3.2 million outreach and digital targeting campaign to Christian churches in the western United States on behalf of the Israeli government. The firm’s goal, as described in its filing under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, is to increase “positive associations with the Nation of Israel, while linking the Palestinian population with extremist factors.”
Show Faith by Works will carry out the campaign through December for its work, which includes targeting churchgoers with pro-Israel ads “geofencing” major churches, hiring celebrity spokespeople, and visiting churches and colleges with a mobile trailer called the “10/7 Experience” on behalf of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In one slide of the proposed plan, the firm listed a number of potential “Christian Celebrity Spokespeople” for Israel, including actors Jon Voight and Chris Pratt, former NFL player Tim Tebow, NBA player Steph Curry, and a number of megachurch pastors. According to the document, the athletes and celebrities would be expected to “deliver pro-israel (sic) Messaging.”
In response to a question whether Jon Voight has been offered to work as a spokesperson for Israel, Siri Garber, a public relations executive who represents the actor, explained in an email that she was unaware of any offer.
“Not that I know of but it’s about time they start trying to combat the Pro Pali prooganda (sic) machine. They should choose some w[h]o are a[pp]ealing (sic) to the Gen Alphas and Millenials etc as that is where all the misinformation lies,” wrote Garber in the email. In response to a follow-up question about whether Voight would consider such a request, Garber responded “No idea.”
Chad Schnitger, who is leading the contract for Show Faith by Works, told RS in an email that as of now, none of the celebrities mentioned in slide deck had been contacted. “This was an early planning document with a variety of options that were discussed but nothing set in stone,” he said.
“We’re very proud of the way the project has grown since these early planning sessions and we’re eager to show it to the world once we get more details and materials in place,” he added.
Schnitger’s firm also proposed a “10/7 Experience” mobile trailer that would tour Christian colleges, churches, and events highlighting the atrocities of October 7, 2023. The trailer will feature a “wall-length mounted TV with updated information, pro-Israel media” and footage of the “IDF explaining the difficulty of fighting bad guys in hostile territory with civilians.”
Show Faith by Work’s goal is to reach some 3.8 million churchgoers. Of those, the firm estimates getting around 5-10% to “agree to our programs or attend our events or sign a pledge card.”
As part of this outreach, Show Faith by Works will be launching targeted pro-Israel ads to churchgoers in what it promised to be the “Largest Geofencing and targeted Christian Digital Campaign ever.” Geofencing uses location-based marketing to send notifications and advertisements. For instance, users that have enabled location services on their phone may see an AT&T ad if they are walking near an AT&T store.
Show Faith by Works pledged to “geofence the actual boundaries of every Major church in California, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado and all Christian Colleges during worship times.” The firm said it will then “Track attendees and continue to target with ads” on behalf of Israel.
All of this is part of a campaign to “combat low American Evangelic Christian approval of the Nation of Israel’ and “counter new and evolving pro-Palestinian messaging as the global narrative shifts.”
A Pew Research poll from July found that 72% of white evangelical Protestants have a favorable opinion of Israel. Some polling has suggested that younger evangelicals have shifted more dramatically, including a Barna Group poll from 2021 — two years before the October 7 attack by Hamas — which found that support for Israel among evangelical Christians aged 18-29 had dropped from 75% to 34%.
The firm’s work is being overseen by Eran Shayovich, Chief of Staff at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel who is spearheading “project 545,” a campaign to amplify Israel’s strategic communication and public diplomacy efforts. Shayovich is also the point of contact for Brad Parscale, Trump’s former campaign manager, who is leading efforts to deploy new websites and digital content to train ChatGPT on behalf of Israel.
The FARA contract revealed that Show Faith by Works will also be coordinating its work with an Israeli consulate. While it does not specify which Israeli consulate it is working with, the firm is conducting this outreach in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado, all states that are covered by the Israeli Consulate of Los Angeles.
The firm’s talking points include two sets of messages, one labeled “Pro-Israel” and the other labeled “Anti-Palestinian State.” The bulleted talking points include messaging on how “[P]alestinian and Iranian goals are not land-focused, but genocidal” and how “Palestinians elect Hamas’s leadership.” (Note: The last election in the Gaza Strip was in 2006 and only a fraction of Gaza’s current population ever cast a ballot for Hamas).
Show Faith by Works’ pitch deck also offered to sponsor “Pro-Israel messages on Christian Social Media influencers followed by young Christians.” As part of this work, the firm promises to “counter current Pro-Palestinian propaganda with response videos.” Sponsoring the influencers themselves would likely require the influencers to register under FARA and acknowledge the Israeli sponsorship on their social media posts, according to foreign lobbying experts. A proposed organization chart showed that the social media influencers would also report to the “Specialist Hollywood Purchasing coordinator.”
This aspect of Show Faith’s work is similar to Bridges Partners, a firm that Israel hired last week to coordinate a cohort of 14-18 social media influencers distributing content on behalf of Israel in exchange for around $7,000 per post.
Show Faith by Works, like Bridges Partners and many otherfirms working for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is channeling its business through Havas Media Network, an international media company working for Israel.
Schnitger, who is being paid $150,000 for the six-month contract, told RS that the firm has made some changes since crafting the initial pitch deck for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “We think it’s very important that the Christian church is educated about these issues. Everything we do is vetted through teams of Christian pastors. We can’t wait to show it to you in a few months,” he said.
When asked what changes had been made, Schnitger did not respond.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.