Follow us on social

Lee Jae Myung  Donald Trump

South Korea President Lee aims to avoid further clashes with Trump

Tariffs and the military alliance — paying for it, how it's being deployed — are some of the key issues on the docket for his White House meeting Monday

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

On August 25, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung will be visiting the White House for his long-anticipated first summit with President Donald Trump.

Having launched his presidency only in June, Lee hopes to use the summit as an opportunity to build a positive, cooperative relationship with Trump — a crucial diplomatic counterpart with whom he must learn to work to advance the U.S.-ROK alliance and achieve shared goals in the years to come.

The new trade deal that Seoul and Washington reached late last month will likely take center stage. The deal involves lowering U.S. tariffs on South Korean goods from 25% to 15% in exchange for South Korean investments in key American sectors, most notably shipbuilding, as well as purchases of U.S. energy products and ensuring greater access to the South Korean market for American cars and agricultural products.

Lee and Trump are expected to review the various aspects of their deal and formally announce it to the public.

While the trade deal will contribute to creating a positive atmosphere, several pending complex alliance issues could raise tensions, particularly regarding how the financial and military burdens of sustaining the alliance will be shared into the future.

Trump has long suggested that America’s allies have been free-riding on Washington’s extended deterrence and has called on U.S. allies to dramatically increase their defense spending and overall financial contributions. “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them,” Trump has warned in the past. South Korea has been no exception.

During his first term, in an apparent bid to press Seoul into paying significantly more for the stationing of U.S. Forces Korea, Trump ordered the Pentagon to consider withdrawing them. Trump raised the issue again during last year’s presidential campaign, suggesting that South Korea should pay up to ten times what it is paying now.

If Trump brings it up again, Lee will likely agree on the need to enhance South Korea’s financial responsibility for the alliance. Anticipating that likelihood, in advance of the summit, Seoul has been reportedly preparing a concrete plan to accommodate Trump’s demands, including a multi-year commitment to increasing South Korea’s defense spending.

Whether that proves sufficient to satisfy the U.S. president remains to be seen, although both sides should be prepared to compromise.

When it comes to burden-sharing, the more contentious issue could be whether there is agreement on the strategic priorities for U.S. forces based in South Korea. Trump’s Pentagon has stressed its intention to “prioritize” deterrence and warfighting against China and concentrate its forces on that goal. A number of the administration’s defense officials and military strategists have publicly urged shifting the operational focus of U.S. Forces Korea from North Korea to China — including responding to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan — and placing South Korean forces predominantly in charge of deterring North Korea.

This idea of expanding the so-called “strategic flexibility” of U.S. Forces Korea is likely to draw resistance from Lee if Trump raises the issue. The concept is unpopular in South Korea for quite obvious reasons; it heightens the danger of the country being pulled into an unwanted war with China while degrading military readiness against North Korea.

A recent survey found that South Koreans would overall strongly oppose the deployment of U.S. Forces Korea for regional conflicts with China that do not directly involve South Korea. Only 6% of South Koreans supported allowing U.S. Forces Korea to be deployed for combat operations in the event of a conflict over Taiwan, and only 14% approved of U.S. Forces Korea carrying out military operations in response to China’s use of force outside Korea more broadly.

Lee himself shares this reservation. As a presidential candidate, Lee said that South Korea should not be involved in any conflict in the Taiwan Strait.

To be sure, the issue of strategic flexibility may not be entirely non-negotiable for Seoul. In the survey, 42% of South Koreans approved of U.S. Forces Korea playing a limited, non-combat support role in a Taiwan conflict, hinting at some room for compromise. However, with South Koreans first and foremost concerned about the threats posed by North Korea’s nuclear advances, conversations regarding strategic flexibility will inevitably feature disagreements.

In any case, if Trump's defense planners press the Lee administration on the issue too hard or too impatiently, they are likely to encounter serious resistance.

Instead of spending too much energy trying to get South Korea to pay an exorbitant cost for stationing U.S. troops or to subordinate its core security interests to support U.S. war-planning against China over Taiwan, the Trump administration would be wise to prioritize issues where mutual interests and strategic convergence are relatively clear. One such issue is pursuing diplomacy with North Korea.

Both Trump and Lee share a strong interest in engaging North Korea. Since entering office, Trump has repeatedly expressed his desire to resume nuclear talks with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un. Likewise, Lee, convinced that “peace is better than war, no matter how expensive,” is keen to pursue dialogue with Pyongyang and improve inter-Korean relations that have been severely strained in recent years, with the goal of eventually moving the regime toward nuclear disarmament.

According to a report published earlier this week, Washington and Seoul have been coordinating to demonstrate bilateral support for dialogue with North Korea in the joint statement, possibly including an endorsement of the 2018 Trump-Kim Singapore Declaration. This would be a positive first step.

That said, both Trump and Lee also face a common challenge: how to bring Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. Pyongyang has consistently rebuffed diplomatic overtures from Washington and Seoul, reiterating that it will “never” give up nuclear weapons. And time seems to be on Pyongyang’s side. Having developed an unprecedentedly tight alliance with Russia since Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Pyongyang does not appear particularly eager to engage in diplomacy with either the United States or South Korea.

Despite the overall pessimistic outlook, however, a path to diplomacy with North Korea may still exist. Pyongyang has signaled that it may be open to talks not conditioned on denuclearization. Indeed, moving away from the goal of denuclearizing North Korea will be hard for both Seoul and Washington. But it is a possibility that the Trump and Lee administrations should face and explore together, given the harsh reality that decades of efforts to denuclearize North Korea have all but failed.


While accepting that North Korea will get to keep nuclear weapons is disturbing, the alliance in fact has already been living with an increasingly nuclear-capable North Korea. Diplomacy with Pyongyang for more modest goals — aimed at preventing further nuclear buildup and promoting arms control — may be the only viable way forward, and the Trump and Lee administrations might have a lot less to lose from pursuing this path than they imagine and fear.


Top photo credit: South Korean President Lee Jae Myung (You Tube) and President Donald Trump (Shutterstock/Wirestock Creators)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.