An Analysis of Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Towards South Korea
Donald Trump’s presidency (2017-2021) marked a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, characterized by a more transactional and “America First” approach. His policies towards South Korea, a key ally in East Asia, reflect his broader stance on international relations—prioritizing the U.S.‘s interests, questioning longstanding alliances, and adopting a more unconventional, often confrontational, diplomatic style. Trump’s approach towards South Korea was heavily influenced by his focus on denuclearization of North Korea, his pursuit of trade deals that benefit the U.S., and his desire to reduce American military presence overseas.
This article explores the various aspects of Trump’s foreign policy toward South Korea, focusing on the Korean Peninsula security dynamics, trade relations, military presence, and the broader regional implications.
- The North Korea Factor: Diplomacy and Deterrence
Arguably, the most defining feature of Trump’s policy toward South Korea was his handling of North Korea. Trump’s initial approach to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was marked by personal diplomacy and a willingness to engage in direct talks, which represented a dramatic shift from previous U.S. administrations that had largely relied on multilateral approaches and sanctions. The first-ever meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader took place in Singapore in June 2018. While the summit did not produce significant results in terms of concrete commitments from North Korea, it led to a brief de-escalation in tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Trump referred to his relationship with Kim Jong-un as “good chemistry,” and he consistently praised the North Korean leader, despite criticism from both domestic and international sources.
For South Korea, this approach was both reassuring and concerning. President Moon Jae-in, who took office in 2017, was eager to foster engagement with the North and saw Trump’s direct diplomacy as an opportunity to achieve a lasting peace on the peninsula. South Korea has historically sought to balance its relations between Washington and Pyongyang, and Moon’s policies aligned with Trump’s at times. However, South Korea’s diplomatic focus on engagement with North Korea sometimes clashed with Trump’s more unpredictable and at times contradictory approach.
Although Trump advocated for peace on the peninsula, his unorthodox style often created uncertainty for South Korea. In particular, Trump’s decision to suspend joint military drills with South Korea in 2018, which had long been a source of tension with Pyongyang, led to mixed reactions. South Korean officials were concerned about the long-term effects of reduced military readiness, while many U.S. officials viewed these suspensions as a necessary gesture to entice North Korea into talks. Trump’s withdrawal from the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) and his tendency to question the long-term viability of the U.S. military presence in South Korea further complicated bilateral relations.
- Trade Relations: The KORUS FTA Renegotiation
Another central aspect of Trump’s foreign policy toward South Korea was his focus on trade, particularly the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), which he considered unfair to the U.S. Trump argued that the agreement, signed in 2012, resulted in a significant trade imbalance in favor of South Korea. During his presidency, he insisted on renegotiating the deal to ensure that it benefitted American workers and industries. In 2018, the two countries reached a revised KORUS FTA, which included provisions aimed at increasing U.S. exports to South Korea, especially in the areas of automotive and agriculture, while also securing greater market access for American companies.
While South Korea generally viewed the renegotiated agreement as a victory in terms of preserving the framework of the original deal, the process raised concerns about the volatility of U.S. trade policies. The Trump administration’s protectionist stance was inconsistent with the multilateral and cooperative trade approach that had defined U.S.-South Korea relations in the past. South Korea’s leaders were wary of Trump’s trade tactics, which at times seemed focused more on securing short-term political gains than fostering long-term partnerships.
Despite these tensions, trade relations between the U.S. and South Korea remained relatively stable, with both sides continuing to work within the framework of the new KORUS FTA. However, South Korea’s growing economic dependence on China, as well as its desire to maintain access to both U.S. and Chinese markets, posed an ongoing challenge for the U.S.-South Korea trade relationship under Trump’s administration.
- Military Presence: A Transactional Approach
Trump’s approach to U.S. military presence in South Korea was another point of contention. Throughout his presidency, Trump repeatedly questioned the value of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, citing the cost to American taxpayers. He called on Seoul to pay more for the cost of the U.S. military presence and suggested that the U.S. might withdraw its forces if South Korea did not contribute more. This rhetoric was in line with Trump’s broader “America First” philosophy, which prioritized reducing the financial burden on the U.S. government by encouraging other countries to take on a larger share of defense costs.
In 2019, Trump demanded that South Korea increase its financial contribution to the upkeep of U.S. military bases by five times, which was met with resistance from the South Korean government. This demand sparked tensions between the two allies, with South Korea arguing that its defense costs should not be seen purely as a financial transaction but as part of a broader security alliance. The issue was only partially resolved through the Special Measures Agreement (SMA) negotiations, which saw South Korea agree to increase its financial contributions, although the overall dispute highlighted the transactional nature of Trump’s foreign policy approach.
Trump’s rhetoric on this issue also contributed to South Korea’s growing concerns about the reliability of the U.S. as an ally, especially in light of North Korea’s provocations and the looming threat of military conflict. While Trump’s rhetoric may have been a negotiating tactic, it created uncertainty regarding the future of the U.S.-South Korea alliance, and it underscored the risks associated with Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy style.
- Regional Security and Relations with China
Trump’s approach to South Korea’s security interests was also shaped by his broader stance on China. During his presidency, Trump took a hardline approach toward Beijing, labeling China as a strategic competitor and launching a trade war to address perceived unfair trade practices. South Korea, as a major trading partner of both the U.S. and China, found itself caught between the competing interests of its two largest trading partners.
While South Korea was a strong ally of the U.S. and supported Washington’s efforts to curb China’s influence in the region, it also sought to maintain a stable relationship with Beijing due to its economic ties. Trump’s aggressive rhetoric towards China, including tariffs and strategic confrontations in the South China Sea, often put South Korea in a difficult position. South Korea’s leaders were forced to carefully navigate these tensions while maintaining their alliance with the U.S.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s foreign policy towards South Korea was characterized by both unpredictability and pragmatism. His administration’s emphasis on denuclearizing North Korea, renegotiating trade deals, and reducing the financial burden on the U.S. military stationed abroad reshaped the traditional dynamics of U.S.-South Korea relations. While Trump’s policies resulted in some diplomatic achievements, such as the renegotiation of the KORUS FTA and reduced tensions with North Korea in the short term, they also created significant uncertainties for South Korea. These uncertainties stemmed from his transactional approach to alliances, his unpredictable rhetoric on military presence, and his broader focus on unilateral gains.
In the long term, the question remains whether Trump’s policies towards South Korea contributed to a stronger, more stable partnership, or whether they revealed deeper vulnerabilities in the U.S.-South Korea alliance. The outcomes of Trump’s foreign policy are still unfolding, but his approach undoubtedly left an indelible mark on the U.S.-South Korea relationship and the broader geopolitics of East Asia.
