Trump, South Korea, and political chaos
Trump will eventually turn his attention to South Korea. Seoul won't be ready.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has already reshaped U.S. foreign policy, and some commentators believe there will be no return to post-Cold War norms. No return to the liberal-democratic (or neocon, dependent on your point of view) norms to which we became accustomed. The world has changed and the impact is momentous. South Korea will not be spared.
Trump will eventually turn his attention to South Korea - when this occurs is important.
First, Trump’s attention will turn to South Korea at a time of his choosing. South Korea will not be prepared. South Korea stands at a precarious crossroads where economic challenges, security concerns, and shifting diplomatic alliances are converging in ways that could define its trajectory for years to come. Given the current political chaos, the looming election, a new South Korean administration, growing political extremism, and potentially vocal and active political disruption, the chances of South Korea being in a strong position to address the challenges Trump throws up are not high.
Second, Trump will turn to South Korea because it looks like a very easy win. Trump’s struggles in Europe with Russia and Ukraine are leading to increased opposition in Europe and NATO; pressure is mounting in the Middle East and with Iran; and even his word fart absurdities with Mexico, Canada and Greenland are sparking needless opposition.
Trump’s domestic pressures are hardly mounting thanks to a feckless and lost Democratic Party, but this will not last forever. Perhaps the Dems will get their act together, but more likely, Trump will be his own undoing. He will tire of those around him, maybe widen the gap between himself and his base, and definitely need to turn to second and third-tier sycophants for support. At some point, he’ll need an easy win.
Timing is everything in diplomacy, and for South Korea, this would be the worst time to catch Trump’s attention. Trump will need a convenient target to compensate for mounting failures, and Trump will see Korea as an easy win.
South Korea, with its longstanding security dependence on the U.S. and a recent history of kowtowing when asked, will appear to him as a pliable partner where he can extract concessions or stage a symbolic victory - and maybe even spur global media fanfare by throwing in North Korea.
Trump has made it clear that he sees alliances as financial burdens rather than strategic partnerships. His transactional approach will likely escalate, forcing South Korea to make difficult choices that could redefine the alliance—or even dismantle it altogether.
Trump’s treatment of NATO, Ukraine, and other allies offers a clear roadmap for what South Korea should expect. Trump has consistently demanded massive financial contributions from U.S. allies, pressuring them to "pay their fair share" in exchange for American protection. He has imposed tariffs on friends and foes alike. He has openly questioned the value of longstanding alliances, frequently suggesting that the U.S. could withdraw its security commitments if allies fail to meet his demands.
At the same time, he has demonstrated a willingness to make significant geopolitical concessions when he believes they serve his personal interests or align with his broader worldview, often prioritizing short-term gains over strategic stability. These patterns will define his approach to South Korea. The Trump playbook to date gives an indication of what South Korea can expect.
The NATO precedent: Financial demands with threats of abandonment
Trump's approach to NATO provides a clear warning for South Korea. Throughout his first term, he repeatedly threatened to withdraw from NATO unless European allies increased their defense spending. He falsely claimed that NATO members "owe" money to the U.S., despite alliance agreements not requiring direct payments. More recently, it has been reported that he is exploring a reorganization of NATO that would substantially decrease the U.S. role in the NATO alliance structure.
Expect a similar strategy toward South Korea. In 2019, Trump demanded South Korea increase its contribution to U.S. troop costs fivefold, from $924 million to $5 billion. South Korea eventually negotiated a smaller increase, but Trump’s hostility toward the deal suggests he will return to this demand in his second term.
A possible scenario? Trump demands that South Korea pay a lump sum “back payment” for decades of U.S. military support, falsely framing it as an unpaid bill. If South Korea resists, he could threaten to withdraw U.S. troops entirely, forcing Seoul into a costly and politically fraught dilemma.
The Ukraine precedent: withholding military support as leverage
Trump’s approach to Ukraine shows how he might treat South Korea when it comes to military assistance. In recent weeks, he has withheld aid and assistance from Ukraine to force them into negotiations with Russia. Ukraine ultimately has no choice but to comply. The use of security assistance as political leverage suggests South Korea could face a similar tactic.
A potential scenario? Trump could slow-walk or even freeze military aid designated for South Korea’s defense, withholding advanced weapons systems or limit intelligence-sharing. He might leverage military cooperation as a bargaining chip, tying security commitments to unrelated trade or political concessions, effectively pressuring Seoul into making economic or diplomatic compromises.
If North Korea escalates its aggression, Trump could respond by delaying or canceling joint military drills—just as he did in 2018 when he unilaterally suspended U.S.-ROK exercises following his summit with Kim Jong-un. This would leave South Korea vulnerable, forcing it to either comply with Trump’s demands or face a weakened defense posture against North Korea.
The European precedent: weaponizing trade policy
Trump has consistently used economic pressure to extract concessions from allies. His first term saw trade wars with Europe, Canada, and even South Korea, despite their status as key U.S. partners. More recently, he has initiated tariffs across the board without exemptions for even his closest allies.
A potential scenario? Trump reopens KORUS negotiations and demands additional trade concessions. Trump could impose further tariffs on South Korean semiconductor exports, pressuring Seoul to scale back its economic ties with China. He might also demand that South Korean automakers move even more production to the U.S., using the threat of tariffs to compel compliance. Hopes for relief and cooperation on semiconductors, shipping and nuclear energy are pies in the sky.
The only cooperation in these areas will be when the industries pay more tariffs, invest in the U.S, move manufacturing the U.S., or provide other headlines for Trump. Trump will also leverage trade as a bargaining tool to extract military concessions, making economic cooperation contingent on increased defense spending and deeper security commitments.
The North Korea/Ukraine precedent: undermining allies
Trump’s previous dealings with North Korea provide another warning sign. His three meetings with Kim Jong-un failed to achieve denuclearization, yet Trump continued to praise Kim as a "great leader." Any negotiation with North Korea will be a media sh%!show and entirely bypass South Korea. No two f@#ks will be given as Trump panders over the global press coverage.
Remember his first term? Trump abruptly canceled a joint U.S.-South Korea military exercise following a phone call with Kim Jong-un, and blindsided Seoul. He also suggested withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea as part of a potential peace deal with North Korea, despite receiving no meaningful concessions from Pyongyang. Throughout his direct diplomacy with North Korea, he largely disregarded South Korea’s security concerns, instead prioritizing his personal relationship with Kim and his own media ambitions.
A likely scenario? Trump cuts a direct deal with Kim that reduces South Korea’s security in exchange for vague North Korean promises. This could involve a freeze on military training reduction in troop numbers, and economic incentives for North Korea - paid by South Korea. It’s possible Trump could make a deal that increases U.S. security at the cost of South Korea, such as reducing North Korea’s ICBM program but not impacting its nuclear weapons program, but this would require more than a media sh%!show. This is probably beyond Trump’s span of attention and interest.
Ready for the Trump cage fight?
South Korea cannot prepare for the inevitable reckoning when Trump turns his focus its way. Current politics means it is inevitably going to be unprepared. It would require an incredibly unlikely political scenario of bipartisan or multi-party discussions and agreement - something extremely unlikely in Seoul’s heated political climate.
Trump’s past behavior, from NATO to Ukraine to North Korea, provides a clear pattern of transactional demands, unilateral decisions, and disregard for traditional alliances. Seoul will be caught off guard and forced into a series of costly, high-stakes negotiations. The alliance will come under intense scrutiny - to the point that the alliance will be at risk.
It’s important to note that South Korea has always treated the alliance in transactional terms. Now that the U.S. is doing the same, for South Korea the question becomes: is this transaction still worth it?
