Bracing for security risks ignited by Trump

Former U.S. President Donald Trump made it clear that he would stick to his previous position of demanding more defense co-sharing from South Korea than the current level, which he perceives as “free of charge,” if he returns to the White House upon winning the presidential election in November. In a recent interview with Time Magazine, the former U.S. president implied that he would press on with his previous idea of a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea if “the very wealthy country” pays “very little.” He was quoted as saying, “Why would we defend somebody? … They’re a very wealthy country and why wouldn’t they want to pay?”

It is the first time Trump laid out his position on Korea’s defense costs in the middle of the U.S. presidential race. He sent the clear message that Seoul should expect a fresh round of bargaining once he is back.

Seoul and Washington set the foundation for defense cost-sharing for the U.S. Forces Korea every five years by revisiting the Special Measures Agreement (SMA). In 2021, the two countries agreed that Korea contribute $1.03 billion for the cost-sharing, up 13.9 percent from its payment in 2019 and 2020. From 2022 to 2025, they agreed to raise defense cost-sharing according to Korea’s defense budget growth rate from the previous year. During the 11th SMA negotiations in 2019 under Trump, Washington demanded Seoul bear $5 billion, nearly five times the previous amount. Since the negotiations were concluded after President Joe Biden was inaugurated, Trump could stick to the earlier number of $5 billion.

The return of Trump puts Seoul in a sticky spot. U.S. bargaining with a military ally amid alarming North Korean threats and tighter military cooperation between Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow will expose security loopholes to North Korea in the perilous geopolitical climate.

Trump has been misrepresenting the facts about South Korea, inflating the 28,500-strong U.S. troops in the South to 35,000 and claiming South Korea is paying “very little” for them. Although we cannot know if the remark was intentional, we still can expect Trump to demand monetization of the security alliance.

Few can bet surely on the U.S. presidential election results due to the tight race. We must ready ourselves meticulously for every risk. The government must first correct Trump and set the record straight. It must conclude the SMA negotiations that began last month as soon as possible, and the government must prepare a system for a security alliance that can’t be changed regardless of who wins the U.S. election. The National Assembly must demonstrate bipartisanship on the critical issue of national interests.