Korea-U.S. tariff deal should go through National Assembly approval

Home > Opinion > Editorials

Korea-U.S. tariff deal should go through National Assembly approval

Published: 06 Nov. 2025, 00:00

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

President Lee Jae Myung speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the presidential office in Yongsan, Seoul, on Nov. 4. [YONHAP]

The presidential office has concluded that the recent Korea-U.S. tariff agreement does not require ratification by the National Assembly. It argues that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) lacks legally binding force and therefore falls outside constitutional requirements. This stance is misguided.

Article 60 of the Constitution requires the National Assembly to ratify treaties imposing significant financial burdens on the state or its people. Claiming that the deal bypasses this because it is labeled an MOU is little more than wordplay.

At the core of the agreement is a plan for Korea to invest $350 billion in the United States over the next decade. According to the government, this consists of $200 billion in cash investments and $150 billion tied to a shipbuilding partnership, including the MASGA project. The cash portion would be disbursed gradually, up to $20 billion per year. Funding would come primarily from $15 billion in annual interest and dividend income from the Bank of Korea’s foreign reserves, with additional financing raised through overseas bond issuance by state-run banks.

Even if short-term capital outflow risks are limited, the scale is large enough to influence fiscal and monetary policy. This clearly falls within the constitutional definition of a “significant financial burden.” Prime Minister Kim Min-seok himself said earlier in the National Assembly that ratification would be necessary if a tariff deal were reached.

Why the sudden change in position? The government argues that seeking ratification would delay tariff reductions and harm businesses. It also cites the example of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which took more than four years to be ratified due to political gridlock. But pushing ahead with a massive overseas investment plan through a ruling-party-led special law that bypasses parliamentary approval risks even greater political and economic backlash.

Under Article 13 of the Act on the Procedures for Conclusion of Trade Agreements, the government must submit financing plans and domestic industry safeguard measures when seeking ratification. This process may be inconvenient, but it is essential for securing legitimacy and bipartisan support.

Transparency is another concern. Details such as profit-sharing ratios, loss-allocation mechanisms and project selection criteria remain unclear. Even though the factsheet has not been made public, U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly claimed that Korea could invest up to $950 billion.

To ensure public trust, the whole agreement should be disclosed and submitted to the National Assembly for approval. The opposition party must not exploit ratification for political gain, but should thoroughly scrutinize the agreement while enabling swift execution in the national interest.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.