[Global Focus] Despite U.S. Denial of USFK Reduction, 3 Reasons for South Korea's Unease

Negotiation card for Kim Jong-un?
Also a justification for countering China
Trump's focus on money...
Economic incentives also exist
Concerns exist within the U.S. as well

"If you are a reporter who covers the Pentagon (the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense), you know well that we constantly reassess our force posture. Nevertheless, the United States maintains a firm security commitment to South Korea, and the U.S.-ROK alliance is ironclad."

The U.S. Department of Defense has denied the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report from the 22nd (local time) regarding the possible relocation of 4,500 U.S. troops from South Korea, stating that it is not true. The 4,500 troops mentioned in the report account for 15.7% of the current U.S. military personnel stationed in South Korea (about 28,500). U.S. Forces Korea also issued a similar statement in alignment with this position. The South Korean Ministry of National Defense stated, "There have been no discussions whatsoever between South Korea and the United States regarding the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea."

However, it is not easy to dismiss the rumors of a reduction in U.S. Forces Korea as entirely groundless. This is because there is a consensus within the U.S. administration that American military resources in the Indo-Pacific region need to be consolidated to counter China. Reducing U.S. Forces Korea also serves as a negotiation card for President Trump in dealing with North Korea, as well as a strategy to pressure South Korea on defense cost-sharing. Considering President Donald Trump's business-oriented approach, which prioritizes U.S. interests, this is a highly attractive card.

Negotiation card for Kim Jong-un? Also a justification for countering China

The background cited by the WSJ for the review of reducing U.S. Forces Korea is its use as a "negotiation card" with North Korea. The report suggests that it is a bargaining chip for President Trump in dealings with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. WSJ stated, "This plan (relocating 4,500 troops to Guam) is being prepared for President Trump to consider as part of an informal review of North Korea policy." Since his first term, President Trump has expressed an ambition to achieve denuclearization (or nuclear arms reduction) with North Korea and win the Nobel Peace Prize. During his first term, President Trump highlighted U.S.-North Korea summit diplomacy as a major achievement, and since returning to office this year, he has consistently pursued dialogue with Chairman Kim Jong-un.

Looking at the broader picture, there is also an external justification of "countering China." The United States needs to effectively check China, which is challenging global hegemony, with its limited defense personnel and resources. Victor Cha, Korea Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), mentioned at a seminar in March that the appointment of Elbridge Colby as U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy would "almost certainly result in pressure on South Korea for 'strategic flexibility' of U.S. Forces Korea." Cha also warned of a "quiet crisis" in the U.S.-ROK alliance, citing the expected significant increase in South Korea's defense cost-sharing (the portion of U.S. Forces Korea stationing costs borne by South Korea) and the North Korea issue, saying, "No one is really talking about it, but the alliance is facing a quiet crisis."

Colby, who is considered a "defense policy brain" in the Trump administration, is a prominent hawk who has consistently advocated for a tough response to China. Colby, who leads the formulation of the National Defense Strategy (NDS), stated on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) before being nominated as deputy secretary last year, "I do not support withdrawing troops from South Korea," but added, "I support restructuring U.S. forces in South Korea to focus more on China, while having South Korea take on more of the conventional defense burden against North Korea."

The U.S. position that deterrence against China must be strengthened is clear. The Washington Post (WP) reported in February that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the preparation of a plan to cut the defense budget by 8% annually over the next five years. In this process, while pressuring NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) member countries in Europe to increase their budgets, the Indo-Pacific Command was excluded from the cuts. This was interpreted as a measure targeting China.

Trump's focus on money... Economic incentives also exist

Of course, there is a possibility that the underlying intention is different. As in the first Trump administration, it could be used as a "negotiation card." During the first Trump administration, when the defense cost-sharing negotiations were delayed, it was revealed by aides at the time that President-elect Trump frequently mentioned the possibility of withdrawing U.S. Forces Korea. Senator Bill Hagerty (Republican, Tennessee) appeared on a CBS News program in November last year and, regarding testimonies that President Trump had ordered a review of the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea during his first administration, explained, "That is how a businessman negotiates."

Concerns that the U.S. will pressure South Korea on defense cost-sharing have been consistently raised since last year. In an interview with Time magazine in April last year, then-presidential candidate Trump said about U.S. troops stationed in Asia, "We have 40,000 troops (actually 28,500) stationed in dangerous locations," adding, "It's ridiculous. Why are we defending others? Right now, we are talking about very wealthy countries." The "wealthy country" he referred to is South Korea. In addition, he has pressured allies such as Taiwan, Japan, and European countries to increase their contributions to stationing costs.

Currently, South Korea's share of the U.S. Forces Korea cost is $1.1 billion (about 1.52 trillion won), plus the annual inflation rate. Ahead of President Trump's re-election last October, defense cost-sharing negotiations were expedited, but under U.S. law, the administration can override them.

South Korea and the United States are conducting negotiations with July 8, the end date of a 90-day mutual tariff suspension, as the negotiation deadline. After the first high-level talks, the South Korean government announced that both countries had agreed not to include defense cost-sharing in the negotiation package, but it is difficult to rule out the possibility that President Trump could change his mind after the South Korean presidential election on June 3.

Concerns exist within the U.S. as well

There are also warnings within the United States that, as North Korea and Russia grow closer, the emergence of arguments for reducing U.S. Forces Korea could provoke North Korea. Admiral Samuel Paparo, Commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, stated at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, D.C. on the 10th of last month that "If U.S. Forces Korea were to disappear, the likelihood of Kim Jong-un invading would increase." General Xavier Brunson, Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, also emphasized on the 15th that the presence of U.S. Forces Korea has strategic implications in the Indo-Pacific region, influencing the strategic behavior of North Korea, Russia, and China.

However, there is also analysis that if the Trump administration relocates troops from the Korean Peninsula to other parts of the Indo-Pacific, concerns about a reduction in U.S. Forces Korea could be alleviated. WSJ pointed out that Guam, identified as a possible relocation site for U.S. Forces Korea, "is emerging as an important location for troop deployment because it is close to areas where conflict could occur, but difficult for Chinese forces to reach."

Meanwhile, the American public is believed to hold negative views on the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea. According to a public opinion survey on the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea conducted last October by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA), an international security think tank, 69% of Americans responded that the U.S.-ROK security relationship is beneficial to U.S. security. 63% of respondents supported the long-term stationing of U.S. Forces Korea.