SEOUL — The first summit between South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and President Trump was a picture of easy chumminess.
On Monday, the two leaders bonded over the fact that they both have survived assassination attempts, and they talked golf. When Trump admired the handcrafted wooden fountain pen Lee used to sign the White House guest book, saying “it’s a nice pen, you want to take it with you?” Lee offered it as an impromptu gift. At a Q&A in front of reporters, Lee thanked Trump for bringing peace to the Korean peninsula through his previous summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and urged him to meet with Kim again.
“If you become the peacemaker, then I will assist you by being a pacemaker,” Lee told Trump, drawing a chuckle.
These scenes, along with the two-hour closed door meeting between the two leaders that followed, seemed to put to rest fears that Lee — a former governor and legislator with little prior experience on the international stage — might be subject to a “Zelensky moment”: cornered and berated by a counterpart who has long complained that Seoul takes Washington for granted.
Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, holds a trade letter sent by the White House to South Korea during a news conference. On July 30, the U.S. struck a trade deal with South Korea, but details have been scant.
(Bloomberg / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
It was an outcome for which South Korea painstakingly prepared.
As a presidential candidate earlier this year, Lee had vowed he would bring home a diplomatic win at all costs, even if it meant he had to “crawl between Trump’s legs.” To smooth along trade negotiations with the U.S. in late July, South Korean officials brought with them red caps emblazoned with the slogan: “MAKE AMERICA SHIPBUILDING GREAT AGAIN.” And ahead of Monday’s summit, Lee compared notes with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, whom he met last week, and brushed up on his assignment by reading “Trump: The Art of the Deal.”
Those early efforts so far have seemingly paid off. Key South Korean proposals, such as a $150-billion plan to help revitalize the U.S. shipbuilding industry, have been received favorably, helping secure the trade deal with Washington last month, according to South Korean officials.
“We’re going to be buying ships from South Korea,” Trump said on Monday. “But we’re also going to have them make ships here with our people.”
But despite what is widely viewed as a positive first step for Lee — establishing face-to-face chemistry with a figure known for both unpredictable swings and a deeply personal style of diplomacy — analysts say it is too early to call it a win. Several unresolved issues still loom large, and these may yet be snarled in the details as working-level negotiations play out.
“I actually thought they could get along surprisingly well because both Lee and Trump aren’t ideologically motivated in their thinking and practice of foreign policy,” said James Park, an East Asia expert at the Quincy Institute, a Washington-based think tank.
“But it remains to be seen how their relationship unfolds. Should strong tensions emerge on trade and security issues that both sides find it difficult to compromise on in the future, the relationship between Lee and Trump will be tested. There’s a case in point — how the friendship between Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has fractured in recent months over tariffs and India’s purchases of Russian oil.“
Although Trump promised on Monday to honor last month’s trade agreement — which lowered the tariff rate on Seoul to 15% from 25% — details have been scant and the deal has yet to be formalized in writing. But both sides have touted it as a win, leaving room to reignite long-running disagreements over issues like U.S. rice and beef, which have been subject to import restrictions in South Korea.
As part of that deal, South Korea also pledged to invest $350 billion into key U.S. industries. But behind the scenes, officials from both countries reportedly continue to disagree how this fund will be structured or used, with U.S. officials seeking far more discretionary power than the South Korean side is willing to give.
U.S. Army soldiers attend a transfer of authority ceremony in South Korea. In the past, President Trump has said that South Korea should pay $10 billion a year to help keep the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in the country.
(SOPA Images / SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
The summit hasn’t fully quelled South Korean concerns over defense and military cooperation either.
In the past, Trump has said that South Korea should pay $10 billion a year to help keep the 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in the country. That is around nine times what Seoul currently pays under an existing agreement between the two countries.
While South Korean officials said that the defense cost-sharing issue was not discussed during Monday’s summit, Park says that the issue may resurface down the line.
“The alliance cost-sharing issue has been a consistent interest of Trump’s over the years,” he said.
Trump’s grievances over the cost of stationing the U.S. military in South Korea has fueled concerns that the U.S. will pull out troops from its bases here to counter China, making the country more vulnerable to North Korea’s military threats.
The scenario has gained plausibility in recent months, following reports earlier this year that U.S. defense officials were reviewing a plan to relocate thousands of U.S. military personnel stationed in South Korea to other locations in the Indo-Pacific, such as Guam.
While any reduction of troop size has long been a political anathema in South Korea, Lee Ho-ryung, a senior research fellow at the Seoul-based Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), says that this may be less of a sticking point for President Lee than history might suggest, citing a speech the South Korean leader delivered shortly after the summit in which he pledged to increase Seoul’s own defense spending.
“The content of that speech and Q&A suggest that the two sides have somewhat aligned on these issues,” she said. “But it will still need to be further discussed at the working level.”
When asked by a reporter on Monday whether he was considering reducing the number of U.S. troops in South Korea, Trump deflected by saying “I don’t want to say that now because we’ve been friends.”
But then he pivoted to another suggestion that raised eyebrows in South Korea.
“Maybe one of the things I’d like to do is ask them to give us ownership of the land where we have the big fort,” he said. “I would like to see if we could get rid of the lease.”
Under an existing arrangement known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), South Korea currently grants the U.S. military rent-free use of the land where its bases are located. Speaking to legislators on Tuesday, South Korean Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back summarily dismissed the suggestion, hinting that it may have been a negotiating tactic.
“It is impossible in the real world,” he said. “But from the perspective of President Trump, I think it may have been a comment intended to allow him to make a different strategic demand.”
In the meantime, a second round of negotiations with North Korea’s Kim would be a win for both leaders.
But many experts believe that the window for getting North Korea to denuclearize under the previously discussed terms — partial sanctions relief — has closed since the failed summits between Trump and Kim in 2018 and 2019. North Korea recently dismissed any attempts to convince it to give up its nuclear weapons as a “mockery of the other party.”
Personal chemistry between President Lee and Trump can go only so far this time, says Lee of the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses.
“North Korea is effectively evading any economic sanctions through Russia and China,” she said. “Sanctions relief is no longer the enticing carrot that it once was.”
