Presidential office to hold response meeting as Trump unveils tariffs, extends deadline
Kim Yong-beom, presidential chief of staff for policy, will preside over the meeting at 1:30 p.m., which will be attended by senior aides, the minister of government policy coordination and senior officials from the ministries of industry, finance and foreign affairs.
Participants are expected to review recent developments in the tariff talks and coordinate response strategies.
In a letter addressed to President Lee Jae Myung, US President Donald Trump said 25 percent "reciprocal" tariffs will take effect on Aug. 1, weeks later than the initial deadline set for this week.
National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac and Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo are currently in Washington as part of coordinated efforts to address tariffs and other alliance issues. (Yonhap)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
![[Noah Feldman] The Supreme Court's majority is playing the long game](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F07%2F08%2Fnews-p.v1.20250708.e97200c838e34d339b7c1374aa510318_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Noah Feldman] The Supreme Court's majority is playing the long game](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
25 minutes ago
- Korea Herald
[Noah Feldman] The Supreme Court's majority is playing the long game
Many legal commentators apparently believe that, in the term that just ended, the Supreme Court further enabled President Donald Trump. The court did, in fact, issue a series of conservative decisions that Trump likes. However, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the court also simultaneously pursued a careful strategy aimed at preserving the rule of law in the face of Trump's unprecedented challenges to it. The court picked its battles, upholding a meaningful number of lower court orders that blocked unlawful Trump initiatives. At the same time, the justices worked hard to avoid a direct confrontation in which Trump might overtly declare his intention to ignore a court ruling. Even its most controversial recent decision — ending the Trump-era judicial practice of issuing universal injunctions against presidential action — may be understood as an effort to prevent lower courts from creating a direct conflict with the administration that might lead to a showdown the courts would lose. On this interpretation, Roberts wants to exercise his own careful judgment about when to go toe-to-toe with Trump. His goal is to avoid a constitutional crisis that could undermine the power of the judiciary for generations. Let me be crystal clear: I disagree strongly with essentially all of the ideologically conservative decisions the court issued this term. (You can read my columns on each of them to see why.) Yet these decisions, wrong though they are, were not the most important element of the Supreme Court's job since Trump took office. No, since Jan. 20, 2025, the court's essential function has been to fight for the preservation of the rule of law. That fight cannot be won simply by bluster, for a very specific constitutional reason: The Supreme Court has no direct enforcement power and no power of the purse. It is, as Alexander Hamilton famously wrote, 'the least dangerous branch' — which also means it is the least powerful. In the end, the Supreme Court has power only because the executive obeys it. If the president defies the courts, the only constitutional remedies available are congressional attempts to withhold funds (which is not going to happen under this Congress) and impeachment (good luck). Maybe — one can only hope — millions of people would go into the streets in defense of the rule of law. Maybe the financial markets would decline sharply. But these are extreme contingencies, and they might not work. Trump, more than any president before has shown he is prepared to openly violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States. His attacks on the judiciary, echoed by his vice president, are clearly intended to signal his openness to outright defiance. And in a direct constitutional crisis triggered by defiance of judicial orders, it's hard to say with confidence that Trump wouldn't win. So the job of the court over the last six months has been to hold the line. It has done so — not resoundingly, but cautiously, as befits judges who aren't politicians and don't have a constituency to rely on. When the lower courts blocked some of the president's efforts to freeze federal grant money and fire career government employees, the Supreme Court mostly left those orders in place. When District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been deported to El Salvador without due process, the justices upheld the order — and he is now back in the US, albeit facing new criminal charges. When other detainees slated for deportation sought their day in court, the justices affirmed their due process rights. Of course, the court's majority hasn't stood up to the Trump administration in every instance. Sometimes that has been for technical legal reasons. But it is also because Roberts wants, ideally, to avoid a situation where Trump directly defies a court order. And if the confrontation must happen, Roberts and the other justices want it to be on an issue where the court's legal and rhetorical power is at its maximum. That means trying to pick an issue where the law is clearly against Trump; all nine of the justices agree; and no foreign actors outside the court's jurisdiction are necessary to effectuate the court's judgment. During Trump's second administration, universal injunctions have revealed another worrisome attribute: They have allowed any district court judge in the country to create a nationwide, direct conflict with the administration. From the perspective of Roberts and the justices, that is like giving battlefield colonels the power to launch a major war. As the senior generals, the justices would prefer to make the tactical and strategic decisions about when to fight the president — the most dangerous adversary they've ever faced. Ending universal injunctions gives them that discretion. And it continued the partial restructuring of the administrative state — a holding in the emergency docket that appears to permit the president to fire even the heads of multimember independent agencies. These decisions reflect ongoing trends in conservative jurisprudence. They aren't fundamentally tied to the court's broader project of preserving the rule of law. A fair assessment of the Supreme Court term should focus not only on these decisions, but also how the court is doing on the most consequential issue: keeping the Constitution alive. The answer is the court is doing all right. It doesn't need to win any awards. It just has to do its part in the existential struggle to save democracy and the rule of law.
Korea Herald
an hour ago
- Korea Herald
[Editorial] Korea's academic exodus
As professors head overseas, South Korea's global academic standing comes under strain At Seoul National University, long regarded as the pinnacle of South Korea's higher education system, an unsettling pattern has emerged. Over the past four years, 56 professors have left for academic posts overseas, a quiet but steady migration to institutions offering not only higher salaries but also more generous research funding and fewer bureaucratic hurdles. The symbolism is hard to miss: Even South Korea's most prestigious university struggles to retain talent in an era when intellectual capital moves easily across borders. The numbers point to a deeper problem. Most of the departing professors headed to the United States, with others choosing academic positions in Hong Kong, Singapore and elsewhere. The exodus isn't limited to Seoul National University. The nation's top science and technology institutes — KAIST, GIST, DGIST and UNIST — have lost 119 professors over the same period. While some scholars moved to vacancies at Seoul National University, many others left the country altogether. The causes aren't new, nor are they difficult to diagnose. South Korean universities have long been constrained by structural barriers that leave them uncompetitive in the global academic market. Faculty pay, tied to rigid seniority-based systems and frozen tuition rates, has remained stagnant for more than a decade. The government's policy of keeping tuition low (once seen as a way to expand access) has instead restricted resources for institutions struggling to retain their best staff. Abroad, professors can earn three to four times more, but the draw isn't purely financial. Top universities overseas offer superior research facilities, larger budgets and streamlined administrations. These advantages are especially significant for scholars pursuing cutting-edge work in fields like artificial intelligence, semiconductors, biotechnology and economics. But this brain drain is about more than money. It points to a deeper institutional flaw. Political interference, particularly in setting research agendas and allocating funding, undermines academic autonomy. In South Korea, government transitions often bring abrupt shifts in research priorities and personnel, making long-term planning difficult. Professors have long voiced frustration with this volatile environment, which leaves little room for independent scholarship. The loss of academic talent is becoming self-perpetuating. Professors at regional institutions leave for Seoul; those at Seoul National University increasingly look overseas. The resulting vacuum weakens not only individual universities but also the broader academic ecosystem underpinning the country's research and innovation. The consequences are serious. As faculty exit, research capacity diminishes, graduate programs decline and national competitiveness suffers. International rankings already show South Korean universities slipping, with only a few maintaining a presence among the world's elite. The long-term risk is that South Korea could fall behind in critical fields vital for economic growth and national security. Yet the government's response appears out of step with the scale of the problem. President Lee Jae Myung's pledge to 'create 10 Seoul National Universities' by elevating nine regional universities may misread the crisis. Adding more institutions does little to address the core issue: Retaining and attracting world-class talent. Without serious reform, even Seoul National University may struggle to maintain its standing. What's needed isn't lofty slogans but structural change. Performance-based pay, already under discussion at Seoul National University, is a start, but not enough. Broader reforms must include competitive salaries, greater research autonomy and less political micromanagement. Efforts to support weaker institutions should avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Targeted, merit-based investments offer a more effective, sustainable path. Above all, South Korea must rethink how it values academic work. In an era when AI and advanced technologies drive global competition, retaining and attracting researchers is a matter of national strategy. The goal should not merely be to stem the brain drain but to build an academic ecosystem that draws homegrown talent back — and invites the world's best to come.
Korea Herald
an hour ago
- Korea Herald
Former, sitting lawmakers raided in election interference probe
Special counsel looks into former first lady's alleged election interference, ties to Sambu stock manipulation case A special counsel team conducted multiple search and seizure operations Tuesday at offices and residences of main opposition People Power Party lawmakers as part of an investigation into alleged election interference involving political broker Myung Tae-kyun and former first lady Kim Keon Hee. Tuesday's raid by the special counsel team — led by Min Joong-ki to investigate multiple allegations concerning Kim — was conducted to look into allegations that the former first lady meddled in the then-ruling party's candidate nominations for the 2022 parliamentary by-elections. According to the special counsel team, investigators carried out a separate search and seizure of People Power Party Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun's office and home, along with the home of Kim Young-sun, a former five-term lawmaker of the conservative party, to secure documents and digital data related to the then-presidential couple's possible election interference. The election interference scandal centers on Myung, who is suspected of receiving about 90 million won ($65,800) from former lawmaker Kim on several occasions from 2022 to 2024. This was allegedly in exchange for Myung's help in securing her nomination on the party ticket ahead of the 2022 by-elections. The prosecution, which had investigated this case prior to the special counsel in 2024, previously revealed that Yoon Sang-hyun's name was brought up in a recorded call between Myung and then-President Yoon Suk Yeol, who said he would ask Rep. Yoon and the People Power Party to support Kim, since 'he (Rep. Yoon) is the party's nomination committee chair, after all.' Investigators also searched the home of former prosecutor Kim Sang-min to look into Myung's allegation that former first lady Kim Keon Hee attempted to offer a ministerial post or a position as the head of a state-run agency to Kim Young-sun if she would agree to help the former prosecutor win the 2024 general election in Uichang-gu of Changwon, South Gyeongsang Province, which is a district previously won by Kim Young-sun. Meanwhile, the special counsel team, also tasked with probing Kim Keon Hee-related allegations including stock price manipulation, summoned key executives of Eurasia Business Association and Sambu Construction on Tuesday to examine ties between Kim and organizations involved in Ukraine reconstruction projects in 2023. According to the special counsel, a former president of Eurasia Business Association — a Korea-based consulting agency that organized the Ukraine Recovery Conference in 2023 — appeared for questioning on how the conference was planned and whether there was any attempt to orchestrate a stock-price surge at a midsized South Korean construction firm. The investigators reportedly examined the association and its officials' connections to former Land Minister Won Hee-ryong, former CEO of Black Pearl Invest Lee Jong-ho and other Eurasia Business Association executives. This measure is interpreted as an effort to secure evidence proving the relationships among those involved in one set of allegations against Kim. The allegations center on a surge in Sambu's stock price. Shares skyrocketed within a three-month period amid market rumors that the company was set to take part in Ukraine reconstruction projects in 2023. The stock price surge allowed former and current owners and executives of the company to unload company shares and reap profits worth tens of billions of won. The Sambu case first caught public attention after a message from Lee sparked controversy in July 2024. The company had previously announced it had signed a memorandum of understanding for cooperation on Ukraine's postwar reconstruction efforts with multiple organizations, including the Eurasia Business Association, in 2022. Though the stock price showed no noticeable change at the time, the Democratic Party of Korea later argued that the company's trading volume and stock price surged after Lee posted a text message saying, 'Check Sambu tomorrow' in a group chat that reportedly involved high-ranking military officials and a former Presidential Security Service official, among others, on May 14, 2023. On May 16, the then-presidential couple met with Ukrainian first lady and presidential envoy Olena Zelenska in Seoul. The company gained attention as a Ukraine reconstruction-themed stock and hit the daily price ceiling after the former land minister and major shareholders of Sambu attended the Ukraine Recovery Conference on May 22. Sambu's stock price skyrocketed as the company announced it had signed multiple memorandums of understanding with local Polish governments during the conference and promoted the agreements through press releases. Having stayed below 2,000 won (about $1.50) until May, the stock price surged to 5,500 won by July, when Yoon and Kim visited Ukraine. The Democratic Party raised suspicions of stock manipulation and suggested that Kim could have been involved, citing her personal ties with Lee, who was suspected of another case of stock price manipulation with Deutsch Motors that the former first lady was also accused of taking part in. The minor opposition Rebuilding Korea Party meanwhile questioned how Sambu, which had virtually no experience in overseas business barring a single road construction project in Pakistan in 2021, was able to attend the Ukraine Recovery Conference with the land minister. When Sambu's CEO, former and current owners were previously accused of inflating the stock price in April this year, authorities did not file a complaint with the prosecution against the former first lady and Land Minister Won at the time, saying they had found no evidence they had done anything criminal. The special counsel team is scheduled to summon Lee Il-jun, chairperson of Sambu Construction, for questioning on Wednesday as it widens investigations in regard to the stock price manipulation case.
