Pentagon denies report of U.S. troop withdrawal plan for South Korea
"Reports that the DoD will reduce U.S. troops in the Republic of Korea are not true," chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell wrote on X, using the acronym for the Department of Defense and the formal name for South Korea.
The remarks came after The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House is considering an option to pull out roughly 4,500 troops and relocate them to areas in the Indo-Pacific region, including the U.S. territory of Guam.
Such a move would further fuel concerns about U.S. President Donald Trump's commitment to Asia and his transactional approach to American alliances in the region.
Citing unidentified defense officials familiar with the discussions, the Journal reported Thursday that the idea of moving the troops is being prepared for consideration by Trump's administration as part of an informal policy review on dealing with nuclear-armed North Korea.
The proposal has yet to reach Trump's desk and is one of several ideas under discussion, the officials cautioned. The U.S. currently stations 28,500 troops in South Korea.
Parnell said, however, that Defense Department officials "always evaluate force posture."
"That said, the U.S. remains firmly committed to the ROK," he added. "Our alliance is iron clad."
South Korea's Defense Ministry also said Friday that it has not held talks with the Pentagon over any potential troop withdrawal.
"As the core strength of the South Korea-U.S. alliance, the USFK, alongside our military, has contributed to the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and in the region by maintaining a firm combined defense posture and deterring North Korea's invasion and provocation," the Yonhap news agency quoted the South Korean Defense Ministry as saying.
"We will continue to cooperate with the U.S. side to advance in such a direction," it added.
Trump has a history of labeling the U.S.-South Korea alliance as an 'unfair' partnership and during his first term threatened to remove American troops there or slash their numbers unless Seoul coughed up more money for hosting them.
The revelations also come as Trump is seeking to seal an agreement on tariffs that could include cost-sharing measures. The U.S. president said last month that he had discussed a 'one-stop shopping' deal that included the issue of 'payment for the big time Military Protection' the U.S. provides to South Korea with then-acting President Han Duck-soo.
'We are bringing up other subjects that are not covered by Trade and Tariffs, and getting them negotiated also,' Trump wrote on social media. ''ONE STOP SHOPPING' is a beautiful and efficient process!!!'
Seoul has denied that the cost-sharing issue is on the table in the trade talks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
26 minutes ago
- The Diplomat
Trump's Tariffs and the Risk of Reverse Friendshoring
Under pressure from U.S. tariffs and protectionism, what if firms, rather than moving away from China, begin repositioning themselves closer to it? Over the past few years, the United States has embraced the concepts of nearshoring and friendshoring – relocating supply chains away from China and toward the U.S., its allies, or nearby countries. The goal was to reduce dependence on a strategic rival, strengthen domestic industry, and align supply chains with geopolitical partners. Initially, this strategy showed promise. Investments flowed into Mexico, Vietnam, and India as Washington offered incentives and business executives recalibrated risk maps. But now, with the resurgence of tariff wars and mounting protectionist pressure, especially under President Donald Trump's renewed rhetoric, this strategy faces a paradoxical risk: a reversal. In other words, what if companies begin to do the opposite of what the U.S. intended? What if firms, rather than moving away from China, begin repositioning themselves closer to it? There is a growing concern among multinationals that the U.S. market may become more volatile and less accessible if tariffs persist. If the cost of operating or exporting into the United States rises significantly, some companies might start to see Asia not only as a manufacturing base but as the main market to bet on. In this context, companies may decide to expand operations near China, taking advantage of mature supply chains and the opportunity to serve a vast, growing consumer market. Several cases already hint at this trend. One major firm that previously relied on U.S. ports to access North America shifted its operations to Canada to avoid compounded tariffs. Another company had invested heavily in Mexico as part of its strategy to reduce exposure to China. However, when Mexico was suddenly targeted by new Trump-era tariffs, the firm pivoted. Rather than using its Mexican facility to serve the U.S., it redirected its exports to Latin American and South American markets. The logic is simple: when the U.S. becomes a bottleneck, companies diversify away from it. The unintended consequence is a reverse friendshoring, one that pushes supply chains back toward Asia. This phenomenon is more than a tactical response. It could represent a structural shift in global trade. If U.S. tariffs become a long-term reality, many multinationals will strengthen their presence in Asia, including in China-adjacent economies. This would be a strategic setback for the United States, which originally aimed to 'decouple' from Chinese influence. It's worth remembering that this aggressive protectionism is not historically American. For decades, especially after World War II, the U.S. championed open markets, leading the creation of GATT, the WTO, and free trade agreements across the globe. It saw liberal trade as a source of strength and leadership. The shift toward 'America First' protectionism, especially under Trump, disrupted this legacy. And while some short-term political gains were achieved, the long-term costs, especially in credibility and stability, are becoming more visible. Protectionism may offer a temporary illusion of control, but in the long run, it risks pushing businesses away. If global firms come to see the U.S. as unpredictable or commercially hostile, they will turn to where predictability and demand still thrive. Asia, with its integrated supply chains and pro-business environments, becomes the natural alternative. But there's a deeper irony. By pushing companies back toward Asia, especially China, the U.S. may be reinforcing the very dependency it sought to undo. While relocating closer to China may offer efficiencies, it also strengthens Beijing's strategic hand. China has long made it clear: its goal is to make the world more dependent on it while reducing its own vulnerabilities. That's a dangerously asymmetric relationship. As Europe learned with Russian gas, overdependence on an authoritarian power can quickly turn into leverage used against you. This is why Southeast Asia and Central Asia are positioning themselves aggressively. Vietnam has already emerged as a winner of the China-U.S. trade war, becoming one of America's top trade surplus partners. Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia are rapidly improving infrastructure, workforce readiness, and regional trade deals like the RCEP to attract more industrial investment. Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, long dominated by Russia and China, now see an opening. By offering access to emerging supply corridors like the Trans-Caspian route, they aim to attract diversified Western investment. In short, if the United States doubles down on isolation, others will gladly step in. The global gameboard is shifting. Reverse friendshoring is no longer a hypothetical – it's a scenario being quietly sketched out in boardrooms from Singapore to São Paulo. The question is no longer whether the U.S. can bring supply chains back home. The question is: will its current posture drive them even further away?
The Diplomat
an hour ago
- The Diplomat
Why Trump's Trade War on South Korea May Backfire
Trump must be careful about pressuring Seoul, or his administration could push Lee Jae-myung to move South Korea closer to China. U.S. President Donald Trump addresses a crowd of joint service members stationed across the Korean Peninsula during his visit to Osan Air Base, South Korea, June 30, 2019. U.S. President Donald Trump is aware of the strategic importance of a trilateral security alliance among the U.S., Japan, and South Korea to counter China's ascending power. His administration considers these two Asian countries essential allies for maintaining collective security. However, his recent foreign policy actions may hinder trilateral cooperation among these allies, as he may put too much pressure on South Korea and Japan. For example, Trump plans to impose a 25 percent tariff on imported goods from South Korea if he does not secure a favorable trade agreement by August 1. He is also demanding a significant bump in South Korea's share of the costs for hosting U.S. troops stationed near Seoul and an increase in the country's annual military expenditures. While these demands aim to advance U.S. interests, they could unintentionally destabilize South Korea's government and drive Lee Jae-myung, the newly elected president, closer to China, the most formidable U.S. rival. Currently, the negative ramifications of Trump's arm-twisting are minimal, as Lee is making every effort to meet Trump's demands. Well aware of the crucial role the U.S. plays in South Korea's security, Lee has dispatched all his top staff members to negotiate with their U.S. counterparts. He hopes to finalize a deal with Trump at a summit meeting as quickly as possible. During his first term, Trump persuaded South Korea to reduce its economic engagement with China, which had been its most beneficial trading partner. Seoul's foreign policy used to aim to strengthen national security with the support of the U.S. military, while simultaneously fostering economic growth through cooperation with China. Interestingly, the substantial trade revenues generated from China enabled Seoul to acquire additional military assets from the U.S., such as fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters. However, Trump disapproved of Seoul's close economic ties with Beijing and pressured the South Korean government to decrease its trade with China. In response, Seoul favorably adjusted its trade volume. Trump appeared to have won, as South Korea has recorded a trade deficit with China since 2023. Additionally, as of 2025, South Korea's exports to China have become comparable to its exports to the U.S. In other words, since the late 2010s, Seoul has sacrificed a substantial amount of trade profit from China to cherish its long-term friendship with Washington. With the start of his second term, Trump's foreign policy agenda has shifted its focus toward addressing the trade deficit with South Korea, rather than enhancing the trilateral security arrangement. This shift is understandable, considering that the U.S. goods trade deficit with South Korea reached $66 billion in 2024, marking a 29.2 percent increase since 2023. Nevertheless, as Seoul attempts to address the trade imbalance with the U.S. to meet Washington's demands, it is experiencing a notable decline in national revenue. The initial blow came from the decrease in trade revenue with China – another of Trump's demands. If Seoul encounters further economic losses, it may struggle to maintain its purchases of U.S. weapons, cover the additional defense costs for U.S. Forces Korea, and raise its overall military expenditures. Furthermore, Trump's high tariffs could destabilize the new South Korean government. The opposition could portray any resulting economic trouble as a failure on Lee's part to protect national interests. They might also present any discord with Trump as evidence of Lee's incompetence in foreign policymaking. Growing domestic opposition may prompt Lee, who is left-leaning and pragmatic, to seek to reduce South Korea's dependence on the dollar for international trade and re-establish close ties with China, which had previously provided significant trade benefits for South Korea. Lee's outreach to China could gain momentum if the trade dispute reignites anti-American sentiment among his left-leaning supporters. Anti-Americanism was a serious concern in the late 1980s and early 1990s, with many Koreans chanting 'Yankee go home' during street protests in response to what they saw as U.S. interference in South Korea's domestic politics. If Lee cannot reach acceptable trade terms with Trump at a summit before September 3, he will likely meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping first. September 3 marks the 80th anniversary of China's Victory Day, commemorating Japan's surrender after its defeat by the U.S. in the Pacific War. Xi has invited Lee to the Victory Day celebrations; then-South Korean President Park Geun-hye had attended the 70th anniversary event back in 2015. If Lee accepts Xi's invitation before having a face-to-face conference with Trump, this would break tradition, as newly elected South Korean presidents typically meet with the U.S. president first. If Lee and Xi celebrate together in Beijing this September, the world will likely speculate that the U.S. is losing its key Asian ally to China. To avoid this unfavorable scenario, Trump should refrain from imposing excessive burdens on South Korea. After all, Seoul has consistently upheld a free trade agreement with the U.S. for over a decade, demonstrating good faith. Additionally, South Korea has a long history of supporting the United States' global leadership. The country fought alongside American forces in the Vietnam War and the Gulf War, has been one of the largest importers of U.S. weapons, and hosts the United States' largest overseas military base, the home of U.S. Forces Korea. In sum, strengthening the security alliance with South Korea while easing trade tensions with Lee would better align with the national interests of the United States.
Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
Russia says Trump's new weapons pledge a signal for Ukraine to abandon peace efforts
FILE PHOTO: Russia's Security Council's Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev attends a meeting of the Council for Science and Education at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in the Moscow region's city of Dubna, Russia June 13, 2024. Sputnik/Alexei Maishev/Pool via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY./File Photo By Guy Faulconbridge, Andrew Osborn and Dmitry Antonov U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to ramp up arms shipments to Ukraine is a signal to Kyiv to abandon peace efforts, Russia said on Thursday, vowing it would not accept the "blackmail" of Washington's new sanctions ultimatum. Trump announced a toughened stance on Russia's war in Ukraine on Monday, setting a 50-day deadline for Moscow to reach a ceasefire or face sanctions. The U.S. also promised more missiles and other weaponry for Kyiv. Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, condemned the move. "It is obvious that the Kyiv regime consistently perceives such decisions by the collective West as a signal to continue the slaughter and abandon the peace process," Zakharova told a news briefing in Moscow. Russia's all-out war against Ukraine in February, 2022, has led to Europe's bloodiest conflict since World War II, with the United States estimating that 1.2 million people have been injured or killed. Moscow says it was forced to launch the war to protect itself from an expanding NATO. Ukraine and most Western governments call Russia's war a colonial-style land grab. Russian forces now control around one fifth of Ukrainian territory and are slowly but steadily advancing across a vast frontline, sustaining what the U.S. believes are heavy losses along the way. Trump, who has made ending the conflict a priority of his administration, is threatening "100% tariffs on Russia" and secondary sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil if Moscow does not agree to a ceasefire deal by his 50-day deadline. "An unprecedented number of sanctions and restrictions have been imposed on our country and our international partners. There are so many of them that we view the threat of new sanctions as mundane," Zakharova said. "The language of ultimatums, blackmail, and threats is unacceptable to us. We will take all necessary steps to ensure the security and protect the interests of our country." Both Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Trump have repeatedly cautioned over the escalatory risks of the conflict, which they cast as a proxy war between the world's two biggest nuclear powers. U.S. efforts to broker peace negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow, however, have faced repeated setbacks. Russia says it is ready to hold further talks, but has made it clear it wants all of the territory of four Ukrainian regions it has claimed as its own - terms which Ukraine say are unacceptable and would amount to a capitulation. Moscow is also keen to revive its battered bilateral relationship with the United States if possible, though Trump's latest moves on Ukraine have soured the atmosphere. Trump said on Monday that he was "very unhappy" and "disappointed" with Putin and cast his decision to send more arms to Ukraine as intended to jolt Russia towards peace. Reuters reported on Tuesday that Putin intends to keep fighting in Ukraine until the West engages on his terms for peace, unfazed by threats of tougher sanctions, and that his territorial demands may widen as Russian forces advance. Earlier on Thursday, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that Russia had no plans to attack NATO or Europe. But he said it should respond and, if necessary, launch preemptive strikes if it believed the West was escalating what he cast as its full-scale war against Russia. "We need to act accordingly. To respond in full. And if necessary, launch preemptive strikes," Medvedev was quoted as saying. The remarks by Medvedev, reported in full by the TASS state news agency, indicate that Moscow sees the confrontation with the West over Ukraine escalating after Trump's latest decisions. "What is happening today is a proxy war, but in essence it is a full-scale war (launches of Western missiles, satellite intelligence, etc.), sanctions packages, loud statements about the militarization of Europe," Medvedev said, according to TASS. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
