Key Takeaways: 

- Trump is expected to demand a massive increase in South Korea's financial contributions to defense, up from the current 2.6% of GDP to 3.8%. South Korea should shift the narrative from a simple transaction to a strategic partnership to deal with Trump's demands.

- The summit offers an opportunity to modernize the U.S.-ROK alliance for the shifting Indo-Pacific landscape. South Korea must navigate this dynamic carefully to avoid antagnoizing China, especially amidst the risk that upgrades to the alliance are perceived as a "counter-China" initiative. 

- South Korea needs to draw red lines on non-negotiables, while being open to solutions that serve mutual interest. The goal should be to recalibrate the relationship towards a more balanced partnership of "strategic co-leadership" rather than a patron-client dynamic.

On August 25, President Lee Jae-myung and President Donald Trump will convene their first summit in Washington, D.C. This meeting marks a critical juncture in the ROK-U.S. alliance, offering both nations an opportunity to recalibrate their bilateral relationship across economic, security, and diplomatic domains. More broadly, the summit may influence the strategic architecture of East Asia and the evolving Indo-Pacific framework that the U.S. is actively shaping.

The summit’s economic agenda will center on the implementation of a recently concluded $350 billion investment and tariff-reduction agreement. While this deal is significant, the more complex and consequential discussions will likely revolve around security-related issues—namely increased cost-sharing for U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), expansion of South Korea’s defense budget, and the modernization of the alliance. These topics are deeply interconnected and will likely be negotiated as a comprehensive package.

President Trump is reportedly demanding a ninefold increase in South Korea’s contribution to USFK, totaling $10 billion annually. This figure, while politically provocative, should be treated as a starting point for negotiation. President Lee would be wise to present a holistic account of South Korea’s existing contributions—both direct and indirect—including base construction, infrastructure maintenance, land provision, and logistical support for strategic U.S. assets. By framing the discussion around shared responsibilities and mutual benefits, Seoul can shift the narrative from transactional burden-sharing to strategic partnership.

A moderate increase in cost-sharing could be proposed, accompanied by a request for enhanced strategic cooperation and a reaffirmation of U.S. commitment to maintaining USFK. This dual-track approach would allow South Korea to retain leverage while demonstrating goodwill. It also provides an opportunity to redefine the alliance’s purpose in a way that reflects current geopolitical realities.

Currently, South Korea’s defense spending stands at approximately 2.6% of GDP. The Trump administration is pushing for an increase to 3.8%. While South Korea already ranks among the top ten globally in total defense expenditure and has cultivated a robust domestic defense industry, these facts may not resonate with Trump’s political calculus. Rather than relying solely on quantitative metrics, Seoul should propose channeling any budget increase into areas that benefit both nations—such as procurement of U.S.-made weapons systems, joint research and development initiatives, and collaboration in emerging domains like military artificial intelligence and cybersecurity.

Such proposals would not only address Trump’s emphasis on economic reciprocity but also strengthen the technological and strategic interoperability of the alliance. Moreover, they would signal South Korea’s commitment to contributing meaningfully to regional security, beyond mere financial transfers.

The modernization of the alliance presents both opportunities and risks. If framed explicitly as a counter-China initiative, it could strain South Korea’s delicate diplomatic balance with Beijing. The U.S.–South Korea alliance and the presence of USFK have increasingly taken on the role of counterbalancing China’s growing influence in the region. However, South Korea must tread carefully. Direct references to “China containment” in the summit’s joint statement would almost certainly provoke diplomatic backlash and complicate Seoul’s efforts to maintain stable relations with its largest trading partner.

Instead, the language of the joint statement should emphasize “regional stability and peace,” framing the Korean Peninsula’s security as a cornerstone of broader Indo-Pacific stability. This approach aligns with the original mission of the alliance and preserves the principle of strategic flexibility. It also allows South Korea to maintain its diplomatic autonomy while contributing to collective security.

The summit also presents an opportunity to redefine the strategic purpose of the alliance. While the United States seeks to reorient its Indo-Pacific posture to address emerging threats, South Korea must ensure that its own interests are not sidelined. A recalibrated alliance should reflect mutual respect, shared values, and a recognition of South Korea’s growing regional role—including its contributions to peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, and regional diplomacy.

South Korea should advocate for a more balanced partnership—one that moves beyond the traditional patron-client dynamic and embraces a model of strategic co-leadership. This would require both nations to engage in honest dialogue about their respective priorities and expectations, and to adapt institutional mechanisms to better reflect contemporary realities.

Domestic political implications must also be considered. While public support for the alliance remains strong, there is growing scrutiny over the financial and strategic costs of maintaining such a close relationship with Washington. Any perceived imbalance could become a flashpoint in domestic politics, particularly amid rising nationalism and economic uncertainty. Transparency and public diplomacy will be essential in framing the summit’s outcomes in a way that resonates with the Korean public.

Economic and security issues will likely be negotiated as a package. South Korea must maintain principled positions while embracing adaptive thinking. This means being clear about red lines—such as preserving strategic autonomy and avoiding entanglement in great-power rivalry—while remaining open to creative solutions that advance mutual interests.

When dealing with Trump, symbolic diplomacy may also play a role. Gestures that appeal to his personal style—such as wearing a MASGA (Make Alliance Stronger Again) hat during a visit to the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard—could help build rapport and soften the negotiation atmosphere. While such gestures may seem superficial, they can influence the tone and trajectory of high-stakes diplomacy.

Ultimately, this summit is not just about transactional deals or short-term gains. It is about shaping the future of the U.S.–South Korea alliance in a rapidly changing world. The Indo-Pacific region is becoming increasingly volatile, with rising tensions, shifting alliances, and emerging threats. In this context, South Korea must navigate the summit with strategic clarity and diplomatic finesse.

It must articulate a vision for the alliance that is forward-looking, inclusive, and resilient—balancing security commitments with economic interests, and regional aspirations with global responsibilities. And it must do so with a clear understanding of the stakes involved—not just for itself, but for the broader region and the international order.

South Korea must also demonstrate strategic imagination—an ability to anticipate shifts, shape narratives, and build coalitions that extend beyond the bilateral framework. The alliance must evolve from a reactive posture to a proactive force for stability and innovation in the Indo-Pacific.

This requires not only policy coordination but also a shared strategic culture—one that values long-term planning, mutual respect, and democratic resilience. As the region faces mounting pressure from authoritarian assertiveness, climate insecurity, and technological disruption, the U.S.–South Korea alliance must become a platform for collective problem-solving and principled leadership.

In this moment of uncertainty, South Korea has the opportunity to lead—not just as a reliable ally, but as a strategic architect of regional peace. The upcoming summit is a test of that leadership. If Seoul succeeds in balancing firmness with flexibility, and principle with pragmatism, it can help shape a new chapter in the alliance—one that reflects not only shared interests but shared vision. That would be a legacy worth building.