Key Takeaways:

- The Lee–Trump summit avoided disaster but exposed deep cracks, urging Seoul to take the lead in shaping alliance strategy rather than reacting to Washington.
- ICE raids and stalled negotiations show how U.S. domestic politics can disrupt ties — Seoul must turn its supply-chain leverage into strategic advantage.
- Seoul must present a clear, credible “pacemaker” plan that blends deterrence, diplomacy, and allied coordination to win U.S. buy-in.

The first meeting between President Lee Jae-myung and U.S. President Donald Trump on August 25, 2025 was held under a cloud of uncertainty. For weeks, many observers speculated whether the encounter might descent into disaster, especially after the disastrous breakdown of Trump’s summit with the South African president.[1] Many leaders have grown increasingly reluctant to engage Trump, fearing both his unpredictability and the potential for domestic fallout if talks collapse. Against this backdrop, the fact that the ROK-US summit concluded without visible drama is seen as a relief. Yet the absence of open rupture should not be mistaken for substantive progress. Beneath the optic of cordiality, the meeting exposed several unresolved tensions that will shape the trajectory of alliance.

This commentary unpacks four key issues that emerged around the summit and these reveal both the fragility of the current ROK-US relations and the urgent need for Seoul to sharpen its strategic choices.

Setting the stage

Perhaps the most striking moment came with Trump’s reference to a “purge” in South Korea, a comment introduced with the phrase: “I heard it from Intel.”[2] While many dismissed this as another example of Trump’s unpredictable rhetorical style, it nonetheless illustrates a deeper structural problem for Seoul. Trump’s perception of South Korea – and his willingness to use it as a bargaining leverage – is being infiltrated through U.S. intelligence assessments. Previous American presidents might have relied on intelligence reporting to shape their views of Korean domestic politics, but Trump is unique in airing such perceptions openly and weaponizing them in diplomatic interactions. The implication is troubling: if the U.S. intelligence frames South Korea as politically unstable or internally divided, Trump may treat Seoul as a vulnerable partner, one that can be pressured into concessions.

Unsettled Trade Negotiations

A month after the summit, ROK-US trade negotiation remains unresolved. Despite repeated assurance that an agreement was within reach, no compromise has been finalized. The situation was further complicated by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid on Hyundai and LG Energy Solution facilities in Georgia. This episode revealed several uncomfortable truths. First, it showed how the ROK-US relationship can be destabilized by actions taken by MAGA-oriented US bureaucracies. The raid signaled to Seoul that even if relations at the presidential level appear stable, other parts of the U.S. government branch can generate frictions. Second, the raid underscored the vulnerability of U.S. industrial policy and the depth of anti-immigrant sentiment ingrained among American voters. For South Korea, this creates both risk and opportunity. One the one hand, its flagship investment in the United States can be disrupted by domestic U.S. politics. On the other hand, the centrality of Korean firms to U.S. supply chains could serve as leverage – if Seoul can carefully calibrate its response.

Alliance modernization: Broad Agreement, Deep Dispute

Both leaders emerged from the summit with a rhetorical commitment to modernizing the alliance. Yet as soon as policy details came into focus, differences became apparent. President Lee’s remark on September 21 revealed a conceptual gap between Seoul and Washington.[3] From Seoul’s perspective, pragmatic diplomacy’ has become the guiding principle of foreign policy. In practice, this has meant hedging between major powers, seeking strategic autonomy, and emphasizing national sovereignty. But Washington expects Seoul to align closely with the United States and regional partners to strengthen deterrence against North Korea, while also coordinating with Europe and Indo-Pacific partners to counter Pyongyang, Beijing, and Moscow’s growing international outreach and deepening strategic alignment. The divergence between two allies is particularly stark when it comes to the role of China and Russia in resolving North Korea issue. Lee has occasionally suggested that Beijing or Moscow could play constructive roles on the Korean peninsula. Yet in today’s bloc-centered international order, such arguments carry little weight. Worse, they risk undermining Seoul’s credibility among like-minded states. True pragmatism, in this context, should mean expanding South Korea’s international footprint by actively expanding coalition-building with like-minded partners with various minilateral formats, over security, economy, rules-making, and other domains, which not only provide maneuvering room for Seoul between two, US and China, while balancing revisionist countries in the region to maintain rules-based order. 

Coordination on North Korea Policy

Nowhere is the gap between Seoul and Washington clearer than on North Korea. As Pyongyang deepens its strategic partnership with Moscow - sending munitions and ground forces in exchange for advanced technologies – the possibility of resolving the nuclear issues through inter-Korean channel has evaporated. Historical precedent reinforces this reality. During the Moon Jae-in administration, Washington consistently preferred direct diplomacy with Pyongyang and resisted Seoul’s attempts to act as mediator. In the current context, with Trump pursuing his own idiosyncratic approach to North Korea, the space for South Korean initiative is even narrower. If North Korea remains Seoul’s top diplomatic priority, then two steps are essential. First, South Korea must articulate a comprehensive North Korea strategy, one that integrate deterrence, sanctions, inducement, and coordination with allies and partners. Second, it must develop how South Korea would play a ‘pacemaker,’ as President Lee mentioned during the summit. This pacemaker strategy needs to be designed not only to secure Washington’s support but also to persuade American policymakers that South Korean-led policy on North Korea can complement U.S. objectives rather than compete with them. However, in a context where nationalist sentiment increasingly emphasizes inter-Korean reconciliation over deterrence against the North, it remains uncertain whether such a pacemaker strategy can realistically emerge.  

Conclusion: Avoiding Drift in a Time of Uncertainty

The recent ROK-US summit avoided the worst-case scenario: there was no open rupture, no collapse in talks, no visible humiliation for either leader. Yet this negative relief should not obscure the fact that the summit resolved little. On trade, on alliance modernization, and on North Korea, the underlying tensions remain unresolved. For South Korea, the imperative is clear. Upcoming opportunities for high-level engagement – at the UN General Assembly, at APEC, and other multilateral forums – must be seized to clarify positions, shape U.S. perceptions, and lock-in cooperative commitment. Waiting passively, or assuming that rhetorical commitments suffice, will leave Seoul vulnerable to the unpredictable swings of U.S. domestic politics and even the President Trump himself. The broader lesson is that in the Trump era, stability in the alliance cannot be taken granted. It must be actively cultivated, with clear strategies, consistent messaging, and a willingness to adapt. Otherwise, South Korea risks slipping into a reactive posture – constantly managing crises rather than shaping outcomes. The recent summit was not a disaster, but neither was it a success. It was, in essence, a warning: the alliance endures, but only if both sides want to work deliberately to sustain it.