Trump's Surprise Drill Cuts Rattle South Korea, Testing 72-Year Alliance

Seoul, South Korea – The order to scale back joint military exercises did not come through diplomatic channels but via a social media post, just hours before the annual South Korea-U.S. military drills were set to begin.

U.S. President Donald Trump, writing on Truth Social on Monday, said he had directed the Pentagon to “substantially reduce” the exercises, which he described as sending an “inappropriate and hostile” signal to North Korea. He also criticized Seoul for declining to join U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran.

The announcement caught South Korean officials off guard, coming on a public holiday marking the country’s liberation from Japanese colonial rule, and caused disruption in both Seoul and Washington.

The Pentagon only said it was “actively implementing” the president’s directive. In Seoul, General Xavier Brunson, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, met with Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back. By Wednesday, the two sides had agreed on details: the exercise, which had already begun, would be shortened from 11 days to five, and the scope of some field drills would also be reduced.

“We can’t trust Trump”

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung tried to maintain a measured tone. Speaking to his cabinet on Tuesday, Lee stressed that the U.S.-South Korea alliance remains essential but also called for “strengthening” the country’s self-reliant defense capabilities.

By Wednesday, he offered a conciliatory message to Trump, calling the U.S. president’s decision “deeply considered” with the aim of ending hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. In a post on X, Lee said he “fully sympathizes” with Trump’s view that Seoul must bear more responsibility for its own security and expressed readiness to help restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz – the energy route blockaded by Iran – saying his government would continue talks on possible “practical contribution measures.”

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Cho Hyun told lawmakers that there was no prior notice of the move. “Our government and U.S. officials alike did not know what President Trump wrote on his Truth Social. We were not notified in advance.”

On social media, reactions ranged from concern to anger. One user wrote: “We can’t trust everything Trump says.” Another commented: “The U.S. prioritizes pragmatic interests over loyalty to allies. They do the same with Europe. We can’t escape our dependence on the U.S. immediately, but we should move toward self-reliance.”

The Hankook Ilbo, one of South Korea’s most widely read dailies, urged the public to face the “harsh reality of a weakening South Korea-U.S. alliance.” The paper argued it was “absurd that the U.S. seems to treat North Korea with more respect than its ally South Korea.”

Iran war

Many voices called for a rethink of Seoul’s policy on the Iran war. The U.S. president had publicly criticized Seoul on this issue.

“Wait,” he said in the Oval Office on Monday. “We have 39,000 soldiers there protecting you from Kim Jong Un, your neighbor, and you don’t help us in a very easy military campaign in Iran? That’s strange.”

South Korean public opinion on the war is divided. A late-March Hankook Research survey found about 38% of respondents felt the government should “support the U.S.,” while 36% said it should remain neutral. About 16% said it “should oppose the U.S.”

Opposition leader Jang Dong-hyeok of the People Power Party criticized President Lee for refusing Trump’s request for help on Iran, accusing him of causing a “diplomatic disaster” and “destroying the South Korea-U.S. alliance.”

In a Tuesday editorial, the conservative JoongAng Ilbo argued that Lee’s administration bore some responsibility, writing that the alliance “is not a one-sided favor but a reciprocal relationship.” The paper urged the government to demonstrate its contributions, “from investment and trade commitments to supporting freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.”

Meanwhile, The Korea Herald said the alliance “can survive disagreements” but is harder to maintain “when one side learns of major security decisions via social media.” The paper also speculated that the move toward Pyongyang might have more to do with diverting attention from the “protracted Iran war” than with security on the Korean Peninsula, and called on Seoul to respond “without panic or complacency,” reducing the “vulnerability that comes from over-reliance on decisions made in Washington.”

Denuclearization

For those who closely followed Trump’s first term, the current situation is not entirely new. After the 2018 summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore, Washington and Seoul suspended the major joint exercise that year and scaled back others, later partially restoring them when Washington-Pyongyang talks collapsed.

Cha Du Hyeogn, vice president of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, said the predictability Seoul once expected from Washington can no longer be taken for granted. “If South Korea is not willing to play the role the U.S. expects of an ally, Washington may also reconsider elements of its security commitment,” he said, also referring to ongoing trade negotiations, including South Korea’s pledge of $350 billion in investment in the U.S. in exchange for tariff relief.

The episode also revived the long-standing debate over whether South Korea should pursue its own nuclear weapons. Kim Jae Chun, a professor of international relations at Sogang University, said: “Trump’s unilateral decision to reduce joint exercises without consulting the South Korean government could be perceived by Koreans as a weakening of the U.S. security commitment. If that trust declines further, it could strengthen arguments for South Korea to arm itself with nuclear weapons.”

However, he cautioned against “overreacting.” He described South Korea as a “junior partner” in the alliance and said the country “may have to compromise some autonomy in exchange for a more reliable security commitment from the U.S.” Many in Seoul still hope the thaw between Trump and Kim could be “a first step toward a more stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.”