Pres. Lee faces first major policy test amid Trump's tariffs and defense cost pressure

Welcome to Within The Frame, where we bring the most pressing issues across the globe into focus. I'm Kim Mok-yeon.

Only 18 days remain until President Trump’s sweeping tariffs hit Korean exports—and Seoul is running out of time. The Korean government has entered emergency mode, rushing to secure a broad framework deal with Washington before the August 1st deadline, with a phased negotiation strategy aimed at protecting national industries while fending off Trump’s escalating demands.

Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo warned that this is not Trump’s first term—this time, over 20 nations are caught in simultaneous high-stakes talks as the U.S. moves to reshape the global trade order.

Korea is pushing a “package deal” that ties tariffs to investment, defense costs, LNG cooperation, and digital trade—while drawing red lines around sensitive issues like agricultural imports and wartime operational control.

But the stakes are higher than ever as Trump just slapped 30 percent tariffs on Mexico and the EU after near-deals collapsed.

For a deeper discussion on this, we're joined by Ban Kil Joo, Assistant Professor at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy. Welcome.

Also joining us is Andrew Millard, Assistant Professor of International Relations at Changwon National University.

(Ban) Kicking things off—with President Donald Trump ramping up pressure on South Korea by pushing for higher defense cost-sharing on top of existing tariffs, Seoul has responded with a proposed “package deal” that links trade, investment, and security.

Why do you think the Korean government shifted gears to suggest a package deal that merges economic and security issues, despite initially planning to address them separately?

(Millard) Following up on that—what specific negotiation cards do you anticipate the Korean government might bring to the table in this package deal approach?

(Ban) Continuing with the strategy itself—how effective do you think this bundling of trade and security issues will be as a negotiation method?

(Millard) With Washington’s pressure intensifying, some are suggesting that the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) should be raised as a bargaining chip in the U.S.-Korea negotiations. Why is the OPCON issue coming into the spotlight now? Given Trump’s foreign policy posture, do you think this could give Korea leverage in the broader trade-security talks?

(Ban) On that point—National Security Office chief Wi Sung-lac has stated that the OPCON transfer is a separate matter from the tariff negotiations. What’s the significance of Korea drawing that clear line and choosing not to use OPCON as a trade negotiation card?

(Ban) Some argue that regaining wartime control could bring Korea closer to achieving autonomous defense, but it may also weaken the combined defense posture with the U.S. How do you assess that trade-off?

(Millard) Looking at the bigger picture—America’s military strategy is shifting toward countering China, and President Trump reportedly wants U.S. Forces Korea to play a more flexible regional role. If OPCON is returned to Korea, could that directly lead to U.S. troop reductions or redeployment from the Peninsula?

(Ban) Meanwhile, hopes are high that the upcoming U.S.-Korea summit could help break the deadlock in tariff negotiations. But with the tariff exemption deadline set for August 1st, time is running short. What do you see as the key factors for arranging an early summit?

(Millard) Wrapping up—with all eyes on these talks, this moment could prove a major test of President Lee Jae Myung’s “pragmatic diplomacy centered on national interest.” In your view, what’s the most critical element in navigating this negotiation landscape?

Thank you for your time and for your insights tonight Prof BAN and Prof. MILLARD, we appreciate it.