On the eve of the presidential elections in South Korea, it will be very interesting to see how the military-political cooperation between Washington, Tokyo and Seoul will develop.
US troops partially moving from South Korea to Guam?
On May 22, 2025, the Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed representatives of the Department of Defence, reported that the Trump administration is considering the possibility of withdrawing approximately 4,500 American troops from South Korea and transferring them to other locations in the Indo-Pacific region, including Guam. It is reported that such plans are an element of an informal review of US policy vis-à-vis the DPRK. However, all of this has not yet been reported to President Trump; at present, the issue is being discussed between senior US officials.
This idea is allegedly being prepared for the US president to consider amid suggestions that the Trump administration could seek greater ‘strategic flexibility’ for US troops stationed in South Korea to deter China, encourage South Korea to shoulder a greater share of the defence burden and, in general, reduce the costly US foreign military presence.
A rebuttal quickly followed. On May 23, in an interview with Yonhap, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell denied reports that the United States was considering reducing the US contingent in South Korea, calling them “untrue”, and reiterated that the United States is fully committed to defending South Korea.
On the same day, on May 23, an unnamed representative of the South Korean Ministry of Defence indicated that Seoul had not negotiated with Washington the reduction of the US military contingent on the Korean peninsula. “Changing the composition of the US Armed Forces contingent is an issue that requires bilateral consultations based on the spirit of the South Korean-US alliance and mutual respect,” he said.
Do these rumours have any truth to them?
In 2004, Seoul and Washington agreed to reduce the size of the US contingent from 35,000 to 25,000 as part of the US strategic mobility strategy, as the US faced threats from terrorists and non-state actors whose location was difficult to determine. But in 2008, the allies agreed to maintain the size of the US Armed Forces group at the current level of 28,500, including units of the 8th Army, 7th Air Force, US Navy in Korea, US Marine Corps in Korea and the US Special Operations Command in Korea.
During his first term as president, Trump had already voiced thoughts about withdrawing troops. In April 2024, the US Time Magazine reported that Trump suggested the United States could withdraw its troops from South Korea if their Asian ally did not pay more for the support of US troops. During the election campaign in October 2024, Trump called South Korea a “money machine” and said that if he were in the White House, South Korea would pay $10 billion a year for the maintenance of troops rather than the $1 billion in accordance with the current agreement.
Under Secretary of Defence Elbridge Colby has long advocated reorganising the US military to focus more on countering the Chinese threat. In his opinion, “American troops on the peninsula should not be held hostage to resolving the North Korean issue because this is not the main problem for the United States”.
However, Trump will not be able to unilaterally achieve a reduction in the number of troops due to the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA), which provides for maintaining the current contingent of forces. Such a plan must go through certain procedures, including a consultation on security.
In reality, the issue is in the early stages of being discussed – at best
There are no official statements as of yet, and the Commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel J. Paparo Jr., and the new commander of the United States Armed Forces in Korea (USFK), General Xavier Brunson, are against the idea of downsizing.
Paparo warned that withdrawing or reducing US troops in South Korea would increase the likelihood of a North Korean invasion, while Brunson stressed that reducing troops would be problematic.
Earlier, on May 20, 2025, at the Land Forces Pacific Symposium in Hawaii, Xavier Brunson described the country as an island or a stationary aircraft carrier navigating between Japan and mainland China.
So far, US comparisons with an ‘aircraft carrier’ have referred to Taiwan or Japan; according to South Korean analysts, the comment indicates that “in the context of strategic flexibility, the US armed forces can be expanded to challenge China or Russia, as well as North Korea”.
South Korea’s reaction and more
From the South Korean perspective, the presence of 28,500 US troops is primarily aimed at securing the country from its northern neighbour, rather than creating additional security uncertainty for the country by pitting it against China and Russia. Therefore, conservative media said that such a move “could worsen security problems in South Korea in the face of constant threats from North Korea”.
However, the former commander of the Republic of Korea Army Special Warfare Command, General Chun In-bum, believes that this initiative is not a sign of the US withdrawal from the game or a political manoeuvre to put pressure on South Korea on the allocation of defence spending. “A flexible, regionally integrated US force posture centred on the Korean Peninsula is not a liability – it’s a critical asset”, the general wrote. If Washington wanted to increase South Korea’s contribution to defence spending, it would not reduce its presence, but would review the cost structure.
US military resources are limited. With a shrinking army and growing global demands, the Pentagon must optimise locations and ways to deploy troops. Permanent, stationary deployment is becoming less and less feasible. Instead, Washington is investing in mobility, rotational deployment and interoperability. Yes, for decades, the US Armed Forces have been seen as a deterrent deployed along the demilitarised zone, but in today’s world, static force is vulnerable. Troops that can operate in multiple theatres of war and be deployed quickly are more difficult for opponents to track and neutralise.
The alliance between the United States and South Korea cannot be limited to protecting South Korea from the aggression of the North. It should develop into an active partnership, where South Korea will invest in a common strategic infrastructure.
In this regard, Chinese media noted that “if the United States is really considering the possibility of withdrawing its troops from South Korea, this could cause panic throughout the Indo-Pacific region, where countries such as South Korea, Japan and the Philippines rely on cooperation with the US military in defence matters”.
This news almost went by unnoticed in Russia, but the author would have commented on it the following way:
- It may not reflect the current situation exactly, but it is based on real sentiments. Trump is preparing for a fight with China, but he does not believe that North Korea can start a war first.
- The South Korean army has changed drastically since the times of Syngman Rhee and is capable of defending itself, which is why the US contingent is important, but largely symbolic.
- The speed of modern missiles (hypersonic missiles fly from Pyongyang to Seoul in a minute) suggests that it is impossible to carry out an effective evacuation in case of a surprise attack. Instead of putting the troops at risk, it is easier to withdraw them to a safe distance.
- At the same time, the future South Korean president will have to make a decision on this matter, and dialogue will be difficult, especially if it is Lee Jae-myung, who will need to prove to Trump that he is on the right team and that his populist, anti-American statements are a thing of the past.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading Research Fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences
