It has not been long since tariffs were raised, and now a security bill has followed.
U.S. President Donald Trump stated that Korea should pay an annual defense cost of $10 billion (approximately 13.7 trillion won).
The issue of 'alliance expenses' raised during the first administration is taking shape as a comprehensive pressure linking trade and security in the second administration.
On the 8th (local time), President Trump specifically mentioned Korea at a Cabinet meeting at the White House.
Trump claimed, "Korea is a wealthy country. We rebuilt Korea and stayed there, but they paid very little."
He continued, "I think Korea should pay $10 billion a year," presenting a specific amount.
$10 billion is the amount Trump repeatedly mentioned during the presidential campaign last year. Compared to this year's total contribution of 1.4028 trillion won, it is nearly 10 times greater.
The claims from the Trump administration are based on 'America First' ideology. While allies enjoy prosperity due to U.S. military power, there is a perception that the U.S. bears a huge financial burden.
Trump criticized the previous administration's policy, saying, "I made allies pay billions of dollars before, but Biden canceled that."
On this day, Trump referred to the size of U.S. troops in Korea as "45,000," which is much higher than the actual number (approximately 28,000).
Some experts pointed out that Trump has been intentionally making numerical errors on important issues since his first term, analyzing it as "a calculated statement to exaggerate expenses to build a case for pressure."
The defense expenses mentioned by Trump refer to part of the costs Korea bears for the U.S. military presence under the Special Measures Agreement (SMA). The salary of U.S. troops stationed in Korea and the cost of advanced weapons are fully covered by the U.S.
Korea shares the labor costs of Korean workers at U.S. military bases, construction costs of facilities within military bases, and logistics support costs such as ammunition storage or transportation.
The agreement began in 1991 and is typically renewed every 3 to 5 years. Korea and the U.S. signed the 12th negotiation last year. This agreement will remain in effect until 2030.
However, the SMA is an administrative agreement that does not require congressional approval. If the U.S. wants to renegotiate, it can easily cancel the 12th agreement and come back to the negotiation table. Trump's remarks this time likely came from a strategic standpoint considering renegotiation.
The pressure is not limited to Korea.
On the same day, Trump mentioned Germany, stating, "The U.S. troops stationed in Germany are a tremendous loss for us."
Previously, during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on the 5th of last month, he stated, "Approximately 45,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Germany," adding that it is "in itself a city and benefits the German economy." In a month, the evaluation of U.S. troops stationed in Germany shifted from 'an advantage of the alliance' to 'a loss for America.'
The German media Deutsche Welle interprets, "Trump's diplomacy prioritizes profit and loss statements over the value of alliances," saying it is "a typical negotiating tactic to pressure allies and maximize negotiating power by sending the message that positions can change anytime based on the situation and necessity."
The level of pressure aimed at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is stronger.
Trump consistently raised the 'security free-riding' theory, saying that NATO member countries do not keep their promise to spend 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. Especially ahead of this election, he went further to state, "I will not protect an ally that does not pay for defense, and I will rather encourage them to do whatever the hell they want if they are attacked by Russia."
For Trump, trade and security are not separate issues. He raises the defense cost issue simultaneously with tariffs. The day before this defense cost remark, Trump sent tariff letters to Korea, Japan, and 12 other countries.
The strategy is to pressure the economy through tariffs while charging for security expenses, aiming to maximize profits from both sides.
Some experts evaluate that the Trump administration perceives the value of alliances as a strict 'contractual relationship.'
Victor Cha, a Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), pointed out, "President Trump's remarks show a view of allies as financial burdens rather than partners for U.S. interests," adding, "This seriously undermines the value of alliances."