August 28, 2025
SEOUL – Diplomatic theater often flatters before it unsettles. The summit between President Lee Jae Myung and US President Donald Trump in Washington on Monday ended with smiles, jokes about golf and talk of shipyards.
Yet beneath the conviviality lay reminders that the most difficult chapters of the alliance — from trade disputes to security dilemmas — remain unwritten. The challenge for Seoul is to turn a promising opening into something more durable than a handshake photo.
Lee seems to have achieved his first goal: leaving a strong impression on the mercurial American leader. By flattering Trump as a global “peacemaker” and even offering to serve as his “pacemaker,” Lee projected pragmatism and avoided confrontation. His willingness to champion the “Make American Shipbuilding Great Again” initiative gave Trump something tangible, rooting the rapport in economic cooperation rather than abstractions.
The atmospherics matter.
Trump, who hours earlier had hinted at a “purge or revolution” in South Korea, quickly shifted tone under Lee’s calibrated charm. By the end of the meeting, he was praising Korea’s leadership and talking up cooperation. That Lee could steady the room and prevent the summit from derailing was no small feat, especially given Trump’s appetite for surprise.
But atmospherics do not substitute for policy. The summit sidestepped the most sensitive questions. Trump’s insistence that the United States should hold title to land used by American forces in South Korea was an unwelcome reminder of his transactional instincts. Lee could only deflect.
Similarly, while both leaders spoke warmly about resuming talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, no one outlined a strategy for reconciling Trump’s personal diplomacy with Seoul’s security needs. A Trump–Kim reunion may rekindle spectacle, but it could push South Korea to the margins on its own peninsula.
On trade, the truce is temporary. The recent tariff bargain and South Korea’s $350 billion investment pledge were reaffirmed, but the details remain undetermined. US officials have already signaled that market access and investment terms will demand further negotiation.
Nor was there clarity on defense modernization. Both leaders endorsed updating the decadeslong alliance for a more contested Indo-Pacific region, but left the mechanics to aides. That means tough talks ahead on cost-sharing, command structures and the scope of US deployments. Trump’s mention of “strategic flexibility,” referring to the use of US forces in South Korea beyond the peninsula, will stir unease in Seoul, where public opinion is wary of being drawn into Washington’s confrontation with Beijing.
Still, there were gains. Lee secured Trump’s tentative agreement to attend the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea later this year and to keep open the possibility of trilateral coordination with Japan.
Lee’s framing of diplomacy in terms of national interest suggests a pragmatic realism that may resonate with a Trump White House more inclined toward making deals than doctrine. Compared to the lofty but elusive “driver’s seat” rhetoric of past Korean administrations, Lee’s “pacemaker” metaphor seems better suited to the moment.
The test, however, lies ahead. North Korea and China have yet to respond constructively, and domestic politics in both countries could upend even the best-laid plans. With Trump’s volatility a constant hazard, South Korea must pair cooperation with contingency, securing benefits while fortifying itself against sudden reversals.
Diplomatic theater flatters in its opening act, but the measure of an alliance comes when the performance ends.
The Washington summit was reassuring in tone and free of mishap, yet atmospherics are fleeting. What matters now is the harder work of managing trade-offs with vigilance, so that when spectacle gives way to strain, South Korea’s interests remain firmly secured alongside America’s.