Trump’s Controversial Remarks on US Military Bases in Korea

During a recent summit in August, US President Donald Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung discussed various topics, but one particular comment from Trump stirred significant discussion. He suggested that the United States should take ownership of the land where approximately 28,500 American troops are stationed in South Korea. This remark, while possibly intended to convey a sense of permanence in US military presence, raised concerns regarding the implications of such ownership on the longstanding alliance between the two nations.

Trump stated, “We spent a lot of money building a fort, and there was a contribution made by South Korea, but I would like to see if we could get rid of the lease and get ownership of the land where we have a massive military base.” For many South Koreans, who have historically been wary of a potential US withdrawal, this comment may have initially seemed reassuring. It appeared to suggest a commitment to maintaining a robust American presence in a region that remains tense due to the ongoing threat from North Korea and uncertainties related to China’s rising influence.

However, the implications of Trump’s ownership remark quickly became apparent. It highlighted a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the US-South Korea alliance and posed risks to the foundational principles of American military engagement in Asia. Under the current US-Republic of Korea Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), the United States does not “lease” the bases from South Korea nor does it pay rent. Instead, South Korea grants the US use rights for military purposes, retaining full sovereignty over the land.

Historical Context of Military Bases

This framework is not unique to South Korea; it has been a model for US military operations since World War II. Countries like Germany and Japan host US bases under similar agreements, emphasizing cooperation rather than ownership. According to the Congressional Research Service in 2024, “With certain limited exceptions, the United States does not typically maintain overseas bases without the agreement of the host nation.” Trump’s comments blurred this critical distinction.

The situation in the Philippines serves as a historical lesson in this context. US bases there were perceived as symbols of occupation, ultimately leading to domestic pressure that forced their closure in 1991. The restoration of US access required years of diplomatic efforts and respect for Philippine sovereignty. For South Koreans, who have lived through the painful memories of Japanese colonial rule, the idea of US ownership could provoke significant backlash, shifting the perception of the US from a partner to an occupier.

Maritime versus Continental Power

The distinction between maritime and continental power is crucial in understanding the implications of the US military presence in South Korea. Naval historian Sarah Paine explains that maritime power fosters wealth through trade and alliances, whereas continental power often relies on territorial conquest. The United States has historically thrived as a maritime power, leveraging naval projection and a network of alliances rather than land acquisition.

If ownership were to be established, it would fundamentally alter this dynamic, inviting unfavorable comparisons to countries like China and Russia, which the US has historically opposed. South Korea is not merely a host but a vital maritime partner in America’s strategic posture in the region.

General Xavier Brunson, commander of US Forces Korea, articulated this view during the Land Forces Pacific symposium in 2025. He suggested that if one visualizes the Korean Peninsula as an island, it becomes clear that South Korea serves as a critical maritime outpost between Japan and mainland China. He emphasized that the alliance is about partnership, positioning the US presence in Korea as a demonstration of commitment rather than ownership.

Strategic Implications for the Alliance

Respect for sovereignty remains a cornerstone of international relations, particularly for the United States, which has long championed this principle in its foreign policy. This respect is foundational to America’s role as a leader in the free world. The careless discussion of “ownership” undermines this principle, blurring the lines between ally and occupier.

As Washington continues to navigate these complex dynamics, it must remain mindful of the implications of its rhetoric. Meanwhile, countries like China are actively pursuing their own interests, exemplified by initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, which seeks to expand its influence through land and maritime routes.

The US response should emphasize alliances over territorial claims, reinforcing its commitment to collective security without the trappings of colonialism. South Korea’s role as a partner in this vision is essential, as it strengthens the first island chain and contributes to regional stability. Reassurance for South Korea comes not from talk of ownership, but from the US standing firmly alongside it as a partner.

Ultimately, the durability of the US-ROK alliance hinges on mutual respect and collaboration. The way forward must focus on cooperation rather than ownership, ensuring that both nations can effectively address the challenges posed by adversaries in the region.

Political commentator Hanjin Lew provides insight into these complex issues, with research contributions from Jio Lew, highlighting the importance of understanding the historical and strategic context of US military presence in South Korea.