Home > National > Diplomacy

Lee-Trump summit a success without solutions, experts say

Published: 28 Aug. 2025, 06:00 Updated: 07 Sep. 2025, 16:30

U.S. President Donald Trump, left, welcomes President Lee Jae Myung at the White House in Washington on Aug. 25. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

Most experts described President Lee Jae Myung’s first summit with U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday as a success that highlighted the rapport between the two leaders and avoided friction, but they also cautioned that the absence of concrete agreements leaves key issues unresolved.

The JoongAng Ilbo surveyed 22 experts on Korea-U.S. relations on Tuesday and Wednesday. Of them, 21 described the summit as positive overall, though many pointed to gaps. Only one expert withheld judgment, while none evaluated it negatively.

Analysts said Lee and Trump successfully built a sense of closeness and avoided the kind of friction some had feared. But many experts, while viewing the summit as successful, voiced concerns about challenges ahead. Without a written document on the outcome, they said it is difficult to clearly weigh the gains and losses for each side.

“It is regrettable that there was no joint communiqué at all,” said Jeon Kyung-joo, chief of the Korean Peninsula Security Research Division and a research fellow at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA). “It can only be interpreted as a sign that even basic policy directions were difficult to agree on.”

Lee Byong-chul, a professor at Kyungnam University’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies, said President Lee prepared for the summit with meticulous planning from multiple angles, but still expressed concerns.

"It is clear that the appearance of the summit outweighed its substance," he said.

President Lee signaled his willingness to increase defense spending during the summit, responding to Washington's call for alliance modernization. But the two sides have not revealed whether they found common ground on the core issue of applying strategic flexibility, namely changes to the role and size of U.S. Forces Korea. The key questions remain unresolved.

U.S. Stryker armored vehicles and Korean K200 armored vehicles cross a floating bridge during a Korea-U.S. joint river-crossing exercise in Yeoju, Gyeonggi on Aug. 27. [YONHAP]

Some experts saw the absence of contentious topics as a relief.

“Because the summit did not tackle the expansion of extended deterrence or the deployment of U.S. strategic assets, which would have meant additional costs for Seoul, the burden was reduced,” said Lee Sang-gyu, head of nuclear security research at KIDA.

But Park Won-gon, a professor at Ewha Womans University, noted the opposite.

“The summit should have addressed unresolved economic and defense issues that officials could not solve, but nothing was settled,” Park said.

Other analysts said the United States may have deliberately postponed presenting what they called a “security bill.”

“The summit left unresolved issues such as U.S. troop reductions, greater flexibility for U.S. forces in Korea and expanded alliance missions,” said Kim Jung-sub, senior research fellow at the Sejong Institute. “They will likely surface again in upcoming foreign and defense ministerial meetings.”

Another achievement cited was “drawing Trump’s clear support for peace on the Korean Peninsula and for resolving the North Korea issue,” according to Park Ihn-hwi, professor at Ewha Womans University Department of International Studies.

William Chu, a researcher at the Hudson Institute, assessed that President Lee positions himself as a “pacemaker” while urging Trump to act as a “peacemaker,” a strategy that effectively highlights Trump as the central figure in mediating peace.

But North Korea criticized the summit through its state-run Korean Central News Agency on Wednesday. Pyongyang denounced Lee’s remarks about working with Washington for denuclearization and peace on the peninsula as “a daydream.”

Trump himself described the summit as a success.

“I think we have a deal done,” he told reporters after Monday's summit. “They had some problems with it, but we stuck to our guns."

U.S. negotiators appeared focused on drawing out more direct corporate investment while maintaining the framework of a July agreement that introduced 15 percent reciprocal tariffs.

President Lee Jae Myung, left, arrives at the Hanwha Philly Shipyard for a cristening ceremony in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on Aug. 26. [AP/YONHAP]

But aside from Korean companies announcing an additional $150 billion in foreign direct investment in the United States during the summit, the talks produced no clear outcomes in the trade sector.

"Companies promised an additional $150 billion in direct investment after Washington judged the $350 billion fund pledged in tariff negotiations last month insufficient," said Kim Jae-chun, professor at Sogang University’s Graduate School of International Studies. “This is exactly what President Trump wanted, and it shows that key economic issues between the two countries remain unresolved.”

Sohn Yul, president of the East Asia Institute, also voiced concerns.

“The Japan-U.S. summit in February also ended on a positive note but was followed by difficult trade negotiations,” said. “The same will likely happen after the Korea-U.S.summit, with protracted talks on trade, investment and modernization of the alliance.”

Analysts say the summit gave the United States “cash” in the form of additional investment pledges, while Korea gained a “promissory note” in the form of U.S. trust.

"The summit underscored Korea’s indispensability as an ally in industries such as shipbuilding, nuclear power and advanced technology," said Jeon Jae-sung, a political science professor at Seoul National University.

Jang Sang-sik, head of the International Trade Research Institute at the Korea International Trade Association, said the talks eased tariff uncertainty and clarified the framework for broader manufacturing cooperation.

"But sensitive issues like agriculture and digital trade were pushed to working-level discussions, suggesting the United States showed some consideration for Korea's situation," Jang said.

Still, experts warned that leaving contentious issues unresolved at the summit could lead to tougher negotiations later.

The Trump administration has repeatedly pressed Korea to further open its agricultural markets. During the summit, Trump also mentioned joint investment projects in Alaska that have yet to materialize, which some interpreted as pressure.

Lee, in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Korea could no longer pursue the so-called “security with the United States, economy with China” approach, signaling a break with past policy and an attempt to shed perceptions in Washington of being “pro-China and anti-United States.”

President Lee Jae Myung speaks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on Aug. 25. [AP/YONHAP]

“President Lee went beyond simply defending himself against the Trump camp’s claims of a pro-China image and achieved a measure of success in dispelling it,” said Kim Jung, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies. “Delivering that message through a think tank speech rather than a joint communiqué was also strategic.”

Kim Jae-chun, a professor at Sogang University, said that it is "an achievement from the U.S. perspective" that the Lee administration made clear it intends to take a pro-U.S. course.

But Kim Jung-sub from the Sejong Institute warned, “President Lee’s remarks, which seemed to downplay China’s importance, could make it harder to manage and develop Korea-China relations in the future.”

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
BY PARK HYUN-JU, SHIM SEOK-YONG AND CHUNG YEONG-GYO [[email protected]]