Home > Opinion > Columns

If the president truly values a ‘red team’

Published: 05 Mar. 2026, 00:02

Kim Seung-hyun

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

President Lee Jae Myung once remarked, “I like the idea of a red team.”

He made the comment during a press conference in January while discussing allegations of real estate speculation surrounding Lee Hye-hoon, who had been nominated at the time to serve as minister of planning and budget. President Lee said it was difficult to reach a conclusion after hearing only one side and emphasized the value of listening to opposing perspectives. His decision to nominate a figure associated with the conservative camp was also intended, he suggested, to create a kind of red team within government.

People Power Party lawmakers hold placards protesting the Democratic Party’s three judicial reform bills as the National Assembly votes to end a filibuster on a revised Court Organization Act bill aimed at increasing the number of Supreme Court justices during the eighth plenary session of the 432nd extraordinary National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on Feb. 28. The related bills were later passed. [NEWS1]

The nomination eventually collapsed, drawing criticism that the attempt at political balance had been little more than a symbolic gesture. Yet Lee’s remark left an impression that he favored a pragmatic approach that included hearing dissenting views.

The concept of a red team originates from U.S. military war games in the 1960s. In those exercises friendly forces were labeled the “blue team,” while a simulated enemy force played the role of the “red team.” The goal was to identify weaknesses that might be overlooked within a group that shared the same assumptions. Over time the idea evolved into a broader decision-making method used to challenge groupthink.

President Lee has shown similar instincts during briefings by government ministries. He is known for probing weaknesses in policy reports and sometimes responding bluntly, asking officials questions such as, “So what does that mean in practice?” This willingness to challenge his own side may have contributed to his approval ratings, which have remained in the 60 percent range.

Yet the red team approach appears less visible in relations between the presidential office and the ruling party. Constitutional boundaries between the executive and legislative branches may partly explain the difficulty. But tensions between lawmakers aligned with Lee and those closer to the presidential office have also produced confusion, with presidential messages sometimes exaggerated or diluted in the legislative process.

President Lee is widely viewed as a meticulous lawyer and a leader known for being both capable and hardworking. Nevertheless, some legislative outcomes have likely fallen short of his expectations.

One example came last November when the Democratic Party proposed a bill that would automatically suspend criminal trials involving the president while he remained in office. The proposal was introduced under the name “National Stability Law” but was later withdrawn after criticism that it represented excessive loyalty to the president. The presidential office reportedly intervened, saying the proposal created controversy without clear benefit.

Debate over prosecutorial reform has produced similar friction. Disagreements remain between the ruling party and the presidential office over whether the new prosecution office should retain authority for supplementary investigations. A separate initiative by pro-Lee lawmakers to cancel indictments in certain cases drew sharp criticism from writer Yoo Si-min, who described the idea as “madness.” On Wednesday, President Lee addressed the issue directly on social media, writing that manipulating investigative or prosecutorial powers is “worse than murder.”

Questions are also being raised about the three judicial reform laws passed by the National Assembly late last month. The package includes amendments to the Criminal Act introducing the crime of judicial distortion, revisions to the Constitutional Court Act creating a constitutional complaint system for court rulings, and a bill increasing the number of Supreme Court justices through changes to the Court Organization Act.

Critics argue that the legislation contains potentially unconstitutional provisions. Lee Seok-yeon, chair of the Presidential Committee on National Integration, even described the judicial distortion provision as a “disgrace to the rule of law in Korea.” Some voices are now calling on the president to exercise his constitutional power to request reconsideration of the bills.

That step, however, would be politically difficult. The legislation passed after extensive coordination between the ruling party and the presidential office, and it is rare in Korean politics for a president to reject a bill supported by the governing party.

For that reason some observers appeal to the president’s own red team instincts. They argue that the legislative process itself deserves scrutiny. According to critics, the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee spent an average of about five hours debating each of the three bills. Opposition lawmakers complained that the process was too hasty and careless, suggesting that original legal principles were distorted.

Democratic Party leader Jung Chung-rae speaks during a Supreme Council meeting at the National Assembly in Seoul on the 23rd, emphasizing the need to complete judicial reform by passing related bills in the plenary session. [YONHAP]

Exercising the reconsideration power should not be seen as yielding to opposition pressure. The People Power Party continues to denounce the bills as “judicial destruction,” even while still struggling to move beyond the political turmoil caused by what critics describe as a misguided attempt at martial law in the past. Such rhetoric alone cannot resolve the issue.

More importantly, President Lee faces suspicions that he could become the main beneficiary of the judicial reforms. Demonstrating independence through a red team perspective could therefore be politically significant.

In constitutional terms the presidential veto is formally called the right to request reconsideration. Although the term “veto” has become more familiar through political conflicts, the process reflects the constitutional principle of checks and balances by allowing the president to return legislation to the National Assembly for further debate.

If President Lee were to exercise that authority regarding the judicial reform bills, it could create temporary discomfort in relations between the ruling party and the presidential office. Yet it might also be remembered as an example of the red team principle in action, aimed at protecting constitutional order and the national interest.

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.