Trump’s alliance pressure marks a sharper turn than the Bush era

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Cha Se-hyeon

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

A recent report by Politico said the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump classified NATO members as “nice” or “naughty” allies ahead of a White House visit by Mark Rutte. The distinction was reportedly based on each country’s level of cooperation in the Iran war. While the list was not disclosed, countries such as Britain, France and Spain, which Trump has criticized as uncooperative, were widely believed to be among the “naughty” group.

The report focused on NATO, but similar assessments may also apply to U.S. alliances in Asia. South Korea and Japan were both seen as uncooperative regarding requests to dispatch forces to the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has repeatedly criticized Korea in public remarks, pointing out that U.S. troops are stationed in a difficult security environment next to Kim Jong-un, whom he described as possessing nuclear weapons. He has warned that the United States “will remember” such behavior.

Signs of strain have become more pronounced this month. The United States has reportedly limited intelligence sharing on North Korea, citing remarks by Chung Dong-young about a uranium enrichment facility in Kusong, North Pyongan. At the same time, National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac acknowledged during a briefing in Vietnam that the so-called Coupang issue is affecting bilateral security consultations. These include follow-up talks on Korea’s nuclear-powered submarine development and the possibility of allowing reprocessing and enrichment, which had been agreed upon in principle last year. Such developments suggest growing friction in the Korea-U.S. relationship.

Concerns are also rising among U.S. allies in Europe and Asia that Trump’s approach may go beyond pressuring allies and instead signal a shift toward loosening or redefining alliances altogether. In Europe, while a complete withdrawal from NATO is not yet considered likely, scenarios involving partial U.S. troop withdrawals or redeployments within Europe are gaining traction. In Asia, Trump’s planned visit to China in mid-May has fueled concerns that a form of great power “sphere of influence” diplomacy could emerge, potentially involving reciprocal concessions between Washington and Beijing.

Experts warn that Taiwan and North Korea could be included in such bargaining. Victor Cha recently wrote that while the United States should not abandon the goal of North Korea’s denuclearization, it must recognize that the objective is likely a long-term one. He suggested that interim measures such as arms control agreements, limits on nuclear testing and missile production, crisis management mechanisms and a ban on the transfer of nuclear weapons or technology could form the basis of a Cold War-style peace arrangement.

As geopolitical risks driven by Trump’s policies become more tangible, responses among allies are diverging. Europe is moving toward greater strategic autonomy by advancing discussions on a so-called European NATO. The core idea is to gradually shift leadership of the alliance from the United States to Europe. Germany, which had previously been skeptical of France-led proposals, has shown signs of changing its position. This shift has encouraged the European Union to consider contingency plans that would allow it to defend itself even in the event of a U.S. withdrawal from NATO.

Political developments within Europe are also influencing the debate. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, often described as “Europe’s Trump,” has frequently opposed European Union policies, including support for Ukraine. However, changes in his political standing and the potential emergence of more pro-EU governments have added momentum to discussions on strengthening European defense cooperation. Emmanuel Macron recently argued that tensions between Europe and the United States are likely to persist even after the Trump administration, emphasizing that Article 42.7 of the EU treaty could serve as a stronger mutual defense mechanism than NATO’s Article 5.

Japan, by contrast, has maintained its traditional approach of drawing closer to the United States in times of uncertainty. During a visit to Washington last month, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi pledged a second round of investment in the United States worth up to $73 billion, more than double the initial commitment. Japan has also moved to revise its long-standing principles on defense equipment transfers, effectively allowing the export of lethal weapons that had previously been restricted under its pacifist constitution. In addition, Tokyo is considering increasing its share of host-nation support for U.S. forces stationed in Japan. Aside from its cautious stance on the Hormuz deployment issue, Japan appears to be aligning itself closely with the Trump administration’s demands.

South Korea’s situation is more complex. Following the agreement of a joint fact sheet on trade and security cooperation in November last year, bilateral relations initially appeared to be on stable footing. However, within a few months, tensions had begun to resemble those seen more than two decades ago between the administration of Roh Moo-hyun and that of George W. Bush. At the root of these tensions is a long-standing domestic divide between those advocating greater strategic autonomy in relations with the United States and those emphasizing the importance of the alliance.

During the early and mid-stages of the Roh administration, South Korea faced repeated friction with the Bush administration over issues such as the relocation of U.S. military bases, the concept of strategic flexibility and participation in the Iraq War. Eventually, the Roh government shifted toward a more pragmatic approach, agreeing to an FTA with the United States and allowing imports of U.S. beef. In turn, the Bush administration moved toward engaging North Korea through the six-party talks framework.

Yoon Young-kwan, who served as foreign minister at the time, noted that the Bush administration adjusted bilateral relations within the framework of the alliance, even issuing a formal apology over the deaths of two Korean schoolgirls in a U.S. military vehicle incident. He warned that the current situation is more concerning, as the Trump administration may attempt to pursue transactional deals that could undermine even the basic structure of alliances.

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.