Trump caters to South Korea: The political calculations behind the tariff hike

As the world’s attention focuses on Iran, Venezuela, and Greenland, Trump, under the guise of appeasing South Korea, suddenly launched a trade attack. The speed and ferocity of this strike caught South Koreans off guard, as they were still asleep. U.S. tariffs on Korean goods skyrocketed overnight from 15% to 25%—all driven by Trump’s impatience with the progress of South Korea’s congressional approval.

Attacked in Sleep: Why South Korea’s Auto Industry Became the Primary Target

At midnight on January 26, Trump announced via social media that a seemingly finalized agreement had been overturned because South Korea was “too slow.” In his statement, he directly declared: “Because the South Korean legislative body has not yet approved the historic trade agreement we reached—something within their authority—I hereby announce that tariffs on South Korean automobiles, timber, pharmaceuticals, and all other reciprocal products will be increased from 15% to 25%.”

Why did Trump target the auto industry first? Because it hit at the heart of South Korea’s economy. Automotive exports account for 27% of South Korea’s exports to the U.S., and the U.S. market absorbs half of South Korea’s car exports. In other words, this decision directly threatens South Korea’s economic lifeline. When the early morning statement was released, the newly awakened South Korean political scene was thrown into chaos—they had received no formal notice, only glimpsed the U.S. intentions through the tweets. The Blue House immediately convened an emergency meeting; the industry minister was prepared to fly to the U.S. for negotiations, but everything seemed rushed and unprepared.

Promises and Betrayal: The Lost Story of $350 Billion Investment

To quell Trump’s anger, South Korea paid a heavy price. The Lee Jae-myung government tried to curry favor, even offering a crown-like promise: $350 billion in U.S. investments. Of these, $150 billion was allocated for the U.S. shipbuilding industry, and another $200 billion flowed into strategic sectors such as energy, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and rare earths.

But the truth behind these figures is heartbreaking. According to Trump’s logic, this “investment” was more like a blank check for the U.S., with Washington deciding how to spend it. The agreement South Korea painstakingly negotiated was rendered meaningless by a simple excuse—“You were too slow.” This was a blatant violation of the spirit of the contract.

The Cost of Shifting Focus: South Korea Becomes a Trump Political Pawn

Tracing back Trump’s motives, one cannot ignore the domestic and international political dilemmas. Domestically, the street protests over law enforcement in Minnesota sparked public outrage, with criticism directed at Trump. Internationally, his inappropriate comments about Greenland strained relations with European allies; the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Denmark, and others criticized his remarks, causing unprecedented cracks within NATO.

In this context, Trump desperately needed a new focus to divert attention. Tariff threats became his most handy tool. Just last week, he announced a 10% tariff on eight European countries and threatened to raise it to 25% on June 1 if they did not agree to the U.S. annexation of Greenland. Simultaneously, he wielded tariffs against Canada, citing their trade negotiations with China as the reason. Now, it was South Korea’s turn.

The Lesson for Global Allies: Today South Korea, Who’s Next?

It’s worth noting that the U.S. and the EU signed trade agreements earlier, yet Trump did not take the same aggressive actions against the EU—at least publicly, he later backtracked and canceled some tariffs against the eight European countries. South Korea, however, was not so lucky and became the “soft target.”

This signals deep geopolitical considerations. Trump is using South Korea as a warning to other allies like Japan and the EU: even if you reach agreements, as long as I think progress is too slow, tariffs can be reactivated at any time. This is not just a case-by-case approach to South Korea but a recalibration of the entire international alliance system. Yesterday, South Korea was eager to please and promised investments; today, it could be discarded. Tomorrow, Japan, the EU, or other countries might find themselves in the same predicament.

In this grand game of global economics and politics, South Korea’s experience warns the world: trust is being reshaped, order is shaking, and the spirit of contracts has become the most fragile chip. When Trump’s appeasement is merely a means to better unleash firepower, it’s understandable that allies’ caution and concern grow.