Trump administration considers pulling US troops out of South Korea during Indo-Pacific policy overhaul

A possible drawdown is timed poorly, coming as it would during a period of increased regional volatility. North Korea persistently tests missiles, and the Chinese military buildup has picked up speed, especially around Taiwan and in the South China Sea. Experts are cautioning that a diminished American presence in Korea will encourage Pyongyang and erode the overall deterrence structure that has maintained peace in Northeast Asia for decades.

Major General Xavier Brunson, commander of American troops in Korea, warned of the dangers of troop cuts in recent testimony before the Senate. "To thin the force becomes problematic," he testified, reiterating statements by Admiral Samuel Paparo, who commands US Indo-Pacific Command. Both military officials made the case that reducing the numbers would undermine the US's chances of winning in combat.

Guam becomes central staging ground

Under the plan, some of the 4,500 forces withdrawn from South Korea would be sent to Guam, which is increasingly serving as a strategic hub for US forces because of its proximity to potential flashpoints—and relative distance from Chinese missile range relative to bases in South Korea or Japan.

While the action may appease logistical interests within the Pentagon, it might ignite political resentment in Seoul. South Korea's Defence Ministry stated Friday that it had not negotiated a withdrawal of troops with the US, and reiterated that the allies would continue their combined stance to repel North Korean provocation.

A broader regional calculus

The planned troop cut is part of a broader reevaluation of US military presence throughout the Indo-Pacific. Over the past several months, Washington has broadened multilateral military drills with allies, enhanced Pacific island air bases, and moved mobile units of troops trained for rapid response throughout island chains.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, on a recent trip to the region, vowed an "unprecedented shift" in strategic emphasis towards Asia, demanding revitalized deterrence through allied co-ordination and deployable flexibility.

But others in the Trump administration believe that South Korea should bear more of the burden of conventional defence against North Korea so that US troops can concentrate more directly on deterring China. Elbridge Colby, now undersecretary of defence for policy, has long been an advocate for this policy. "I'm not interested in withdrawing forces from South Korea," Colby testified last year, "but I do believe in refocusing our presence to address the threat from China more clearly."

Geopolitical threats and alliance tension

A pullout of even a small portion of US troops would most likely precipitate concern not only in South Korea, but also in Japan and the Philippines, both of which depend on close cooperation with US troops for regional security. The US troops in South Korea are viewed not only as a bulwark against Pyongyang, but also as an essential lodestone of US power in Northeast Asia.

The timing is particularly delicate. North Korea has stepped up weapons testing, launched cruise missiles again this week, and announced an end to its decades-long policy of peaceful reunification. With Pyongyang now brazenly referring to Seoul as its "primary enemy," the optics of a US drawdown could be seen as strategic retreat.

The Trump administration's troop level decision is likely to come in the aftermath of further review of the war in Ukraine and other defence commitments around the world. Meanwhile, the argument over American force posture in South Korea is heating up—and its resolution could influence not only the future of the peninsula, but the credibility of US commitments throughout Asia.