Trump's Korea Tariff Threat Tests 'Model Ally' Status

Just one day after a top U.S. defense official praised South Korea as a "model ally," Donald Trump announced plans to raise tariffs on the Asian nation from 15% to 25%. While experts suggest this could be a negotiating tactic, the move raises fundamental questions about America's commitment to its own trade agreements.

From 'Model Ally' to Tariff Target

The whiplash was immediate. On Sunday, Elbridge Colby, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense, lauded South Korea as a "model ally" during his Seoul visit. By Monday, Trump was threatening tariff increases, citing delays in Korea's legislative procedures for implementing their bilateral trade deal.

Rob Rapson, former acting U.S. ambassador to South Korea, captured the moment's absurdity: "Well, so much for being a 'model ally,' as USD Elbridge Colby was touting this week in Seoul. A capricious president has struck again with tariff threats!"

The announcement sent Seoul scrambling. Korean officials convened emergency meetings while rushing Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan to Washington for urgent talks with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

The Art of the Threat

Tom Ramage, an economic policy analyst at the Korea Economic Institute of America, sees familiar patterns. "As in prior instances of the president announcing policies, it's possible that this can be a negotiating tactic to bring Korea to the table to offer additional concessions," he told Yonhap News Agency.

Yet the stakes are real. The proposed 25% tariff rate represents a significant jump from the 15% level agreed upon in their July 2025 trade deal—a deal that took months of grueling negotiations to finalize.

Patrick Cronin from the Hudson Institute frames it starkly: "Brutal transactionalism is the modus operandi of Trump's foreign policy." He explains that Washington is "maximizing leverage to cut better deals for U.S. industry at home and more burden-sharing abroad."

The Hidden Triggers

Several factors likely contributed to Trump's sudden announcement. U.S. concerns over South Korea's ongoing investigation into Coupang Inc.—a U.S.-listed company facing scrutiny over a massive customer data leak—appear to be one catalyst. American lawmakers have pressed Trump to address Korea's digital services regulations.

There's also the $350 billion question. South Korea pledged this massive investment in the U.S. in exchange for the reduced 15% tariff rate. But the weakening Korean won has raised doubts about Seoul's ability to deliver on this commitment, potentially triggering Trump's frustration.

"U.S. investors in Coupang have asked for intervention by the Trump administration," Ramage notes, highlighting how specific corporate interests can influence broader trade policy.

Supreme Court Wild Card

Adding another layer of complexity, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the legality of Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose "reciprocal" tariffs. The ruling, expected in coming months, could fundamentally reshape the entire framework.

This legal uncertainty provides both risk and opportunity. "Recent threats by the U.S. administration on trade deals with other economic blocs have only proven that these types of sudden actions are not often the last word," Ramage observes.

The Bigger Picture

Trump's move reflects a broader shift in how America defines alliance value. Military cooperation and strategic alignment—traditional pillars of the U.S.-Korea relationship—no longer seem sufficient. Economic concessions and investment commitments have become equally important currencies.

Cronin notes the double-edged nature of this approach: "Relentless leverage pushes partners toward other middle powers and, in some cases, toward China. Allies won't be forced into binary choices."

For South Korea, the implications extend beyond tariffs. If implemented, the increase could disadvantage Korean automakers against Japanese competitors and jeopardize the investment commitments that underpinned the original deal.