⚡ Core Summary
U.S. House Republican Report Defends Coupang, Criticizes South Korean Government:
A report published by Republican staff on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has caused a stir by reaching the emotional conclusion that South Korean regulators discriminated against and retaliated against Coupang, a U.S. company, and "lied" with fake information.
Bias from One-sided Coupang Statements and Flawed Think Tank Citations:
Most of the report's footnotes are based on Coupang's private statements and biased, arbitrary data from the Competere Foundation—essentially a one-person operation—which claims a 750 trillion won loss to the U.S. economy, while completely excluding the South Korean government's official position.
Prejudices in U.S. Politics and South Korea's Diplomatic Communication Challenges:
With even the White House showing signs of agreement, there is an urgent need for a sophisticated diplomatic response from the South Korean government to correct the deep-seated prejudice in U.S. politics that "South Korea discriminates against American companies" and to prevent the "government lie" frame from being exploited as trade leverage.
※ This article is based on a video released on July 10, 2026.
"The South Korean government lied and threatened American citizens. It mobilized all its power to drive American company Coupang out of the South Korean market." The conclusions in the so-called "Coupang Discrimination Report" released early this month by the majority Republicans on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee have caused a stir.
This 35-page report, which bears the highly emotional title "Closed for Competition: South Korea's Discriminatory Attacks on American-owned Businesses," not only unilaterally accepts Coupang's claims but also fully exposes the victim mentality that the current U.S. majority party—or at least certain factions within it—harbors regarding trade with South Korea.
Going a step beyond merely defending Coupang, the report even claims that "the South Korean government's harassment of Coupang is part of a regulatory environment in South Korea that has historically engaged in such discrimination. Due to South Korea's discriminatory practices, every American household will suffer an average economic loss of 5.7 million won."
Currently, there is a sentiment in U.S. political circles that goes beyond simply dismissing it as Coupang being highly successful at lobbying U.S. politicians. This suggests that now is the time for clearer communication and delivery of our position. Is the U.S. Republican Party showing such a hardline stance uniquely toward South Korea? Or have there been other instances recently where they displayed such a hostile and aggressive attitude toward other allies?
[Reporter]
Mr. Rogers, what questions did they (U.S. Representatives) ask? What did you talk about today? Do you really believe you faced discrimination in South Korea?
Harold Rogers | Representative of Coupang's Korean Subsidiary
......
February 23 local time, U.S. Capitol
This staff report, prepared by Republican aides on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, contains as many as 308 footnotes citing sources for its contents. Most of these sources are non-public documents submitted by Coupang and private statements made by Harold Rogers, representative of Coupang's Korean subsidiary, when he appeared before the U.S. Congress last February. Rogers' private remark that "the investigation was focused on Coupang because the President stepped in and ordered that all means be used to pressure Coupang" was adopted directly as testimony.
"The South Korean government discriminates against American companies and tries to drive consumers only to South Korean companies or Chinese companies partnered with South Korean firms. It seems the South Korean regulatory authorities are trying to retaliate." Statements suggesting they were harassed in an environment hostile to Americans continue to pour out.
The bigger problem is that this report concludes that "South Korea lied, and the South Korean government spread fake information about Coupang." The fact that words like "lie" and "fake" were explicitly used in a U.S. congressional report to describe the actions of an allied government is an issue that must be watched with vigilance.
An even greater concern is that following the release of this report, the White House appeared to accept its findings, stating that "by any reasonable standard, Coupang has been targeted by the South Korean government" and expressing concern over "discriminatory targeting of American companies."
Only "Two" of the 308 Footnotes in the "Coupang Report" Source the South Korean Government... and Even Those?
This is a staff report prepared by Republican aides on the House Judiciary Committee, not an official party platform or a formally approved congressional resolution. However, despite our government's expressions of regret and refutations, the U.S. government appears to be practically accepting these claims. It is clear that the likelihood has increased that the U.S. will wield the frame of "South Korea is a country that discriminates against American companies and even lies" in future trade negotiations with South Korea.
Among the 308 footnotes in this report, sources do include articles written by South Korean and U.S. media, letters sent by U.S. lawmakers to South Korea, and even a paper written by a South Korean university professor 22 years ago. However, the only source originating from the South Korean government or National Assembly is a self-introduction of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) taken from its website. Even that was used in a sarcastic context: "The South Korean KFTC claims to be an agency that promotes fair competition, but what it actually does is target and regulate American companies in a discriminatory manner." Any positions of our government or National Assembly were merely cited from the packet of materials Coupang submitted to the U.S. House.
Park Il | Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson
Our government has been communicating with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and has fully explained our position. We express regret that the (Coupang report) unilaterally reflects only Coupang's claims.
It is clear that either the report's authors within the Republican Party intentionally omitted the details communicated by the South Korean government, or our efforts did not sufficiently reach the U.S. Congress.
Coupang's All-Out Lobbying, and...
Why was a report so hostile to South Korea released? Of course, Coupang's continuous lobbying efforts in the U.S. Congress must be seen as a major factor. Coupang spent over 5 billion won on lobbying in the U.S. from last year to the first quarter of this year, and its political contributions, including donations to U.S. politicians over the past year and a half, are calculated to exceed 480 million won. Adrian Smith, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, who came out in defense of Coupang early this year, received $10,000 in donations across three occasions last year. Scott Fitzgerald, Chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee—which released this report—received a $1,000 donation in January of this year.
Adrian Smith | Chairman of the U.S. House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade
South Korean regulators already appear to be aggressively targeting American technology companies. The discriminatory regulatory actions against Coupang would be one such example.
Source: YouTube Ways and Means Committee Republicans
However, assuming that a report with such a strong tone against an ally was produced purely because of these lobbying amounts might prevent us from seeing the full picture. While the conclusion that the South Korean government lied is certainly concerning, the aggressive tone of the report regarding South Korea's regulatory environment is not unique to South Korea among U.S. allies.
In reports coming from Republican congressional offices rather than official U.S. government diplomatic documents—which tend to take a more political and aggressive stance to establish strong political positioning—similar critical reports have previously been released targeting entities like the EU.
In particular, a report on the EU's creation of the Digital Markets Act, which aimed to address the abuse of market dominance by U.S. Big Tech, contained strong language such as "the EU is weaponizing competition law" and "the EU is attempting to censor free speech." This report also ultimately operates under the premise of "South Korea, do not regulate U.S. Big Tech." It should be seen as containing attempts to oppose South Korea's efforts to establish institutional frameworks, such as an online platform fairness act similar to Europe's Digital Markets Act.
American Households "Losing" 5.7 Million Won Each Because of South Korea?
The report twice cites research claiming that South Korea's discriminatory behavior, including the Coupang case, could cause the U.S. to suffer up to 750 trillion won in economic losses, with American households losing an average of 5.7 million won over the next 10 years. Where did this estimate come from? It was based on an analytical framework developed by Shanker Singham, CEO of a consulting group called the Competere Foundation, which suggests that South Korea's platform-related regulatory policies are harmful to the U.S. to that extent.
Shanker Singham | CEO of the Competere Foundation
Our in-depth case study on South Korea shows the severity of this issue. The "Online Platform Bill" being pushed by South Korea imposes an asymmetric burden on large companies, particularly American firms. The loss to the U.S. economy (from such regulations) is over $500 billion.
U.S. House Judiciary Committee Hearing, December 16 local time
Source: YouTube House Judiciary GOP
The analysis mirrors the logic of Big Tech: "Digital platforms should not be viewed through the lens of traditional antitrust standards, and ex-ante regulation is bad." Shanker Singham is a lawyer. While he has been appearing before the U.S. House since last year to repeat claims of U.S. damage caused by South Korean regulations, he is more famous as one of the figures who, 10 years ago, formulated the logic for a "hard Brexit"—arguing that "if the UK is to leave the EU, it must sever all alliances with the EU and make a complete break."
This is even more true now as regret over Brexit grows in the UK, but his arguments were highly controversial even back then. At the time in the UK, articles questioned, "But who is this person, a former U.S. lobbyist?" While he was well-regarded among supporters, those who viewed him skeptically noted that he "gained a reputation for telling people what they want to hear, when they want to hear it."
The Competere Foundation is hardly a think tank or consulting firm widely cited in U.S. political circles. It is essentially a family organization with only family members' names listed, and in recent years, it had no revenue or only a few million won annually. Its registered office is a residential home in Virginia, USA.
While Shanker Singham has personal networks within the U.S. Republican Party and has voiced opinions on trade, he can hardly be considered influential enough to anchor the core logic of U.S. government trade policy. In South Korean terms, it is similar to the controversy over the adequacy of Act-Geo, which arose after the announcement of potential oil reserves off the coast of Yeongil Bay—the so-called "Giant Whale" (Daewang-gorae) project—two years ago. While Act-Geo's advisor, Vitor Abreu, was indeed an expert who had worked at Exxon, criticism arose because Act-Geo was essentially a one-person company operating out of a home, and the government should have sought consultations from other sources as well.
It would be a major issue if the U.S. government officially put forward Singham's calculations. However, in Congress, where a wide range of opinions are expressed, the microphone is sometimes given to experts who provide numbers that support the lawmakers' pre-existing positions. Figures like Alden Abbott, who served as General Counsel of the FTC—the U.S. equivalent of the Fair Trade Commission—during the first Trump administration, have introduced such research findings to the media, suggesting that "the U.S. government can use this logic as leverage in tariff negotiations or other talks when negotiating with South Korea."
"South Korea Discriminates Against American Companies": A Surprisingly Deep-Seated Prejudice
This report repeatedly exposes a deep-seated prejudice that South Korea discriminates against American companies. In doing so, it opens with an example dating back nearly 20 years to 2007, when trade tensions between South Korea and the U.S. escalated during the KORUS FTA negotiations. It cites testimony given to the U.S. Congress at the time by a vice president of Ford Motor Company, who claimed that "it would be difficult for any foreign car to achieve decent sales in the South Korean market."
This is clearly not a context that accurately reflects the current situation in South Korea, where over 50,000 units of Tesla's Model Y alone are sold annually, and total foreign car sales exceed 300,000 units per year. Of course, other American brands besides Tesla still fail to make the top 10 in foreign car sales in South Korea, but this is not the result of discrimination against American cars. However, the Ford vice president who gave that testimony 20 years ago later served as the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State and Special Representative for North Korea during the first Trump administration.
This is Stephen Biegun, famous for the photo of him eating chicken soup (dakgomtang) in Gwanghwamun. Although he is now classified as relatively friendly toward South Korea, this serves as a fresh reminder that the sentiment of "South Korea has always discriminated against American companies" remains deeply embedded within U.S. political circles. We must find a balance that maximizes our national interest while gently persuading the U.S., but it appears that much more effort and communication will be required to reach that point.
The Conclusion That "South Korea Lied" Must Be Corrected
The most worrying aspect is that although this report shows many rough and biased points in its logic and sources, it firmly concludes that our government is lying. While National Security Advisor Wi Sung-lac asked what would have happened if Coupang's data leak had occurred in the U.S., the report shows absolutely no awareness of the severity of the data breach.
Secondly, the report fully accepts Coupang's claims, which directly contradict the South Korean government, that "Coupang's internal investigation was conducted under the directives of our National Intelligence Service (NIS), and the South Korean government and the Presidential Office were fully aware of the situation during Coupang's internal investigation phase." Despite the NIS repeatedly stating that Representative Harold Rogers made false claims, and the National Assembly filing a complaint against Rogers late last year leading to an investigation into him for perjury, the report reaches a one-sided conclusion alongside Coupang, stating, "This is a lie by the South Korean government and National Assembly, a threat to Americans, and pressure on an American company."
Apart from the fact that we must negotiate with the U.S. while continuing to pursue appropriate institutional regulations on online platforms, our government needs to utilize more sophisticated diplomatic capabilities to address the atmosphere in U.S. political circles, where the impression that "we, as an ally, did not hesitate to lie to pressure American companies and citizens" is being accepted almost uncritically.
Cho Hyun-seung | Research Fellow at the Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade (KIET)
Using the word "lied" directly is extremely unusual. Since the Trump administration, we have seen a lot of language that completely disregards past conventions. They continue to use expressions that are truly unimaginable... Even so, the fact that such an expression was used suggests that a further, highly cautious response from the government is necessary.
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.