Kim Joon-hyung: "Downsizing US-ROK Drills? No Threat to Security, but Disrespectful in Approach… Troop Dispatch to Hormuz Is Out of the Question"

- Downsizing US-ROK drills? We agree in principle, but the manner was disrespectful
- Trump is 'impulsive'; 70–80% of his North Korea remarks are likely untrue
- North Korea is watching, no longer as desperate for the US as in the past
- Why Trump? Seeking a breakthrough with North Korea after setbacks in Iran
- Scaling down joint exercises will not pose a major disruption to national security
- Downsizing fits 'modern warfare', but same-day notification destroys trust
- South Korea is an essential ally to check China… US military leadership also voices criticism
- Troop dispatch to Hormuz? Absolutely not right now… Consider only under UN auspices
- Trump is highly spontaneous… We must hold our ground until the midterms
- The Iran war is effectively over… The US will gradually pull out
- Our government must keep its distance from the US and secure diplomatic autonomy

■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00)
■ Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2026
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Kim Joon-hyung, Rebuilding Korea Party Lawmaker

[Kim Tae-hyun] US President Trump has triggered widespread repercussions by claiming he maintains a very good relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and ordering a reduction in joint US-ROK military exercises. Let us discuss the true intention behind President Trump's message and how we should prepare with our guest today: former Chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy and current floor leader of the Rebuilding Korea Party, Kim Joon-hyung. Welcome.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Hello.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Floor Leader Kim, I understand the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee is holding a plenary session today.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Yes, I have a lot to say.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Then this issue will likely become a major topic.

[Kim Joon-hyung] I believe it will.

[Kim Tae-hyun] What point do you intend to make at the committee meeting today?

[Kim Joon-hyung] In fact, our side had also considered downsizing joint military exercises to bring North Korea to the dialogue table and even suggested it to the United States, although the opposition People Power Party opposed it. North Korea has already laid out three conditions for dialogue. Broadly speaking, they demand an end to hostile policies toward the North. Specifically, the three points are: lift sanctions, recognize North Korea as a nuclear state, and scale down joint military drills. However, doing this through Trump in such a manner without prior consultation with us is simply devoid of basic alliance etiquette.

[Kim Tae-hyun] The outcome might be something our government wanted, but...

[Kim Joon-hyung] That is correct.

[Kim Tae-hyun] The process appears questionable.

[Kim Joon-hyung] It is questionable and extremely impulsive. When reporters asked Trump after his statement whether there was any response from North Korea, he paused for a long while before answering. There is a 70 to 80 percent chance that what he said is untrue. He mentioned this back during the APEC summit as well. He was so eager to meet back then when coming to Gyeongju, but it fell through. At that time, he also mentioned lifting sanctions and military drills, saying things were positive and that they were close, but there was no response from North Korea.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Right.

[Kim Joon-hyung] So while what he wants is clear, North Korea does not seem to be reacting positively right now. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un carries a huge trauma from Hanoi.

[Kim Tae-hyun] From his standpoint, that could certainly be the case.

[Kim Joon-hyung] In that case, an official, concrete, and formal request should be made to North Korea. If he continues making passing or impulsive remarks, how can North Korea trust any of it?

[Kim Tae-hyun] For now, President Trump claims he asked for US-DPRK dialogue based on his good personal ties with Kim Jong-un, and that Kim responded. But seeing that there has been no official reaction from Korean Central Television or similar channels, it cannot be taken at face value.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Paradoxically, it is fortunate that North Korea is not immediately calling it a lie.

[Kim Tae-hyun] North Korea, you mean?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Yes. If the conditions are right and North Korea feels it won't be deceived again—and North Korea today is different from seven years ago, with China and Russia backing it and having largely overcome its severe food shortages—it is not in a rush or desperate for the US as it used to be. Therefore, they are not rejecting it outright. They do not seem to be torpedoing everything that is being said. The fact that North Korea is neither immediately agreeing nor disagreeing means they are also waiting and watching to see how this unfolds.

[Kim Tae-hyun] So they are assessing the situation right now?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Yes, I think they are watching closely.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Controversy over whether he is lying aside, why did Trump make this remark at this specific moment?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Actually, viewing the sudden mention of Hormuz simply as him being upset with South Korea and gesturing toward North Korea is an overly simplistic domestic interpretation.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Well, President Trump did phrase it along those lines.

[Kim Joon-hyung] He did phrase it that way, yes. But in reality, who do you think Trump despises most in the world right now? It is Netanyahu, because he was misled. He went in believing it would all be over in just a week.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Getting misled by that is quite something...

[Kim Joon-hyung] Exactly. It was overconfidence stemming from Venezuela. He thought the regime would collapse if the leadership was struck, but Iran and Venezuela are entirely different.

[Kim Tae-hyun] They are indeed different.

[Kim Joon-hyung] When that failed, he wanted to hit a home run across three fronts: the Russia-Ukraine war, followed by negotiations with North Korea. Whenever one front stalls, Trump moves on to the next. He focused heavily on the Russia-Ukraine war, and when that stalled, he turned to Iran, and then to North Korea. While the upcoming midterm elections are an important factor, for him, presenting himself as a peacemaker capable of handling dictators and hostile states that others could not manage comes down to those three countries: Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Meaning, "I resolved what past US presidents could never settle"?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Exactly. Because things were not working out on that front, he felt frustrated. That was what he spent an hour and a half talking to our president about at the G7 summit, which caught us by surprise. You may recall he posted a photo for the first time in a long while back then. Right after speaking with President Lee Jae-myung at the G7, he posted a photo saying he had a good relationship with Kim Jong-un.

[Kim Tae-hyun] So you believe there were discussions about inter-Korean relations with President Lee Jae-myung at that time?

[Kim Joon-hyung] He told our president that he wanted to approach North Korea in earnest, but did not know how, repeatedly asking if the North would respond. From our perspective as a peacemaker, wanting Washington and Pyongyang to meet first, our side likely expressed no major objections—such as being fine with adjusting joint drills or not demanding immediate denuclearization upfront. So Trump genuinely seems to want this. It is not just casual talk. But as I said, the key variable is North Korea.

[Kim Tae-hyun] In any case, Trump's current moves—even sparking controversy over factual accuracy—stem from wanting to find a breakthrough with North Korea because things are tangled up with Iran. And as of right now, following Trump's directive, the US-ROK joint exercises have indeed been scaled down.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Yes, they have been downsized.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Yesterday, USFK Commander Brunson reportedly visited the Ministry of National Defense, spoke for about 15 minutes, and left immediately. According to an exclusive SBS report, out of 14 field training exercises planned for UFS (Ulchi Freedom Shield), more than 10 have effectively been canceled.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Field maneuvers will mostly be replaced by tabletop exercises, and outdoor training is being scaled back. Honestly, this whole situation is quite bizarre.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Is our national security going to be alright?

[Kim Joon-hyung] These exercises are typically prepared over six months to a year. Personally, I believe massive traditional war games do not fit modern warfare. Looking at the Russia-Ukraine war, modern conflict is driven by drones, simulation models, and data warfare. In reality, South Korea and the US conduct battalion-level drills continuously year-round. Gathering tens of thousands of troops for offensive maneuver drills as in the past has limited effectiveness while unnecessarily provoking North Korea, so I personally support downsizing them. However, this is not the way to do it.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Right.

[Kim Joon-hyung] And it diminishes the diplomatic effect. For example, if we had requested it and both the US and South Korea mutually agreed before formally presenting it to North Korea, it would carry weight. But doing it on the same day like this—what would North Korea think? They would assume that if they don't respond, the drills will simply resume tomorrow, which completely undermines credibility.

[Kim Tae-hyun] From North Korea's standpoint, they might even attempt direct communication with the US while bypassing us entirely.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Exactly. That outcome is not favorable for us either. Given that North Korea declared in 2024 that it would not engage with South Korea, engaging with us first would be difficult initially anyway, but still.

[Kim Tae-hyun] So in the shift toward drone-centric modern warfare, scaling down exercises does not pose a severe disruption to our security?

[Kim Joon-hyung] I do not believe it poses a serious disruption. As I said, while the process was unhealthy, the outcome itself is manageable. People need not worry.

[Kim Tae-hyun] But the accounts seem to diverge. President Trump claimed he asked South Korea to help with the Iran campaign and President Lee Jae-myung said "no thanks," despite the US deploying 39,000 troops for South Korea.

[Kim Joon-hyung] His numbers are always incorrect, though this time he adjusted down from 45,000 to 39,000. The actual number is 28,000.

[Kim Tae-hyun] So Trump said that was why he ordered the reduction of joint exercises. Meanwhile, looking at a Channel A report yesterday, the Presidential Office seemed quite bewildered, stating that no such conversation took place recently. Whose account is accurate?

[Kim Joon-hyung] I believe the Presidential Office's account. Trump is notorious for holding grudges and making spontaneous claims.

[Kim Tae-hyun] President Trump does have a track record of that.

[Kim Joon-hyung] This also reveals how anxious Trump is to extricate himself from the Iran war and how frustrated he feels that things are not going his way. There is intense domestic criticism within the US as well, questioning why an adversary is treated with concessions while an ally is treated this way.

[Kim Tae-hyun] There were even reports suggesting South Korea became a scapegoat.

[Kim Joon-hyung] And the ones truly suffering in silence right now are the US military leadership. The US military does not agree with this at all.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Even as the conflict persists?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Joint drills involving North Korea, along with South Korea and Japan, are tremendous assets for checking China. Yet Trump continually reduces everything to money, eroding mutual trust. While commanders have to follow orders under Trump, they maintain that South Korea and Japan are indispensable to counter a rising China.

[Kim Tae-hyun] To the key figures in the US military leadership, that is.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Yes. They may pretend to comply for now, but I believe there are significant internal disagreements.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Is that so?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Yes.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Then Trump's timing in ordering the reduction of drills serves as both a carrot for North Korea and an expression of dissatisfaction toward us.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Both elements exist.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Are both factors present, or just one?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Both are present. But if we handle this poorly—I have maintained that even if it incurs some financial costs through Trump, the military leadership's long-term posture poses a greater strategic risk. Under their vision, we risk becoming an outpost purely to contain China. USFK Commander Brunson has referred to our role as a "dagger." That is indeed how the military establishment views it.

[Kim Tae-hyun] So in the long run for our government...

[Kim Joon-hyung] We could lose on both fronts. To put it bluntly, we could end up paying money to Trump while also being turned into a forward base containing China on behalf of the US as the military desires. Unless we take the initiative, we could end up being exploited by both sides.

[Kim Tae-hyun] If forced to choose, are you suggesting it is far better to build long-term trust with the US military establishment rather than relying on trust with President Trump?

[Kim Joon-hyung] No, the current moment presents an opportunity. It is more critical to avert long-term risks with Trump, even if it entails certain immediate costs.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Floor Leader Kim, what about actively intervening in the Strait of Hormuz?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Absolutely not. The reason is crystal clear: Trump is widely viewed across the globe as the antagonist in this matter, and this conflict lacks legal justification. Europe has refused to move, and no one around the world is stepping in. If we are to participate, it should only be later under UN peacekeeping operations to help stabilize the region post-conflict. Joining right now is completely out of the question.

[Kim Tae-hyun] It is too dangerous?

[Kim Joon-hyung] It is dangerous.

[Kim Tae-hyun] What fundamental grievance does the United States have against South Korea? Or rather, President Trump specifically.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Exactly. In his worldview, he assumes we contribute nothing. Speaking to reporters yesterday, he claimed he could have received 10 billion dollars, but Biden ruined everything, so South Korea is paying nothing now. His claims are riddled with inaccurate statistics and falsehoods.

[Kim Tae-hyun] There are numerous pending issues between Seoul and Washington: wartime operational control (OPCON) transfer, nuclear-powered submarines, and tariff negotiations. The US seems dissatisfied across the board.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Indeed.

[Kim Tae-hyun] How should we resolve this?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Trump is extremely impulsive. On trade talks and similar matters, we need to buy time and endure until the midterms pass. That does not mean we should yield to every American demand just to smooth things over.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jung-kwan is currently visiting the US, and bilateral trade talks have hit snags. Could this issue spill over into trade negotiations?

[Kim Joon-hyung] As you may remember, Presidential Chief of Staff for Policy Kim Yong-beom and Minister Kim Jung-kwan both emphasized that investments would be made strictly based on market principles. We cannot drag our corporations by the collar into investments that offer zero returns right now. It inevitably takes time. Japan and Europe are in the exact same position. I believe we must hold out as long as we can on this issue as well.

[Kim Tae-hyun] I see. Fundamentally, is the US-ROK alliance intact?

[Kim Joon-hyung] It is fine. The United States needs South Korea more than anyone else. We should guide this opportunity toward our long-term interests rather than yielding to spontaneous demands, which would change nothing anyway.

[Kim Tae-hyun] We should not be dragged around?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Correct.

[Kim Tae-hyun] What must we do to ensure long-term benefits for ourselves?

[Kim Joon-hyung] We must become an independent variable. Right now, we keep acting as a dependent variable. We need to be an active player, managing relations with China, Russia, and North Korea ourselves. If other nations perceive us as being identical to the US, they will see no reason to engage with us directly.

[Kim Tae-hyun] That makes sense. Let me follow up on one more point: an article in the Hankook Ilbo morning edition today suggested that "We should proactively review a military contribution in Hormuz for the national interest." The argument implies that although undesirable, winning Trump's favor through military support could ease other negotiations.

[Kim Joon-hyung] That war is already over, and Trump wants a way out. Regardless of any grievances, it remains an unjustified war and is effectively finished. Trump will pull out regardless, so why should we jump in and leave our footprints there? It is absolutely unacceptable.

[Kim Tae-hyun] The ceasefire memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran has expired, and both nations state there will be no extension. What happens next?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Trump finds himself in a corner, but he cannot wage a full-scale war either. Even regarding joint allied posture against North Korea, the reality is that the US is running short on weapons.

[Kim Tae-hyun] That has been widely noted.

[Kim Joon-hyung] The conflict is in a stalemate, and for the US, it is an ended campaign. There is zero reason for us to enter.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Regardless of whether we participate, how do you expect the Hormuz situation and the Iran conflict to conclude under current circumstances?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Since it offers no political advantage for the midterms, the US will likely continue dragging its feet, managing oil prices, and maintaining this pattern.

[Kim Tae-hyun] In a stalemate, neither exiting completely nor pushing further in?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Yes. That is why the US is not negotiating directly, using Oman as an intermediary instead. Did you see the claim today describing Hormuz as American territory?

[Kim Tae-hyun] Indeed. So in this state, the US will simply choose a gradual fade-out to withdraw?

[Kim Joon-hyung] Yes.

[Kim Tae-hyun] In his recent Liberation Day address, the President proposed multilateral talks toward ending the war. North Korea and the US have yet to respond, but Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is scheduled to visit South Korea. How do you foresee this developing?

[Kim Joon-hyung] This is precisely what frustrates me. While proposing multilateral talks, if we fail to demonstrate whether we are an independent actor with diplomatic autonomy, neither North Korea, China, nor Russia will feel the need to meet with us. That is why we need to voice distinct perspectives from Washington on these matters. I do not understand why we are not engaging with Russia, and China's dissatisfaction stems from being unsure of South Korea's sincerity following what seemed like a positive bilateral summit, as exchanges and deeper ties with China have been abruptly severed.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. Looking forward to your sharp inquiries at the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee today, we will conclude our interview here. We have been speaking with Rebuilding Korea Party Floor Leader Kim Joon-hyung. Thank you.

[Kim Joon-hyung] Thank you.


Copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing full transcripts or quoting this interview,
please state the channel and exact program name as shown below.

[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]


※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.