🚨 US-Korea Tariff Negotiation Deadlock
Today Korean Economic News for Beginners | 2025.09.29
0️⃣ US Demands $350 Billion Upfront Investment, Causing Negotiation Difficulties
📌 No End in Sight for US-Korea Tariff Negotiations, Government Holds "Impossible" Position on Upfront Cash Demand
💬 The US is demanding a $350 billion (approximately 470 trillion won) upfront investment from Korea, causing US-Korea tariff follow-up negotiations to reach a deadlock. The Trump administration is demanding large-scale cash investment as a condition for tariff relief, but the Korean government is presenting alternative investment plans, stating that "considering foreign exchange market stability and fiscal burden, lump-sum cash payment is practically impossible." In this process, the won-dollar exchange rate has soared to the 1,350 won range, increasing financial market instability. As changes in the nature of the US-Korea alliance are being discussed, the issue is expanding beyond economics into complex diplomatic and security dimensions. The APEC meeting in Gyeongju in October is expected to be an important turning point in the negotiations.
1️⃣ Easy Understanding
The US is demanding that Korea invest a huge amount of money upfront in exchange for lowering tariffs, and negotiations have reached a dead end. The Korean government says the amount is too large to pay immediately in cash and is looking for other methods, but the US is not easily accepting this, causing difficulties.
Let me explain how this problem started. President Trump announced early after taking office that he would impose high tariffs on major trading partners including Korea. Strong tariffs of 25% on automobiles and 15% on semiconductors were suggested for Korean products. If this happens, Korean companies like Samsung Electronics and Hyundai Motor will lose price competitiveness in the US market.
So the Korean government entered negotiations to lower or get exemption from tariffs. The US presented a condition that "Korea must make large-scale investments in the US in exchange for lowering tariffs." The problem is that the scale is $350 billion, which is 470 trillion won in Korean money - an astronomical amount. This is close to the Korean government's annual budget (about 600 trillion won).
The bigger problem is that the US is demanding this money "upfront." Upfront means paying the money before the investment effects appear. Normally, you invest gradually while building factories and creating jobs, but the US wants the money first without waiting for that process.
There are three main reasons why the Korean government finds this difficult to accept. First, if you send 470 trillion won overseas at once, domestic foreign exchange reserves will decrease rapidly and the exchange rate could skyrocket. In fact, just from this concern, the won-dollar exchange rate has recently risen to the 1,350 won range. Second, it's a huge burden on government finances. To raise this money, other important projects would have to be reduced or large amounts of government bonds would have to be issued. Third, the investment failure risk is too big. If you invest upfront but don't get the expected results, you have to bear all those losses.
So the Korean government is presenting alternative plans. Instead of cash, they're proposing various forms like equity investment, guarantees, and gradual investment. For example, presenting specific investment plans by project like "We'll invest $10 billion in the semiconductor factory Samsung Electronics is building in Texas." This way, you can reduce foreign exchange market shock and check investment results step by step.
But the US is maintaining a hard-line position, saying "What we want is upfront cash." This seems to reflect President Trump's characteristic "deal-making" style. He's pushing the logic that "The US provides security to Korea, so we should receive economic compensation for that."
In the end, this negotiation stands at an important crossroads that could change not just trade issues but the nature of the US-Korea alliance itself.
2️⃣ Economic Terms
📕 Upfront Investment
Upfront investment is a method of paying investment funds in cash before investment effects appear.
- The risk is very high for the side bearing investment risk, and there can be major concerns about large-scale foreign exchange outflow.
- While normal investment proceeds gradually, upfront payment moves funds all at once, causing big market shock.
- It's difficult to recover losses if investment fails, making it a very exceptional demand in negotiations between countries.
📕 Foreign Exchange Reserves
Foreign exchange reserves are the total amount of foreign currency assets a country holds, such as dollars, gold, and foreign government bonds.
- Korea's foreign exchange reserves are about $420 billion, ranking around 9th in the world.
- If foreign exchange reserves decrease rapidly, it can lead to foreign exchange market instability and cause exchange rates to surge.
- During the 1997 foreign exchange crisis, Korea's foreign exchange reserves hit bottom and the country received IMF bailout funds.
📕 Exchange Rate Volatility
Exchange rate volatility means how much the exchange rate between the won and dollar changes greatly in a short time.
- When exchange rates surge, import prices rise and inflation pressure increases.
- When foreign investors sell Korean assets and pull out, exchange rate instability increases.
- The recent rise of the won-dollar exchange rate to the 1,350 won range reflects uncertainty in US-Korea negotiations.
📕 Guaranteed Investment
Guaranteed investment is a method where the government or institution promises to be responsible for the performance or losses of a specific project.
- It's an alternative means that can guarantee investment stability without directly spending cash.
- If the project succeeds, the guarantee obligation disappears; if it fails, losses are compensated then.
- It's a method often used when the government supports private companies' overseas investments.
3️⃣ Principles and Economic Outlook
✅ Background and Risks of Upfront Investment Demand
Let's analyze why the US is demanding upfront investment and what dangers this poses to the Korean economy.
First, this demand reflects the Trump administration's 'transactional diplomacy' strategy. President Trump has a strong view of seeing alliance relationships as a kind of business transaction. The logic is "The US provides a security umbrella to Korea, so we should receive economic compensation for that." In fact, he has argued from the past that "Korea should pay more defense costs," and this time he connected it with trade negotiations. The reason for demanding upfront payment is clear. With gradual investment, there's a possibility Korea might slow down midway or not keep promises, but if received upfront, the US can secure certain benefits first.
Second, large-scale upfront investment seriously threatens Korea's foreign exchange market stability. To send 470 trillion won overseas, you have to buy that much in dollars, which creates tremendous dollar demand in the foreign exchange market. Out of $420 billion in foreign exchange reserves, $350 billion would have to be taken out. This would reduce foreign exchange reserves to about $70 billion, falling to levels just before the 1997 foreign exchange crisis. As a result, exchange rates could skyrocket, and foreign investors might judge that "The Korean economy is dangerous" and start pulling out funds in a vicious cycle. In fact, just from negotiation uncertainty, the exchange rate rose to the 1,350 won range, and if actual transfers occur, the possibility of exceeding 1,500 won cannot be ruled out.
Third, the fiscal burden and investment risk are also serious. 470 trillion won is equivalent to 80% of the Korean government budget. To raise this, other important welfare, defense, and infrastructure projects would have to be greatly reduced, or large amounts of government bonds would have to be issued. When government bond issuance increases, interest rate rise pressure grows, increasing the interest burden on companies and households. The bigger problem is investment failure risk. If promises to build factories and create jobs in the US aren't properly fulfilled or the effects are smaller than expected, Korea bears all those losses. Because it's invested upfront, it's also difficult to get the money back.
The upfront investment demand reflects the US's strategic intentions, but from Korea's perspective, it's an extremely risky proposal with concentrated foreign exchange, fiscal, and investment risks.
✅ Korean Government's Response Strategy and Feasibility
Let's evaluate the alternative plans the Korean government is presenting and their feasibility.
First, the equity investment method is a realistic alternative that allows risk distribution and profit sharing. The Korean government is proposing a method of participating in equity investments by major companies like Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Hyundai Motor in the US. For example, if the government invests 20% equity in the semiconductor factory Samsung Electronics is building in Texas, when the factory makes profits, the government can also gain that much profit. This method has three advantages. First, investment funds go out gradually, so foreign exchange market shock is small. Second, you can earn profits according to business performance, so investment risk decreases. Third, by co-investing with private companies, business execution improves. However, the US might reject this, saying "Equity investment is uncertain future profit, and what we want is immediately usable cash."
Second, the guarantee method can minimize fiscal burden while providing investment stability. This is a method where the Korean government guarantees Korean company investments in the US, saying "If losses occur, the government will compensate them." For example, if the government guarantees LG Energy Solution building a battery factory in Michigan, the government would cover losses if the business fails. The advantage of this method is that actual cash doesn't go out immediately. You just need to provide a guarantee, so there's no foreign exchange market shock, and if the business succeeds, there's no government burden at all. However, from the US perspective, this is also a conditional promise of "you can receive it later if losses occur," so it may not be attractive enough to withdraw the upfront demand.
Third, gradual investment by project is a plan that increases transparency and execution. Instead of giving all $350 billion at once, it's a method of investing gradually divided by specific projects. Like presenting clear schedules and amounts such as "$5 billion to semiconductor factories in year 1, $4 billion to battery factories in year 2." This way, you can monitor investment progress, and if problems arise, adjustments can be made midway. Also, you can check each project's performance and decide on the next investment, allowing risk management. However, this is also far from the US's upfront demand, so considerable negotiation will be needed until a deal is reached.
Korea's alternatives are all reasonable and feasible methods, but because they're fundamentally different approaches from the US's upfront demand, negotiation difficulties are unavoidable.
✅ Changes in US-Korea Alliance and Long-term Impact
Let's look at how this tariff negotiation could change the nature of the US-Korea alliance and what long-term impact it might have.
First, it could be a major turning point where the security alliance is redefined as an economic transaction. Until now, the US-Korea alliance has centered on security cooperation responding to North Korean threats. The US provided nuclear umbrella and military power to Korea, and Korea shared costs for US Forces Korea stationing. But Trump is clearly showing a view that "Security is also an economic transaction." In this tariff negotiation too, he's pushing the logic that "The US provides security, so Korea should economically compensate for that." If Korea pays $350 billion, this essentially means paying for security costs with economic investment instead. This way, the US-Korea alliance could change from a 'values alliance' to a 'transactional alliance.'
Second, there are concerns that an economic dependency structure similar to the past Plaza Accord could be reproduced. During the 1985 Plaza Accord, the US pressured Japan and Germany to raise their currency values to resolve trade deficits. Japan accepted this, the yen value surged, and as a result, Japan fell into a long recession called the 'Lost 30 Years.' Korea's current situation has similar aspects. If Korea accepts US demands as they are, in the short term it can avoid tariff pressure, but in the long term, the economy could shrink due to foreign exchange instability, fiscal deterioration, and investment risks. Especially, 470 trillion won is an astronomical amount that's difficult to handle considering Korea's economic size.
Third, changes in Korea's external strategy will be inevitable depending on negotiation results. If Korea accepts much of the US demands, Korea's economic dependence on the US will increase further. This could lead to weakened negotiating power in relationships with other trading partners like China and Europe. Conversely, if Korea strongly rejects US demands, tariffs will be imposed and export companies will be hit, but economic autonomy can be maintained. Either choice isn't easy, but ultimately it could become a choice of "Will we endure short-term losses and maintain long-term autonomy, or accept long-term dependency for short-term stability?"
This negotiation is likely to be a historic turning point that determines the future direction of the US-Korea alliance beyond just trade issues.
4️⃣ In Conclusion
The deadlock in US-Korea tariff negotiations raises fundamental questions beyond just differences in investment scale or methods - about the nature of the US-Korea alliance and Korea's economic autonomy. The US's $350 billion upfront demand is a condition that's practically difficult to accept, but if rejected, the short-term shock from tariff imposition is also considerable.
The biggest problem is foreign exchange market stability. If 470 trillion won is sent overseas in a short period, foreign exchange reserves will decrease rapidly and exchange rates will skyrocket, potentially creating a situation similar to the 1997 foreign exchange crisis. Already just from negotiation uncertainty, the exchange rate has risen to the 1,350 won range, and if actual transfers occur, even bigger shock is inevitable. The government drawing the line that "cash upfront is impossible" is the minimum defense line to protect economic stability.
The alternatives the Korean government is presenting - equity investment, guarantees, gradual investment - are all reasonable and feasible methods. These methods can minimize foreign exchange market shock while still making actual investments happen, so they could benefit both sides. However, the Trump administration is maintaining a hard-line position of "upfront cash," prolonging negotiations.
More serious is that this negotiation could change the nature of the US-Korea alliance itself. There are major concerns that security cooperation will be redefined as economic transaction and Korea's economic autonomy will weaken. Just as Japan experienced the Lost 30 Years from the Plaza Accord in the past, wrong choices could be fatal to the entire economy in the long term.
The APEC meeting in Gyeongju in October will be an important watershed for this issue. There's a possibility that leaders of both countries will meet directly and find a compromise, but if position differences remain large, negotiations could be prolonged further. During that process, exchange rate volatility and financial market instability are expected to continue.
The government should not focus only on short-term tariff avoidance, but must not lose sight of the big picture of long-term economic autonomy and alliance balance. At the same time, citizens need to recognize that this negotiation is not just a trade issue but a critical matter determining the future of the national economy.
In the end, the best result is for both sides to step back one step each. Korea should increase investment scale somewhat but in a gradual rather than upfront manner, and the US should ease cash demands and recognize equity investment or guarantees. That is the way to bring practical benefits to both the US and Korea.
View Table of Contents