This article is being co-published with Capital & Empire.
Earlier this month, a coalition of 50 antiwar and foreign policy groups reached out to the top Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee with an unusual plea: Please don’t attack President Trump—at least not for his decision to de-escalate tensions with North Korea as he focuses his attention on the Mideast.
The groups were worried that an almost instinctual Democratic response to Trump’s decision to scale back military exercises with South Korea would be to attack him from a hawkish direction, call him weak on national security, and demand ever more confrontation. Instead, they suggested, take the win, and celebrate the reduction in hostile tension.
The advice was not taken. In a draft letter circulating on Capitol Hill and obtained by Drop Site News, House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Gregory Meeks and at least 20 Democrats are calling on Trump to “reverse course,” arguing that he handed North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “unilateral concessions for which you got nothing in return” by scaling back the Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises.
Several Democrats who signed the Meeks letter have also backed legislation calling for a formal end to the war between North and South Korea, which has been going on for more than 70 years, taking on a devastating toll on civilians and carrying the constant risk of nuclear war. Nine of the current signatories—Reps. Brad Sherman, Mark Pocan, Dave Min, Gabe Amo, Jonathan Jackson, Dina Titus, Ted Lieu, Sarah McBride and Jim Costa—are also cosponsors of the current Peace on the Korean Peninsula Act. Sherman is the bill’s lead sponsor.
In the September 1 letter, organizations including Win Without War, the Quincy Institute, Just Foreign Policy (where this author was once employed), and Women Cross DMZ acknowledged “serious doubts” about Trump’s motivations but argued that scaling back the exercises could nevertheless provide “a rare opening for long-overdue diplomatic progress.” They urged lawmakers to back South Korean President Lee Jae Myung’s efforts to reopen dialogue with Pyongyang and pursue a formal end to the Korean War.
Cathi Choi, executive director of Women Cross DMZ, told Drop Site that despite “serious concerns about Trump’s motivations and methods,” the reduction presents “a crucial window to de-escalate tensions.” Responding to the argument that scaling back the exercises without a reciprocal concession weakens Washington’s negotiating position, Choi said: “Diplomacy is not a gift. It’s an imperative for our collective security.”
Choi also pointed to South Korean President Lee’s push for renewed diplomacy and greater South Korean control over the country’s defense. “If Congress wants to preserve the U.S.-ROK alliance, they should listen to what South Korean leadership is actually asking for,” she said.
The fight echoes an earlier split among Democrats over Trump’s diplomacy with North Korea. During Trump’s first-term negotiations with Kim, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., was among a small group of Democrats urging the party to support diplomatic openings even while opposing Trump more broadly. In a 2018 letter, Khanna and 14 other House Democrats called for an incremental approach to negotiations that included ending U.S.-South Korea “decapitation” military exercises. Khanna also criticized Democratic leaders for demanding complete denuclearization before offering concessions, arguing that Democrats should not try to “out-hawk Trump on North Korea.”
Trump has framed the exercise reduction as an opening to revive talks with Kim in an August 16 Truth Social post, while also tying the decision to Seoul’s refusal to join the U.S. war against Iran.
Meeks and the other signatories that Trump instead weakened Washington’s hand by making concessions without securing reciprocal steps from Pyongyang. North Korea has also continued missile testing in recent months.
Trump announced on August 16 that he had ordered the Pentagon to “substantially reduce” joint military exercises with South Korea, just hours before the annual Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises were set to begin. He cited their cost, his relationship with Kim and Seoul’s refusal to join the U.S. war against Iran, while arguing that the drills sent a “totally inappropriate and hostile” signal to North Korea.
The exercises nevertheless began as scheduled on August 17. Two days later, the United States and South Korea announced that Ulchi Freedom Shield would end after five days instead of the planned 11. Some live-training exercises were also canceled or replaced with simulations, while drills planned for the second week were scrapped.
The Meeks letter repeatedly describes Trump as having “halted” the exercises, though Ulchi Freedom Shield began as scheduled and was subsequently shortened, with some exercises canceled.
The lawmakers also place the exercises within Washington’s broader struggle to maintain its position in the region, pointing to Pyongyang’s ties with China and Russia and arguing that a strong U.S.-South Korea alliance is necessary to counter Chinese influence. They warn that Trump’s actions could jeopardize South Korea’s $350 billion investment commitment in the U.S., including in U.S. shipbuilding, and strengthen calls for Seoul to develop its own nuclear weapons.
The debate over which approach the U.S. should take to North Korea is also tied directly to the war with Iran and the strain it has placed on military resources. The Democrats accuse the administration of draining “essential U.S. munitions” and pulling missile-defense assets away from South Korea to support the war. In an August CNN interview, Meeks himself warned that the United States was “running low on munitions” and described “panic” over ensuring the military had what it needed. Rather than question the sprawling military footprint that produced that strain, Democrats are demanding that Washington preserve it.
