U.S. Trump Administration 2nd Term: Changes in Domestic Political Landscape and Outlook on Foreign Policy

  The individuals appointed to the second Trump administration will also be significant. The list of key appointments to the second Trump administration (either confirmed or expected) includes many unexpected figures, with a majority being MAGA (Make America Great Again) loyalists or Washington outsiders. With the support of a Republican-controlled Congress, the second Trump administration is likely to gain even stronger momentum in pursuing its policies.​

  Among the appointments, several individuals are considered particularly controversial. First, the Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth is criticized for lacking the experience required for the position. Attorney General nominee Matt Gaetz is controversial due to his history of hate speech, conspiracy theories, and a recent investigation into allegations of sex trafficking. His appointment is also seen as a move to absolve charges on Trump, which adds to the controversy. Director of National Intelligence (DNI) nominee Tulsi Gabbard is another controversial figure, as she has no experience in national intelligence. Finally, Health Secretary nominee Robert Kennedy Jr. is a prominent advocate of vaccine conspiracy theories and is the president of the anti-vaccine group "Children's Health Defense," which has sparked significant controversy and raised concerns about difficulties in securing Senate confirmation.

4. Current Issues and Outlook on Major Foreign Policy Topics

  When the second term of the Trump administration begins, significant changes in U.S. foreign policy and the global situation are anticipated. Firstly, it is expected that the ongoing global hotspots will experience shifts, leading to new developments. Trump has boldly stated that if he assumes office, he will end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours. To expedite a peace agreement, he is likely to stop U.S. support for Ukraine and pressure Russia to relinquish control over eastern Ukrainian territories. This approach aims to achieve a swift resolution without U.S. military intervention, relying on diplomacy. However, if Trump cuts military support to Ukraine and forces the country to negotiate under unfavorable conditions, it could cause friction between the U.S. and NATO. Another region is the Middle East, where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might welcome a Trump victory. The Israeli right-wing government expects Trump to support policies like relocating Jewish settlers to Gaza and taking a tougher stance on Iran. Trump was a key supporter of moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2017. Regarding Taiwan, Trump has mentioned several times that, unlike President Joe Biden, he will not commit to defending Taiwan. If he does support Taiwan, he insists that Taiwan should pay for it. As a result, Taiwan's push for independence may weaken, and cross-strait relations are expected to ease during the Trump administration.

  Secondly, the international trade environment is expected to shift towards protectionism. Although the economic policies of Harris and Trump seem vastly different, both Democrats and Republicans prioritize "America First" in foreign policy, which reflects an irreversible change within the American society, often described by the media as "Trumpification." U.S. trade policies have become more protectionist post-pandemic, regardless of the party in power. The key difference is that Trump uses tariffs as his main tool, while Biden favors subsidies. During the election campaign, Harris initially advocated for worker-centered, green trade policies but adjusted her stance to reflect working-class concerns, such as opposing the sale of U.S. Steel to Japan's Nippon Steel in Pennsylvania's Rust Belt and supporting shale gas fracking (fracturing). Trump, on the other hand, focuses on domestic manufacturing and protectionism through "economic nationalism," seeking trade agreements that benefit the U.S. directly and improve the fairness of trade practices. He is committed to reducing energy regulations in oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy production, contrasting with Biden's more stringent environmental policies. Trump and the Republican Party opposed to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and have repeatedly called for its repeal.

  Third, U.S.-China policy is expected to become even more confrontational. Trump's approach to China is transactional and focuses on immediate gains. To the Republicans, China is a competitor to be defeated and represents a "civilizational challenge" to Western society. Trump has proposed imposing tariffs of 10% on all imports, with 60-100% tariffs on Chinese goods, and controlling China's exports through Mexico. His commitments include revoking China's Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status, halting imports of essential Chinese goods like electronics and pharmaceuticals, and prohibiting Chinese investments in U.S. real estate and businesses. There is, however, a range of opinions within Trump's inner circle on how to counter China's rise. Some argue for a more aggressive approach, such as focusing U.S. resources in the Indo-Pacific, while others suggest a more measured strategy to avoid direct confrontation.

  Fourth, there will be changes in North Korea policies. Trump's policy prioritizes using personal diplomacy for the ‘big deal’. Trump has often been praised for maintaining good relations with authoritarian leaders, including Kim Jong-un, stating that maintaining good relations with Kim is a positive development. Whether the U.S. will maintain its stance of denuclearization of North Korea remains uncertain, as many argue that recognizing North Korea as a nuclear state and preparing for nuclear arms reduction negotiations may be the only viable option. However, Trump's diplomacy may risk leaving denuclearization out of the negotiations, effectively acknowledging North Korea's nuclear status, which would be unacceptable to South Korea. Another uncertainty is whether Kim Jong-un will respond to any future outreach by Trump, considering that previous summits between the two have yielded little tangible result for North Korea.

  Fifth, on the issue of the U.S.-South Korea alliance and defense cost-sharing, Trump stated that he will demand South Korea to increase its defense contribution by nine times. While this demand seems unrealistic and likely to be election rhetoric, increase in defense contributions is inevitable. The two countries recently agreed on a special defense cost-sharing agreement (SMA) for 2026-2030, which includes an 8.3% increase in South Korea's defense contribution to 15.192 trillion Korean Won for 2026, with future increases tied to inflation. However, there is a possibility that Trump may disregard this agreement and demand renegotiations. If South Korea refuses to increase its contributions, Trump might consider reducing or even withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea. However, this is unlikely, as U.S. troops are critical to deterring North Korea and are a key part of the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy. Trump's stance on the alliance is not dismissive but seeks to expand South Korea's contributions. South Korea should approach these discussions pragmatically, applying a transactional approach and leveraging any tradeoffs for its own benefit, such as gaining rights to nuclear enrichment and reprocessing, or seeking nuclear-powered submarines and defense industry cooperation.

  Sixth, there may be changes in U.S.-South Korea trade relations, especially with the massive investments South Korean companies have made in key areas like semiconductors, batteries, and electric vehicles under the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). If Trump’s second term results in the repeal of the IRA or further strengthen friend-shoring supply chains, South Korean companies could face significant challenges. Additionally, as the U.S. intensifies its trade war with China, South Korea may suffer collateral damage, especially since many South Korean companies have invested heavily in China in sensitive high-tech fields. If the Trump administration continues its hardline stance toward China, South Korean companies caught in the middle of this dispute may find their market position further restricted.

5. Implications for South Korea and Strategic Response

  South Korea faces an unprecedented era of crisis, with growing domestic and global concerns. The global geopolitical situation is increasingly fragmented, and multiple conflicts are erupting around the world, creating uncertainty and risks. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, systemic fragmentation in the international order has accelerated, leading to an era of "survival of the fittest," where countries prioritize their own interests. This fragmentation has led to the splitting into three blocs: the Global West centered on the U.S. and Europe, the Global East centered on China and Russia, and the Global South, which includes India, Brazil, and other non-Western developing countries. Amid this fragmentation, global flashpoints like the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas conflict, and military tensions in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea are increasing. In Korea, nuclear threats by North Korea is destabilizing peace efforts and raising security concerns.

  South Korea must prepare for the uncertainties and risks posed by a second Trump administration. Key issues include the defense cost-sharing deal, potential nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea, adjustments to the U.S.-South Korea economic and trade relationship, and possible U.S. demands for South Korea’s participation in its anti-China stance. In a climate dominated by uncertainty and risks, South Korea must maintain a balanced, resilient approach. Regardless of the U.S. election outcome, South Korea’s national security strategy should align with the values of freedom, peace, and prosperity while expanding common ground with like-minded countries. Korea should foster their strategic network with middle powers to remain flexible, resilient and responsive in an unpredictable international landscape. ​