Lee’s OPCON push revives debate over USFK role as alliance eyes post-transfer future

President Lee Jae Myung tours the Shin Chae-ho, a submarine of the Republic of Korea Navy’s Submarine Command, during his visit to a naval base in Jinhae District, Changwon, South Gyeongsang Province, Tuesday. Courtesy of Cheong Wa Dae

President Lee Jae Myung’s renewed push for the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) from Washington to Seoul is provoking discussion over the future of the Korea-U.S. alliance and U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) after the transition.

The discussion comes as Seoul accelerates its defense agenda, saying the transfer would be possible "even tomorrow," while Washington increasingly views the alliance in broader regional terms.

Security experts say the issue is gradually moving beyond potential scaling down of the USFK after OPCON transfer toward the more fundamental question of what role the force would play afterward.

Lee has reaffirmed his commitment to pursuing OPCON transfer as soon as possible. His administration initially aimed to take over before the end of his term in 2030, but earlier this year the government seemingly moved up the target date to 2028.

During a meeting at the Navy Submarine Command at Jinhae in Changwon, South Gyeongsang Province on Tuesday, Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back said Korea would face “no major problems” even if OPCON was transferred tomorrow. Lee then corrected him, saying it would be more accurate to say there would be “no problem at all.”

“Recovering OPCON is a core element of self-reliant defense and will reinforce South Korea’s leading role in defending the Korean Peninsula,” Lee said, adding that Seoul would work with Washington to finalize a road map, including the timing of the transfer.

The Lee administration's views seem to run counter to the opinion of USFK commander Gen. Xavier Brunson, who said during a U.S. House Armed Services Committee hearing in April that the conditions for OPCON transfer would be met in the first quarter of 2029.

Regardless of the timeline, the Korean government has already begun to look beyond the transfer itself.

During a recent background briefing following the Korea-U.S. Integrated Defense Dialogue (KIDD), officials said the two countries have started discussions on the capabilities the alliance would need after OPCON transfer.

They described the transition not simply as a transfer of authority but as the creation of a South Korea-led command structure under which the country would take the lead in planning and defending the peninsula.

The discussion has gained added attention following recent remarks by Brunson.

In a podcast interview hosted by the U.S. Army War College, Brunson described Korea from China’s perspective as “the dagger in the heart of Asia.”

“When they (the Chinese) look out from the east coast of China, what they see is there’s Korea, the dagger in the heart of Asia,” he said.

He went on to describe Japan as “that shield” and linked South Korea, Japan and the Philippines within a broader regional security picture.

His comments came amid ongoing alliance modernization discussions, under which, according to analysts, Washington would expect Seoul to assume a greater security role on the peninsula, enabling the 28,500-strong USFK to be engaged in wider regional challenges — meaning deterring China.

Gen. Xavier Brunson, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, speaks in a change-of-command ceremony in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, Dec. 20, 2024, in this photo provided by the Defense Daily. Newsis

For some analysts, Brunson’s remarks highlighted a possibility that USFK’s mission could gradually shift from primarily deterring North Korea to one with broader Indo-Pacific responsibilities.

Shin Beom-chul, a senior research fellow at Sejong Institute and former vice defense minister, noted that questions could emerge after the transfer regarding the future status of USFK's commander and command structure.

“If the command structure changes after OPCON transfer and the four-star position is eventually reduced, discussions on force levels could follow,” he said.

Eom Hyo-sik, secretary-general of the Korea Defense and Security Forum, also said that OPCON transfer could eventually lead to changes in missions and command arrangements.

“If South Korea takes the lead in ground operations after OPCON transfer, U.S. forces could place greater emphasis on naval, air and broader regional missions,” he said.

Rep. Yu Yong-weon of the conservative People Power Party, who serves on the National Assembly’s Defense Committee, said force adjustments remain a possibility.

“We cannot completely rule out the possibility of adjustments to USFK force levels given changes in U.S. strategic priorities and growing calls for allies to assume greater responsibility,” Yu said.

“If Korea assumes a greater role in defending the peninsula, U.S. forces are likely to seek greater strategic flexibility and expanded regional missions,” he said.