Trump’s remarks on base ownership calm concerns over US withdrawal, experts say

U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attend a meeting at the White House in Washington, Tuesday (local time). AP-Yonhap

U.S. President Donald Trump's suggestion that his country should seek ownership of the Korean land hosting American military bases has prompted questions about his underlying motives.

While there are concerns about potential future ownership disputes, experts say the remarks also showed his intention to maintain U.S. troops on the Korean Peninsula.

Trump said during a bilateral meeting with President Lee Jae Myung in Washington on Monday (local time) that, given the U.S. investment in building bases such as U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys, the largest overseas U.S. military installation, he would like to “get rid of the lease and get ownership of the land.”

Trump is not entirely correct.

The roughly 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in Korea operate on land provided by the ally without paying any fees. Moreover, the Korean government covered the vast majority of construction and expansion costs for USAG Humphreys, located in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province.

Over the past decade, the U.S. military has significantly consolidated its presence in Korea, shifting from numerous scattered installations to a smaller number of centralized “hubs” — USAG Humphreys, Osan Air Base, army garrisons in Seoul and Daegu, and Kunsan Air Base in Gunsan, North Jeolla Province, according to U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) data.

Under a key provision of the U.S.- Korea Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), the U.S. is granted the use of military facilities and areas but is obligated to return them to Seoul when they are no longer needed.

But in raising the issue, Trump appeared — perhaps inadvertently — to reveal a strong interest in maintaining the U.S. military presence in Korea, analysts said.

“The most important thing revealed through the comments is that Trump appeared to place significant value on the strategic importance of the U.S. base in Pyeongtaek, which requires the physical presence of U.S. troops for operation. With that being said, Trump’s remarks suggest that a swift withdrawal of USFK has now become much less likely,” said Chung Sung-yoon, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU), a state-funded think tank.

When Trump won the presidential election and began his second term, many politicians and security experts in Korea feared that he may substantially reduce the size of USFK, as warned in the memoir of Mark Esper, who served as the U.S. president’s secretary of defense during his first term.

Judging from Trump’s ownership remarks, he seems to seek a long-term ― if not permanent ― U.S. military presence here, according to Min Jeong-hun, a professor at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy.

“He said so because retaining the USFK would be more aligned with the country’s economic and strategic interests in the Asian region,” Min said. “One possible reason is the usefulness and necessity of the troops to contain rising threats from China.”

President Lee Jae Myung shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, Monday (local time). Reuters-Yonhap

Trump’s remarks come amid ongoing negotiations over defense cost sharing, as Washington presses Seoul to shoulder a greater share of the expenses of hosting U.S. forces.

As a result, some analysts view Trump's ownership comments as a negotiating tactic.

By questioning the established agreement and suggesting a U.S. claim to land ownership here, he may be aiming to strengthen the U.S. position in broader security and financial discussions, said Go Myong-hyun, a senior analyst at the Institute for National Security Strategy, a state-funded think tank.

Revising the SOFA to grant U.S. land ownership would require approval from Korea’s National Assembly, and any attempt to shift from the current arrangement to outright ownership would almost certainly provoke strong backlash and risk a serious crisis in the alliance, the experts said.

It is also exceptionally rare for the U.S. to hold outright ownership of land for its overseas military bases.

One of the most notable exceptions is the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, where a 1903 lease agreement grants the U.S. control of the area for as long as it chooses to use it. The pact can be terminated only by mutual agreement between the two countries.