Deactivated or not? Differing accounts raise questions about US Army unit in Korea

U.S. soldiers from the 2nd Infantry Division disembark from a helicopter on an air assault mission during the Best Warrior and Best Squad Competitions at Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, May 4, 2022. AP-Yonhap

Conflicting accounts have emerged over the status of a U.S. Army aviation unit in South Korea. A congressional report described the unit as “deactivated.” However, both Korea's Ministry of National Defense and U.S. military officials said no decision has been made.

The issue centers on the 5th Air Cavalry Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment (5-17 ACS), a U.S. Army unit stationed at Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, which has carried out reconnaissance missions for the combined ROK-U.S. division. Since its activation in 2022, the squadron has operated AH-64E Apache attack helicopters and remotely piloted reconnaissance assets.

A report updated on Dec. 31, 2025, by the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) stated that the U.S. Army deactivated the 5-17 ACS on Dec. 15, 2025, as part of the Army Transformation Initiative, a broader effort to restructure force posture and modernize capabilities.

While the CRS language was unambiguous, subsequent explanations from Seoul have created uncertainty rather than clarity.

Korea's Ministry of National Defense said on Tuesday it had confirmed through communication with U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) that “the suspension of Apache unit operations has not been decided.”

The key question is what, precisely, remains undecided.

If the CRS report is correct — and it draws on information from the U.S. Army — the unit has already been shut down. If so, the claim that “no decision” has been made would not refer to the shutdown itself, but to what comes next: whether the unit’s troops and equipment will be reassigned, replaced with a different capability or integrated into a new structure.

This interpretation aligns with reports from international media outlets citing the Pentagon, which said no decision has been made regarding the unit’s “fate.”

Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back, left, shakes hands with Gen. Xavier Brunson, commander of the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command, during his visit to the headquarters in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, Tuesday. Courtesy of Ministry of National Defense

However, the defense ministry’s wording has led some to interpret its remarks as suggesting that the unit is still operating, because saying that an operational suspension has not been decided can, in Korean, be read to imply that operations are continuing. That interpretation appears to clash with the CRS report, which describes the unit as already deactivated.

Despite the confusion, defense ministry officials declined to clarify the distinction. "We can only confirm that no decision has been made. Providing detailed explanations of U.S. force operations would be inappropriate," ministry spokesperson Chung Binna said.

USFK also avoided elaborating, with an official saying that the matter is being handled at the Department of Defense and U.S. Army headquarters level, not by USFK.

The lack of clarity has fueled speculation that the issue could signal a broader shift in U.S. force posture on the Korean Peninsula, particularly as Washington debates how to balance deterrence against North Korea with growing demands related to China.

Retired Lt. Gen. Chun In-bum, former commander of South Korea’s Special Warfare Command, urged caution against jumping to conclusions.

“There may be strategic reasons for why officials are being deliberately vague,” he said. “But regardless of organizational changes, the operational capability of USFK does not change.”

Chun stressed that changes in unit structure do not automatically result in weaker deterrence. “Capabilities can be maintained, or even enhanced, through different force configurations,” he said.

Rep. Yu Yong-weon of the conservative People Power Party, who serves on the National Assembly’s National Defense Committee, took a more measured view. He said that when explanations from Seoul and Washington diverge, officials may be trying to avoid unnecessary speculation or public unease.

“Not every difference in wording should be read as a sign of troop reductions or a weakened defense posture,” he said.

A more critical assessment came from a retired South Korean Army general who spoke on condition of anonymity. He criticized the way the issue was handled as an example of institutional evasiveness, saying, “Typical Ministry of National Defense — lacking the moral courage to be honest.”

Ambiguous explanations, he added, often create unnecessary mistrust and anxiety.