Trump's secret plane switch: What if a Korean president did the same?

SEATTLE — President Donald Trump’s secret plane switch while leaving Turkey last month has become a major talking point in U.S. media this week.

What if the same thing happened in Korea?

Trump publicly boarded Air Force One after attending a NATO summit in Ankara on July 8. But before departure, he was secretly moved via an airport catering truck to a smaller C-32A military aircraft after intelligence indicated a credible threat.

The presidential jet departed separately with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, other White House officials, staff and journalists aboard as part of a decoy operation.

The incident has received extensive coverage since The Washington Post revealed the ruse earlier this week, with questions emerging about the decision to use the presidential jet as a decoy while carrying officials, staff and journalists. Some Democratic lawmakers have called for answers about the operation and the risks to those aboard.

The debate has even spilled into speculation surrounding White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who announced this week that she will leave her post at the end of August. Many people on social media have questioned whether her departure is connected to the controversy, though there is no evidence of a link. Leavitt has said she is stepping down to spend more time with her family.

Trump has rejected suggestions that he was sent to safety while others were sent into danger, arguing that the aircraft carrying him may actually have been at greater risk. He said the Secret Service and military wanted him on a different aircraft and that he followed their instructions.

Using deception to protect a U.S. president is not unprecedented. Presidents have long used secret travel arrangements, alternate aircraft and other measures when security is a concern.

But if a similar operation unfolded in Korea, the questions would likely go well beyond security.

If a Korean president were secretly moved to another aircraft while Cabinet ministers, presidential aides and reporters continued aboard the original as a decoy, opposition lawmakers would likely demand to know who authorized the operation and whether those aboard had been exposed to additional risk.

The National Assembly could call presidential and security officials for questioning. Television news and social media would likely heavily scrutinize whether the president had been protected at the expense of others.

The presidential office could argue that protecting the head of state required secrecy and that security professionals, not the president, made the decision in response to a credible threat.

Whether that explanation would be enough to contain the political fallout, however, is another question.