Why do U.S. experts think Trump may connect OPCON transfer with reducing U.S. troops in South Korea?

Victor Cha and Randall Schriver said Trump has long wanted to reduce the U.S. military footprint in South Korea and may see the transfer as a way to do so. Cha added that even a congressional minimum troop level under the National Defense Authorization Act might not prevent Trump from finding ways to reduce the presence.

What conditions did Vincent Brooks say should be met before wartime OPCON is transferred to South Korea?

Brooks said the allies should proceed only after fulfilling their mutually agreed conditions, rather than transferring control solely through a political decision. He objected to the suggestion that South Korea could take over immediately without major difficulty, comparing it to claiming one could graduate without completing required courses or passing the final exam.

What did Randall Schriver want to happen before any decision affecting U.S. forces in South Korea?

Schriver hoped that any move toward OPCON transfer would leave sufficient time for deliberations involving the Pentagon, military leaders and Congress. He said those discussions should consider the benefits of maintaining the U.S. military presence in South Korea.

Trump may view OPCON transfer as path to US troop withdrawal: experts

Listen

Summary

U.S. experts said Friday in Washington that President Donald Trump may view transferring wartime operational control to South Korea as a way to reduce or withdraw U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula. Victor Cha and Randall Schriver said Trump has shown interest in reducing the U.S. military presence. Former U.S. Forces Korea commander Vincent Brooks argued that the transfer should follow the allies’ agreed conditions, not just a political decision. Cha said Congress could set a minimum troop level, but Trump might still find ways to reduce the presence.

Key Facts

Victor Cha made his remarks during an online discussion hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the South Korea-U.S. alliance.
Randall Schriver said he hoped any move toward the transfer would allow time for the Pentagon, military leaders and Congress to deliberate on the benefits of maintaining U.S. forces in South Korea.
Brooks criticized Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul’s endorsement of an assessment that South Korea could defend itself without major difficulties even if wartime OPCON were transferred immediately.
In a written response to a parliamentary inquiry in September, Kang said he agreed with then-Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back’s assessment, while stressing that mutual trust in the alliance must be guaranteed.

By Yonhap

Published Nov 14, 2026 3:21 am KST

President Donald Trump, left, greets South Korean President Lee Jae Myung upon his arrival at the White House, on Aug. 25, 2025, in Washington. AP-Yonhap

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump seems to view an envisioned transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) to South Korea as a potential means of withdrawing American troops from the Korean Peninsula, U.S. experts assessed Friday.

Victor Cha, Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), made the remarks during an online discussion hosted by the Washington-based think tank on the state of the South Korea-U.S. alliance.

"It has been said, and I think said very credibly, that President Trump sees OPCON transition as a way to pull the forces from the peninsula," Cha said.

"The president is the commander in chief," he said. "There are ways that the president can do things if he is so committed to that particular task."

Cha said that even if Congress established a minimum level of U.S. troops in South Korea through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Trump could still find ways to reduce the American military presence.

"They should have no illusions that this is not the way the U.S. president thinks," he said. "He clearly sees this as a way for him to remove troops from the peninsula."

Randall Schriver, a former assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs, echoed Cha's view, saying Trump has long expressed a desire to reduce the U.S. military footprint in South Korea.

"I 100 percent agree that the potential for him to view OPCON transfer as a way out or a way to reduce (U.S. troops in Korea) is there," Schriver said.

Schriver expressed hope that any move toward the transfer would allow sufficient time for deliberations involving the Pentagon, military leaders and Congress over the benefits of maintaining the U.S. military presence in South Korea.

Vincent Brooks, a former commander of U.S. Forces Korea, meanwhile, expressed disappointment over South Korean Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul's earlier endorsement of an assessment that Seoul could defend itself without major difficulties even if wartime OPCON were transferred immediately.

"I was very disappointed that the South Korean minister of defense, whom I know very well, general and now Minister Kang Shin-chul, said it could happen today," Brooks said.

"Well, that's kind of true. It could if there's a political decision, but if I'm a college student, I can say I could graduate today, even if I haven't taken the requisite courses and passed the final exam," he said.

Brooks stressed that the transfer should proceed only after the allies fulfill mutually agreed conditions, rather than simply through a political decision.

Kang, then defense minister nominee, said in a written response to a parliamentary inquiry in September that he agreed with then-Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back's assessment that South Korea would have no major difficulty defending itself even if wartime OPCON were returned the following day. He, however, stressed that mutual trust in the South Korea-U.S. alliance must be guaranteed.

Explore More