Transactional Diplomacy: Why Donald Trump is Renewing Outreach to Kim Jong Un

US President Donald Trump has reignited one of the most contentious diplomatic issues from his first term by praising North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un while criticizing key ally Seoul for failing to support Washington in its conflict with Iran. Speaking on Monday, Trump noted that Kim Jong Un had responded to his recent overtures with a very positive exchange, following his directive to the Pentagon to scale back military drills with South Korea. The US president emphasized that his relationship with Kim has made the Korean Peninsula much safer.

Reports indicate that Trump is pushing aides to arrange a meeting with Kim as soon as this autumn, ahead of the midterm elections on November 3. Analysts suggest a summit would provide a strategic political win for Trump, especially as the conflict with Iran remains unresolved and his goal of ending the war in Ukraine stays unfulfilled. However, experts like Yong-Chool Ha, director of the Center for Korean Studies at the Henry Jackson School of International Studies in Washington, point out that this outreach serves as leverage against South Korea in a transactional approach to diplomacy.

The US-North Korea relationship has experienced dramatic shifts, beginning with Trump's 2017 threats of fire and fury, followed by historic summits in Singapore in 2018, Hanoi, and the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in 2019. Although those subsequent meetings failed to yield a lasting denuclearization agreement, and North Korea subsequently expanded its military and nuclear capabilities while aligning closely with Russia, Trump maintains that his connection with Kim remains respectful.

In addition to diplomatic maneuvering with Pyongyang, Trump has targeted South Korea over its reluctance to assist with the US-Israel war on Iran and delays in local investments. By scaling back the 11-day Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises, Trump is exercising strategic pressure on Seoul to increase its financial contributions and defense cost-sharing, highlighting shifting priorities and economic frustrations within the alliance.