Trump Praises Kim Jong Un Ties, Says They Make Region Safer as US Scales Back Military Exercises With South Korea

US President Donald Trump said Monday that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had responded to his recent overtures, raising the prospect of renewed engagement between Washington and Pyongyang as tensions over military exercises on the Korean Peninsula come under renewed scrutiny.

Trump, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, suggested that communication with Kim was progressing positively, although he did not provide details about when the North Korean leader responded, what was discussed or whether a direct meeting between the two leaders was being considered.

Asked why Kim had not responded to his requests for a conversation since Trump returned to the White House, Trump challenged the premise of the question.

“How do you know he hasn’t responded?” he said.

Asked about the current stage of his communication with Kim, Trump replied that it was “very positive” without elaborating.

Trump subsequently renewed his praise for the North Korean leader, portraying his personal relationship with Kim as an important factor in reducing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

“You see, I’m actually making it much safer. Kim Jong Un has always treated me with great respect,” Trump said. “I understand him. He understands me.”

The remarks came one day after Trump announced that the United States would scale back military exercises with South Korea, describing the drills as “inappropriate and hostile.” The decision immediately generated concern in Washington and Seoul over the future of joint military preparedness against North Korea.

Trump also linked the decision to South Korea’s refusal to assist the United States and Israel in their war against Iran. His comments reflected a broader argument that US allies should assume greater responsibility for their own defence and provide more support when Washington becomes involved in military operations overseas.

Trump has repeatedly complained that the United States bears a disproportionate share of the security burden for its allies. His latest criticism of Seoul focused particularly on the presence of tens of thousands of US troops in South Korea.

“Wait a minute. We have 39,000 soldiers over there, guarding you from Kim Jong Un, your next-door neighbour, and you’re not going to help us on a very easy military operation in Iran. That’s strange,” Trump said.

The United States maintains a large military presence on the Korean Peninsula as part of its longstanding commitment to deter North Korean aggression and defend South Korea. The actual number of US troops stationed in South Korea is generally around 28,500, although Trump’s comments referred to a higher figure.

Trump also questioned whether Washington should continue providing security guarantees to countries that do not support US military operations.

“We can’t go around and protect all of these countries, especially when they’re not there to help us,” he said.

His comments extended beyond South Korea. Trump also raised questions about the US security commitment to NATO members that have declined to contribute to the conflict involving Iran.

The remarks have added another layer of uncertainty to an already complicated security environment in East Asia. For decades, US military forces and regular joint exercises with South Korea have been central components of deterrence against Pyongyang.

Any reduction in the scale or frequency of those exercises could therefore have implications extending well beyond the immediate training schedule.

Despite Trump’s announcement, South Korean officials said the joint exercises had begun as planned.

The 11-day Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises are designed to improve the readiness of US and South Korean forces for a potential conflict with North Korea. The exercises combine computer-based command-post training with field activities intended to test the two allies’ ability to respond to a wide range of military contingencies.

South Korea’s presidential office said it remained in close coordination with Washington regarding the exercises.

On Tuesday, the presidential office stressed that the drills were defensive in nature and were not intended to provoke North Korea.

The exercises did not reflect “any intention to attack North Korea or escalate tensions on the Korean peninsula,” the office said.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung reiterated that the fundamental purpose of the military exercises was to protect the country’s population rather than identify a particular state as an enemy.

“The fundamental purpose of the exercises is not to treat a specific entity as an adversary, but to safeguard the safe and peaceful daily lives of the people,” Lee’s office said.

The statement appeared aimed at reassuring both the South Korean public and Pyongyang that the exercises were intended primarily to maintain defensive readiness.

North Korea, however, has historically viewed the annual US-South Korean military drills as preparations for an invasion.

Pyongyang has repeatedly condemned the exercises and warned that military demonstrations by Washington and Seoul could provoke a response.

The North has also continued to develop and test ballistic missile systems capable of threatening South Korea, Japan and potentially US forces in the region.

It recently test-fired a ballistic missile over the Sea of Japan and warned Friday that it could respond to the joint exercises with what it described as a “new level of deterrent.”

That warning underscores the delicate balance surrounding the exercises. Washington and Seoul consider them necessary to maintain military readiness, while Pyongyang regards them as evidence of hostile intent.

Although Trump said Kim had responded to his overtures, North Korea has not publicly confirmed the communication.

The lack of details makes it difficult to determine whether Trump’s comments refer to a direct diplomatic exchange, an indirect message transmitted through intermediaries or another form of communication.

Trump’s latest remarks nevertheless indicate that he continues to see his personal relationship with Kim as an important diplomatic asset.

During his first presidency, Trump held three unprecedented meetings with Kim. The encounters represented a dramatic departure from decades of hostility between Washington and Pyongyang.

Trump and Kim first met in Singapore in June 2018. The summit was followed by a second meeting in Hanoi in 2019 and an informal encounter at the Korean Demilitarized Zone later that year.

The diplomacy ultimately failed to produce a comprehensive agreement on North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme.

Nevertheless, Trump has frequently pointed to his personal relationship with Kim as evidence that direct engagement can reduce the risk of war.

During his first term, Trump also announced that Washington would suspend what he described as “provocative” military exercises with South Korea following his first summit with Kim.

The issue of military exercises has remained one of Pyongyang’s central demands. North Korea has consistently argued that US-South Korean drills are incompatible with efforts to reduce tensions and establish a lasting peace on the peninsula.

The United States and South Korea, however, have maintained that the exercises are necessary because the Korean War ended in 1953 with an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty.

Trump’s decision to scale back the exercises has already triggered criticism from senior US lawmakers.

Senator Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized the president’s decision and warned that Washington’s allies and strategic competitors were closely watching his approach to alliance commitments.

“This is another inane, haphazard decision by President Trump and his chaotic administration,” Reed said.

He argued that China and Russia were “watching how easily this president abandons America’s allies.”

The criticism reflects a broader debate over the role of US alliances under Trump’s second administration.

Trump has repeatedly argued that American allies should spend more on defence and contribute more directly to collective security. His administration has also pressed allies to take greater responsibility for military capabilities that Washington has traditionally helped provide.

For South Korea, however, the alliance with the United States is considered fundamental to national security because of the continuing threat from North Korea.

The presence of US troops on the peninsula is intended to strengthen deterrence and ensure that any North Korean attack would immediately involve American forces.

A reduction in military exercises could therefore raise questions about readiness even if the number of US troops stationed in South Korea remains unchanged.

## North Korea’s Growing Military Cooperation With Russia

The military environment facing South Korea has also changed significantly in recent years.

North Korea has strengthened its relationship with Russia, including through military cooperation connected to Moscow’s war in Ukraine.

US and South Korean officials have closely monitored reports that North Korean troops have been deployed to Russia to support its war effort.

Colonel Ryan Donald, spokesman for the US and South Korean Combined Forces Command, said the Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises would simulate combat against North Korean forces that had gained battlefield experience through their deployment alongside Russian forces in Ukraine.

That development has added a new dimension to the military threat posed by Pyongyang.

North Korea’s participation in Russia’s war has provided the country with an opportunity to gain experience from an active conflict while strengthening its strategic relationship with Moscow.

In return, Western governments have raised concerns about military and technological cooperation between Russia and North Korea.

The growing Russia-North Korea relationship has also complicated efforts by Washington and Seoul to engage Pyongyang diplomatically.

The announcement concerning the South Korea exercises also came as the US military is managing competing demands across different regions.

The only US aircraft carrier operating in the Pacific region, the USS George Washington, is being redeployed to the Middle East to relieve the USS Abraham Lincoln, which has remained deployed for an extended period.

The movement highlights the increasing pressure on US military resources as Washington manages security commitments across the Indo-Pacific and Middle East simultaneously.

The USS Abraham Lincoln has been at the centre of concerns over the strain placed on its crew during a prolonged deployment, including issues involving mental health and supplies.

The redeployment of the George Washington therefore illustrates the strategic trade-offs facing the Pentagon.

For South Korea, the concern is not simply the size of a particular military exercise but whether changes to US force posture could signal a broader shift in American priorities.

South Korean officials have sought to avoid an open confrontation with Washington over Trump’s announcement.

Seoul’s presidential office said it remained in close coordination with the United States and expressed hope that Trump’s relationship with Kim could eventually contribute to renewed dialogue.

The South Korean government faces a difficult balancing act.

It must preserve the military alliance with Washington while also supporting efforts to reduce tensions with North Korea. At the same time, Seoul must respond to Trump’s demands for greater burden-sharing without weakening its own defence posture.

President Lee has emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula while pursuing diplomatic opportunities.

The possibility of renewed US-North Korea talks could therefore be welcomed in Seoul if diplomacy helps reduce the threat posed by Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programmes.

However, South Korean officials are likely to remain concerned if reductions in military exercises occur without corresponding progress in North Korea’s military behaviour.

For Seoul, diplomacy and deterrence have traditionally been viewed as complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

Trump’s latest comments could signal an attempt to reopen the diplomatic channel with North Korea after years of stalled engagement.

The fact that Trump says Kim has responded to his overtures is significant because Pyongyang has largely avoided direct engagement with Washington in recent years.

But there is still little evidence of a concrete diplomatic process.

North Korea has not publicly confirmed Kim’s alleged response, and Trump did not explain whether the two sides are discussing a summit, working-level negotiations or broader nuclear diplomacy.

The strategic environment has also changed considerably since Trump’s first meetings with Kim.

North Korea has continued to expand its nuclear and missile capabilities, while its relationship with Russia has become substantially closer. Pyongyang’s military cooperation with Moscow has given North Korea new strategic options and potentially reduced its dependence on China and engagement with the United States.

At the same time, Washington’s relationship with Seoul remains essential to US strategy in the Indo-Pacific.

The United States maintains thousands of troops in South Korea, while the two countries conduct regular military exercises and coordinate closely on missile defence, intelligence and deterrence.

Trump’s latest decision therefore presents a complicated strategic calculation.

On one side, reducing military exercises could create diplomatic space for engagement with Kim and potentially lower tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

On the other, a significant reduction in training could raise concerns about military readiness and reinforce perceptions among US allies that Washington’s security commitments are becoming conditional.

For now, Trump’s claim that communication with Kim is “very positive” has revived speculation about another chapter in US-North Korea diplomacy.

Whether that communication develops into substantive negotiations will depend on issues far more difficult than personal chemistry, including North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, missile development, military cooperation with Russia and the future of the US-South Korea alliance.