In the long arc of trade between nations, agreements are only as durable as the institutions that ratify them. Donald Trump has threatened to raise tariffs on South Korean goods from 15% to 25%, citing Seoul's legislature's failure to formally approve a trade framework and $350 billion investment pledge the two governments announced last year. The move reflects a recurring tension in 2026: a White House that governs by executive declaration pressing democratic partners whose laws require deliberation. What looks like impatience may also be leverage — and the difference matters enormously to th
Trump threatens 25% tariff hike on South Korea over stalled trade deal approval
Hundreds of South Korean workers were detained for over a week during a 2025 immigration raid at a Hyundai facility in Georgia before being repatriated.
He expected his trading partners to move as swiftly as he had.
Mark
So Trump is threatening to double the tariff rate on South Korean goods. What's actually holding up the approval on their end?
Mimi
South Korea's legislature needs to vote on five bills that would implement the investment package—the $350 billion commitment. Those bills are in the finance committee right now. It's not that the government doesn't want to move; it's the normal legislative process.
Luke
Right, but we should be clear: Trump used an emergency declaration to bypass Congress entirely. South Korea has to go through their full legislative process. The timelines are structurally different.
Mark
So when Trump says South Korea isn't moving swiftly, he's comparing apples to oranges?
Mimi
Essentially, yes. He moved unilaterally; they have to build consensus in their assembly. The South Korean government is now trying to accelerate things—sending ministers to negotiate, getting their party to push the bills forward.
Luke
And we don't know how long that will actually take. The bills might be consolidated into one, then they need two committees to sign off before a floor vote. That's not a quick process.
Mark
Has this tariff threat worked before? Does Trump usually follow through?
Mimi
He's been using tariff threats constantly this year—against Europe, Canada, others. Sometimes he backs off, like he did with Greenland. Sometimes he doesn't. It's become his primary negotiating tool.
Luke
The pattern is clear, but the outcomes are still unpredictable. We also don't know what the Supreme Court will say about whether he even has the authority to do this under the emergency powers act.
Mark
So South Korea is caught between Trump's impatience and their own constitutional process.
Mimi
And they're trying to thread that needle by sending high-level ministers to negotiate while their lawmakers work to speed things up. It's a two-track approach.
Luke
The real question is whether the tariff threat will actually accelerate the South Korean process or just poison the relationship further—especially after that immigration raid last year where hundreds of their workers were detained.
The Pulse
- Trump announced via social media that tariffs on South Korean autos, pharmaceuticals, and other goods would jump from 15% to 25%, framing legislative delay as a breach of good faith.
- The procedural gap is real: while Trump bypassed Congress through emergency powers to impose the original tariffs, South Korea's National Assembly must pass five separate bills — currently stalled in committee — before the deal is legally binding.
- Seoul mobilized swiftly, dispatching its Industry and Trade ministers to meet directly with US Commerce Secretary Lutnick and Trade Representative Greer in an effort to contain the diplomatic damage.
- South Korea's governing party pledged to accelerate legislative action, with assembly officials signaling the five bills may be consolidated into one to speed passage through finance and judiciary committees.
- The threat lands against a fraught backdrop: just last year, 475 South Korean workers at a Hyundai plant in Georgia were detained in an immigration raid, with hundreds held for over a week before Seoul secured their release.
- The episode is part of a widening pattern — Trump has wielded tariff threats against the EU, Canada, and others in recent weeks — while the Supreme Court prepares to rule on whether the emergency powers underpinning these moves are even constitutional.
In the long arc of trade between nations, agreements are only as durable as the institutions that ratify them. Donald Trump has threatened to raise tariffs on South Korean goods from 15% to 25%, citing Seoul's legislature's failure to formally approve a trade framework and $350 billion investment pledge the two governments announced last year. The move reflects a recurring tension in 2026: a White House that governs by executive declaration pressing democratic partners whose laws require deliberation. What looks like impatience may also be leverage — and the difference matters enormously to the workers and industries caught between.
Donald Trump announced Monday that he would raise tariffs on South Korean exports from 15% to 25%, pointing to Seoul's failure to secure legislative approval for a trade framework the two countries agreed to last year. The threatened increase would cover automobiles, lumber, pharmaceuticals, and other goods. Trump's position was straightforward: the US had already reduced its own tariffs in line with the deal, and South Korea had not held up its end.
The underlying problem is structural. When the trade framework was announced last July and reaffirmed during Trump's October visit to Seoul, it came with a headline commitment: South Korea would invest $350 billion into the American economy, with a focus on revitalizing US shipyards. But while Trump had used emergency powers to impose tariffs unilaterally, South Korea's government needed its National Assembly to act. Five implementing bills have been submitted and are sitting in the finance committee, waiting for review before any floor vote can occur.
Seoul responded quickly. The presidential office reaffirmed the country's commitment to the agreement, and two ministers were dispatched to Washington for separate talks with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. South Korea's governing Democratic Party pledged to accelerate legislative debate, with assembly officials indicating the five bills would likely be merged into a single law requiring approval from both the finance and judiciary committees.
The dispute carries a heavier emotional weight than the procedural details suggest. Last year, US immigration officials raided a Hyundai facility in Georgia, detaining 475 people — hundreds of them South Korean workers who remained in custody for more than a week before Seoul negotiated their release. That episode exposed how strained the relationship already was beneath the surface of investment pledges and diplomatic summits.
Trump's move against South Korea fits a broader 2026 pattern. In recent weeks, he threatened 25% tariffs on eight European nations over Greenland before walking the demand back after Davos, and warned Canada of a 100% tax if it deepened trade ties with China. Looming over all of it is a pending Supreme Court ruling on whether Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act — the mechanism behind the original 15% South Korea tariff — was ever legally valid to begin with.
Donald Trump announced on Monday that he would raise tariffs on South Korean exports to the United States from 15% to 25%, citing the country's failure to secure legislative approval for a trade framework the two nations agreed to last year. The new rate, he said via social media, would apply to automobiles, lumber, pharmaceutical products, and what he termed "all other reciprocal tariffs." Trump framed the move as a matter of principle: the US had moved swiftly to reduce its own tariffs in line with the deal, and he expected South Korea to do the same.
The core issue is procedural but consequential. When Trump and South Korea's government announced the trade framework in July and reaffirmed it during the president's October visit to Seoul, the agreement came with a significant commitment: South Korea would invest $350 billion into the American economy over several years, with particular focus on revitalizing US shipyards. But unlike Trump, who had used an emergency declaration to bypass Congress and impose the initial 15% tariffs unilaterally, South Korea's government needed its National Assembly to approve the deal legislatively. Five bills implementing the investment package have been submitted to the assembly and are now sitting in the finance committee, awaiting review before they can move to a floor vote.
South Korea's presidential office responded to Trump's threat the next day, emphasizing the country's commitment to the agreement. The government mobilized its diplomatic machinery: Industry Minister Kim Jung-Kwan was dispatched to meet with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, while Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo scheduled separate talks with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Kim Hyun-jung, a spokesperson for South Korea's governing Democratic Party, pledged that his party would work with the government to accelerate debate and action on the bills. Assembly officials indicated the five separate proposals would likely be consolidated into a single law, which would then need approval from both the finance and judiciary committees before reaching a floor vote.
The tension between the two countries carries historical weight. Just last year, US immigration officials conducted a raid at a Hyundai manufacturing facility in Georgia, detaining 475 people. Hundreds of those South Korean workers remained in custody for more than a week before the South Korean government negotiated their release and repatriation. That incident underscored the fragility of the relationship despite the investment pledge and the trade framework.
Trump's move against South Korea is part of a broader pattern emerging in 2026. The president has wielded tariff threats as a negotiating tool with striking frequency. Last week, he threatened 25% tariffs on eight European nations unless the US gained control of Greenland, only to walk back the demand after meetings at the World Economic Forum in Davos. On Saturday, he threatened a 100% tax on Canadian goods if Canada pursued closer trade ties with China. The European Parliament has not yet approved a Trump-backed trade deal that would impose a 15% tariff on most goods from the EU's 27 member states. Meanwhile, the US is preparing to renegotiate its 2020 trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.
Underlying these disputes are unresolved legal questions. Section 232 investigations under the 1962 Trade Expansion Act remain ongoing, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether Trump exceeded his authority by declaring tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act—the very mechanism he used to impose the initial 15% rate on South Korea without congressional approval. Many of Trump's trade frameworks, despite his claims that they draw investment to the US, have yet to be finalized. The South Korea deal, with its $350 billion pledge, remains contingent on legislative action that has stalled in committee.
Notable Quotes
Our trade deals are very important to America. In each of these deals, we have acted swiftly to reduce our tariffs in line with the transaction agreed to. We, of course, expect our trading partners to do the same.— Donald Trump
South Korea's governing Democratic Party pledged to coordinate with the government to organize swift debate and action on the bills.— Kim Hyun-jung, Democratic Party spokesperson
Want the full story?
Read the original at Euronews ↗
Politics & Governance