US reportedly considers withdrawing 4,500 troops from South Korea

The Trump administration is weighing a proposal to withdraw about 4,500 U.S. troops from South Korea, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. The plan would relocate forces to other Indo-Pacific locations—potentially Guam—as part of an informal policy review focused on North Korea. — Image credit: Kim Jae-Hwan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Troop reduction

The Trump administration is reviewing a proposal to withdraw 4,500 U.S. troops from South Korea and reposition them in Guam. The move is part of a broader Indo-Pacific reassessment focused on China and North Korea.

Allied concerns

Military leaders warn that a drawdown could weaken deterrence, while South Korea denies holding talks on troop cuts. The Pentagon says no decisions have been made, reaffirming its commitment to the alliance.

Strategic shift

Officials, including Elbridge Colby, support refocusing U.S. forces on countering China rather than solely deterring North Korea. Guam is considered a more flexible and secure forward hub in the region.

Full story

The Trump administration is weighing a proposal to withdraw about 4,500 U.S. troops from South Korea, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. The plan would relocate forces to other Indo-Pacific locations — potentially Guam — as part of an informal policy review focused on North Korea.

The idea has yet to reach President Donald Trump’s desk, but it is part of a broader reassessment of U.S. military posture in East Asia. Officials familiar with the discussions say the proposal remains active as defense planners reexamine how to balance America’s commitments on the Korean Peninsula with the need to counter growing threats from China.

The potential withdrawal reflects a long-running debate. Trump previously floated reshaping the U.S. footprint in South Korea during his first term, and the current review marks the most serious consideration in years.

What are Washington and Seoul saying?

Roughly 28,500 American troops are stationed in South Korea. U.S. military leaders have warned that reducing that presence could strain the alliance and weaken deterrence against Pyongyang.

In Senate testimony last month, U.S. Forces Korea Commander Gen. Xavier Brunson said, “To reduce the force becomes problematic.” Adm. Samuel Paparo, head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, said that withdrawing troops would “inherently reduce our ability to prevail in conflict.”

South Korea’s defense ministry said Friday, May 23, it has held no talks with the U.S. on any troop reduction. The ministry reiterated that both nations remain committed to a strong combined defense posture to deter North Korean aggression. Seoul also emphasized that the issue is unrelated to ongoing trade or defense cost-sharing talks.

U.S. Defense Department chief spokesperson Sean Parnell later said on X, “Anyone who’s covered the Pentagon knows that we always evaluate force posture. That said, the U. S. remains firmly committed to the ROK. Our alliance is iron clad. Reports that the DoD will reduce U.S. troops in the Republic of Korea are not true.”

Anyone who’s covered the Pentagon knows that we always evaluate force posture.
That said, the U. S. remains firmly committed to the ROK. Our alliance is iron clad.

Reports that the DoD will reduce U.S. troops in the Republic of Korea are not true. https://t.co/qLCsl8pBmh
— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellATSD) May 23, 2025

What would a shift mean for the region?

Analysts say relocating troops to Guam would offer the U.S. greater strategic flexibility. It would keep forces near potential flashpoints while easing tensions on the densely populated Korean Peninsula. Pentagon officials increasingly view Guam as a forward hub, close enough to respond quickly to crises but harder for China to target.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Under Secretary Elbridge Colby have each endorsed modernizing the U.S. force posture in the Indo-Pacific. Colby, a longtime advocate for burden-sharing, has argued that the U.S. should not keep troops in South Korea solely to deter North Korea.

“U.S. forces on the peninsula in my view should not be held hostage to dealing with the North Korean problem,” Colby said in a 2024 interview.

Jake Larsen (Video Editor), Alex Delia (Deputy Managing Editor), and Ally Heath (Senior Digital Producer) contributed to this report.

[RYAN ROBERTSON]

THE U.S. IS RETHINKING ITS MILITARY FOOTPRINT IN EAST ASIA—AND THAT COULD MEAN PULLING THOUSANDS OF TROOPS OUT OF SOUTH KOREA.

RIGHT NOW, THE PENTAGON IS WEIGHING WHETHER TO RELOCATE ABOUT 45-HUNDRED SERVICE MEMBERS TO OTHER LOCATIONS IN THE INDO-PACIFIC—POSSIBLY GUAM. IT’S PART OF AN INTERNAL POLICY REVIEW FOCUSED ON NORTH KOREA, BUT ALSO REFLECTS GROWING CONCERNS ABOUT CHINA.

OFFICIALS SAY THE PROPOSAL ISN’T ON PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DESK YET, BUT IT REMAINS UNDER ACTIVE CONSIDERATION. IF APPROVED, IT WOULD MARK THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN U.S. TROOP LEVELS ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA IN YEARS.

CURRENTLY, THE U.S. MAINTAINS ABOUT 28-THOUSAND TROOPS IN SOUTH KOREA. THAT PRESENCE HAS LONG SERVED AS A DETERRENT AGAINST NORTH KOREAN AGGRESSION AND A CORNERSTONE OF THE U.S.-SOUTH KOREA ALLIANCE.

BUT TOP U.S. COMMANDERS ARE URGING CAUTION. GENERAL XAVIER BRUNSON, HEAD OF U.S. FORCES KOREA, RECENTLY TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS THAT ANY DRAWDOWN WOULD BE “PROBLEMATIC.” HE WARNED IT COULD UNDERMINE THE U.S.’ ABILITY TO IMPOSE COSTS ON NORTH KOREA, CHINA, OR RUSSIA IN A CRISIS.

ADMIRAL SAMUEL PAPARO, HEAD OF U.S. INDO-PACIFIC COMMAND, SAYS PULLING TROOPS FROM THE PENINSULA WOULD REDUCE AMERICA’S ABILITY TO PREVAIL IN CONFLICT.

SOUTH KOREA’S DEFENSE MINISTRY SAID IT HAS NOT HELD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH WASHINGTON ABOUT REDUCING TROOP LEVELS.

THE PENTAGON IS PUSHING BACK ON REPORTS THAT THE IDEA IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A PROPOSAL — CHIEF SPOKESPERSON SEAN PARNELL POSTED ON X THAT REPORTS OF A TROOP CUT ARE “NOT TRUE.” HE SAID THE U.S. ROUTINELY REVIEWS ITS GLOBAL FORCE POSTURE, BUT THAT ITS COMMITMENT TO SOUTH KOREA REMAINS, QUOTE, “IRONCLAD.”

THE DISCUSSION REFLECTS A LONGER-RUNNING DEBATE INSIDE U.S. DEFENSE CIRCLES. DURING HIS FIRST TERM, PRESIDENT TRUMP QUESTIONED THE COST OF KEEPING AMERICAN TROOPS IN SOUTH KOREA.

COLBY, IN PARTICULAR, ARGUES THAT U.S. FORCES SHOULDN’T BE STATIONED IN SOUTH KOREA SOLELY TO DEAL WITH THE NORTH KOREAN THREAT. HE SAYS THE BIGGER CHALLENGE IS CHINA, AND THAT ALLIES LIKE SEOUL SHOULD SHOULDER MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE.

IF SOME FORCES ARE MOVED TO GUAM, MILITARY ANALYSTS SAY IT COULD PROVIDE MORE STRATEGIC FLEXIBILITY.

GUAM IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO RESPOND QUICKLY TO A CRISIS, BUT FAR ENOUGH TO BE LESS VULNERABLE TO ATTACK. IT’S ALSO BECOMING A CENTRAL HUB FOR THE PENTAGON’S PACIFIC OPERATIONS.

AS WE’VE SAID–NO FINAL DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE AT THIS TIME–
BUT THE PROPOSAL SHOWS HOW THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS RETHINKING AMERICA’S MILITARY FOOTPRINT IN EAST ASIA—BALANCING DETERRENCE, COSTS, AND NEW REGIONAL THREATS.

FOR MORE OF OUR UNBIASED, STRAIGHT FACT REPORTING – DOWNLOAD THE STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS APP TODAY, OR LOG ON TO SAN.COM.

Why this story matters

A potential withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea could impact regional security dynamics, alliance commitments and U.S. military strategy in East Asia.

US-South Korea alliance

Changes to American troop presence raise concerns about the strength and reliability of the U.S.-South Korea security partnership.

Regional security posture

Repositioning forces to locations like Guam could alter the balance of deterrence against North Korea and affect responses to other regional challenges.

Strategic military planning

The informal review reflects ongoing debates about how the U.S. should allocate military resources to address threats from both North Korea and China.