Global NK Commentary] U.S. Navy's Fiscal Year 2027 Shipbuilding Plan and Korea-U.S. Shipbuilding Partnership (KUSPI): Institutionalizing Allied Industrial Capacity in the Indo-Pacific and Korea's Proactive Design Task

■ Go to the original Global NK Zoom&Connect

I. Launch of KUSPI, the FY2027 Shipbuilding Plan, and Allied Industrial Capacity

On May 8, at the U.S. Department of Commerce building in Washington D.C., the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources (MOTIR) of South Korea and the U.S. Department of Commerce signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Korea-U.S. Shipbuilding Partnership Initiative (KUSPI). A press release issued the same day by the International Trade Administration (ITA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce defines KUSPI as a new platform to enhance bilateral cooperation in commercial shipbuilding, workforce development, industry modernization, and marine manufacturing investment. It includes provisions for establishing a Korea-U.S. Shipbuilding Partnership Center in Washington D.C. within the year to facilitate continuous coordination among governments, industries, and research institutions of both countries. Under the MOU, the U.S. Department of Commerce will promote interaction between the KUSPI Center and U.S. shipbuilding companies, suppliers, universities, and research institutions, serving as a single point of contact for the U.S. government. MOTIR will coordinate cooperation among Korean government and shipbuilding industry stakeholders and provide personnel and funding for the Center's operations. Crucially, the ITA press release frames the significance of the KUSPI MOU as "efforts to strengthen allied industrial capacity, promote investment, and expand cooperation in advanced manufacturing sectors," positioning KUSPI within a broader vision of integrating industrial capacities at the alliance level, extending beyond simple bilateral industrial cooperation.

The signing of the KUSPI MOU appears to be the most tangible outcome of Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources Kim Jeong-kwan's tour of Canada and the United States from May 5-9, and forms part of the South Korean government's integrated package of engagement with the U.S. In Washington, Minister Kim held a meeting with Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo on the 8th, lasting approximately two hours. In addition to the KUSPI MOU signing, they discussed the concrete implementation of the $350 billion U.S. investment package (with an annual limit of $20 billion) promised by South Korea during the resolution of the Korea-U.S. trade negotiations last year, and specifically the $150 billion allocated for U.S. shipbuilding investment (Make American Shipbuilding Great Again: MASGA). Furthermore, on the 7th, he met with Russell Vought, Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to discuss support for the MASGA project at the executive branch level, and with Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm to discuss strengthening Korea-U.S. energy cooperation, including nuclear power. Notably, Minister Kim also engaged in virtual discussions with U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty (Tennessee), paralleling congressional-level activities. This schedule indicates the Korean government's intention to position KUSPI not as a bilateral industrial cooperation initiative solely under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources, but as part of an integrated engagement package with the executive branch (Commerce, OMB, Energy) and Congress. Meanwhile, the "Special Act on Strategic Investment Management for Korea-U.S. Cooperation (Special Act on U.S. Investment)," passed by the Korean National Assembly on March 12 and scheduled to take effect on June 18, provides the legislative foundation for this integrated U.S. engagement and serves as the institutional basis for KUSPI's operation on the Korean side.

However, the comprehensive significance of KUSPI becomes apparent only when considering the "President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2027 Shipbuilding Plan" (hereinafter referred to as the "FY27 Shipbuilding Plan"), released by the U.S. Department of the Navy on May 11, just three days after KUSPI's launch. The FY27 Shipbuilding Plan, introduced by Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao, Chief of Naval Operations Daryl Caudle, and Commandant of the Marine Corps Eric Smith through a joint foreword, presents a 30-year blueprint for the "Fleet of the Future" (Fleet of the Future). It requests a FY2027 shipbuilding budget of $65.8 billion and outlines the largest shipbuilding plan since the post-war era, aiming to acquire 122 combat vessels and 63 unmanned platforms over five years (FYDP 2027-2031). More significantly, the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan elevates the "Bridge Strategy," which was only briefly mentioned in two sentences in the Maritime Action Plan, by: (1) formalizing it as the official acquisition strategy for CONSOL tankers in the auxiliary ship sector; (2) directly requesting congressional cooperation through three legislative proposals for the FY2027 NDAA; and (3) establishing a new dedicated section on "Foreign Investment and Support," identifying allied industrial capacity as a permanent element of the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding future. In essence, the simultaneity of MAP, KUSPI, and the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan signifies that the executive branch's policy package for the structural realignment of the U.S. naval shipbuilding industry is proceeding in conjunction with the bilateral governance institutionalization with Indo-Pacific allies.

Superficially, KUSPI might appear as a bilateral governance mechanism to implement the $150 billion U.S. shipbuilding investment (MASGA) pledged by South Korea during last year's trade negotiations. However, considering the dynamics of the ongoing U.S.-China maritime power transition, KUSPI carries implications beyond a mere investment implementation vehicle. The Maritime Action Plan (MAP), pursued by the Trump administration's second term through an executive order on April 9 last year, was released on February 13, 2026, approximately three months past its original November 9 deadline, due to a lack of legislative follow-up from Congress and personnel losses within the executive branch. The "Bridge Strategy" appears in just two sentences within the "Leverage International and Industry Partnerships" subsection of the first pillar, "Rebuilding America's Shipbuilding Capacity," of this Maritime Action Plan. Specifically, the MAP states: "International agreements linking market access to joint industrial development will help ensure that allied investments directly contribute to reducing dependence on unreliable supply chains. A potential 'Bridge Strategy' would provide a path for multi-ship buy to construct the first ships under contract at foreign shipyards of allied nations, while simultaneously injecting capital into U.S. shipyards acquired or partnered with those foreign shipbuilders, ultimately achieving onshore construction" (America's Maritime Action Plan, 2026, p. 8). KUSPI represents the first attempt to institutionalize these two sentences from the MAP at the bilateral governance level with Indo-Pacific allies, while the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan marks the first attempt to elevate these sentences to an official policy at the program level within the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding strategy.

Meanwhile, the U.S.-China maritime power transition is expected to intensify quantitatively between 2025 and 2030, and the asymmetric disadvantage in shipbuilding capacity faced by the U.S. Navy is a structural problem that cannot be easily compensated by domestic efforts alone in the short term. Despite its strategic ambitions, the "Fleet of the Future" concept may only bear fruit in the late 2030s, and the Arctic security icebreaker cooperation pursued with Canada and Finland through the ICE Pact is tactical and short-term in nature. Therefore, KUSPI can be interpreted as an attempt to elevate U.S. short-term compensatory measures for the quantitative maritime power transition into a permanent governance mechanism utilizing Indo-Pacific allies. The FY27 Shipbuilding Plan suggests that this elevation is a way to circumvent domestic laws restricting shipbuilding cooperation between the U.S. and its allies, and at the same time, a structural realignment of the U.S. naval shipbuilding future blueprint itself. In other words, when viewed together, the MAP-KUSPI-FY27 Shipbuilding Plan policy package positions KUSPI as a pilot case for the structural realignment of the U.S. naval shipbuilding industry—that is, an attempt to integrate "allied industrial capacity" as a permanent element of the U.S. shipbuilding future blueprint.

II. The FY27 Shipbuilding Plan and Attempts to Legislate the Bridge Strategy

The decisive significance of the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan in the analysis of KUSPI can be summarized in three aspects.

First, the term "Bridge Strategy" itself has been formalized for the first time as an official acquisition strategy at the U.S. Navy's program level through the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan. This approach is designed to accelerate capability delivery while simultaneously expanding domestic shipbuilding capacity, attracting foreign investment to support the establishment of new U.S. shipyards, and strengthening the industrial base for future auxiliary ship construction." (U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Plan, 2026, p. 33). This signifies that the Bridge Strategy, mentioned only as a "potential option" in the MAP, has been elevated to an official acquisition strategy for a specific ship program in the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan. It is also specified that its model is the "lead-follow acquisition model" verified by the Finnish case of the ICE Pact. Furthermore, the fact that the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan adopts the more specific acquisition engineering term "lead-follow acquisition model" instead of the MAP's "multi-ship buy" expression directly shows that the policy vision of the MAP has been translated into a concrete acquisition strategy at the program level through the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan. The interpretation that KUSPI expands the Finnish model to a bilateral governance of Indo-Pacific allies gains policy backing at the U.S. Navy level through the formalization of the CONSOL tanker acquisition strategy in the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan.

Second, the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan explicitly outlines three specific legislative requests for the FY2027 NDAA, thereby revealing an attempt at the executive branch level to actively mitigate the "ceiling" issue in U.S. domestic law affecting Korea-U.S. shipbuilding cooperation—such as the Byrnes-Tollefson Act, which restricts the construction and maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) of U.S. Navy vessels at foreign shipyards; the Jones Act, which prohibits foreign vessels from entering U.S. coastal transport; and the Buy American Act, which mandates a certain percentage of U.S.-made content in federal procurement. The "Foreign Investment and Support" section of the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan directly inherits the policy vision of the MAP, stating: "As President Trump's Maritime Action Plan clearly stated, 'Rebuilding America's Shipbuilding Capacity is critical to restoring American Maritime Power.' However, the Navy acknowledges the challenges presented by the current state of domestic shipbuilding capacity in both facilities and workforce. To meet the Chief of Naval Operations' warfighting requirements and deliver the scale, speed, and readiness demanded by today's security environment, the Navy must adopt a strategy that leverages a globally integrated industrial model that capitalizes on the strengths of trusted allies while expanding American capacity" (U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Plan, 2026, p. 37). This signifies that the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan directly quotes President Trump's thesis from the MAP—"Rebuilding America's Shipbuilding Capacity is critical to restoring American Maritime Power"—and officially adopts a "globally integrated industrial model" at the U.S. Navy level as a means to realize this vision. This section of the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan further requests Congress directly: "In parallel with domestic expansion, we are also pursuing options to grow the fleet now. To achieve this vision, the Navy is requesting direct legislative changes, specifically proposing flexibility for the construction of up to two auxiliary ships and the foreign fabrication of certain combat ship modules for the FY2027 NDAA."

First, regarding surface combatants, the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan states: "For surface combatants, we propose providing U.S. prime contractors with greater flexibility to subcontract with foreign partners to fabricate large, non-sensitive modules (i.e., hull structures) at allied facilities abroad. This approach combines U.S.-controlled stable designs (e.g., BBGN, DDG 51, LHA, LPD) with the advanced manufacturing capabilities and throughput efficiencies of partner nation shipyards. This low-risk approach will accelerate production while protecting U.S. design sovereignty and security by focusing complex work, such as final assembly, sensitive systems integration, and test and activation, domestically" (U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Plan, 2026, p. 37). In essence, the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan requests legislative changes to "grant greater flexibility to U.S. prime contractors to subcontract with foreign partners for the fabrication of large, non-sensitive modules (i.e., hull structures) at allied facilities abroad," emphasizing that this approach is "low-risk" as it "combines U.S.-controlled stable designs (BBGN, DDG 51, LHA, LPD, etc.) with the advanced manufacturing capabilities and throughput efficiencies of partner nation shipyards" while "protecting U.S. design sovereignty and security by focusing complex work, such as sensitive systems integration, final assembly, and test and activation, domestically."

Next, for limited auxiliary ships, the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan proposes: "For limited auxiliary ships, we propose following a model similar to the Icebreaker Recapitalization Agreement (ICE Pact). Under this model, lead construction efforts abroad will utilize allied shipyards with proven commercial designs, and subsequent ships may be constructed to print at U.S. shipyards, foreign-owned U.S. shipyards, or allied foreign shipyards, depending on cost, schedule, and industrial base needs. This approach accelerates the recapitalization of the combat logistics force while strengthening U.S. commercial shipbuilding capacity" (U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Plan, 2026, p. 37). In other words, it requests authorization to conduct the "construction of up to two auxiliary ships" at allied shipyards "following a model similar to the ICE Pact," while proposing a flexible division of labor where subsequent ships can be built at U.S. shipyards, foreign-owned U.S. shipyards, or allied foreign shipyards "depending on cost, schedule, and industrial base needs." This division of labor concretizes the sequential and spatial transfer mechanism of "onshore construction" specified in the MAP's Bridge Strategy at the U.S. Navy's auxiliary ship acquisition strategy level.

Finally, for maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO), it requests an extension of the "21-day short-term overseas maintenance period" authority granted by the FY2025 NDAA. These three requests directly target partial mitigation of limitations in the Buy American Act, the Byrnes-Tollefson Act, and overseas maintenance, which previously constituted the ceiling for Korea-U.S. shipbuilding cooperation. This suggests that depending on how South Korea designs its legislative engagement with the U.S. Congress in conjunction with KUSPI's operation, there is policy space for the cooperation ceiling itself to be gradually lowered.

Third, by elevating "Foreign Investment and Support" to a separate policy section, the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan positions allied industrial capacity as a permanent element of the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding future blueprint. This section explicitly states that "Foreign shipbuilding investment in the United States is a priority," and anticipates "major announcements of large-scale investments by key foreign partners in U.S. domestic shipbuilding." Furthermore, the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan emphasizes that "improving what U.S. shipbuilding does today is not enough; U.S. shipbuilding must expand," and clarifies that this expansion will occur through a "globally integrated industrial model that leverages the strengths of allies and partners." This represents a clear policy decision distinct from the "Buy American" emphasis of the first Trump administration, and KUSPI provides precisely the policy foundation for functioning as a pilot case of this "globally integrated industrial model" in the Indo-Pacific.

However, there are clear limitations to these legislative requests and policy signals. All three legislative changes requested by the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan require congressional cooperation. The fact that the SHIPS Act, reintroduced on April 30 last year, has not yet reached a floor vote, let alone formal committee hearings, nearly a year later, indicates that congressional legislative momentum remains stalled. Moreover, the module outsourcing requested by the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan is strictly limited to "non-sensitive" areas, and the division of labor clearly specifies that the integration of sensitive systems and final assembly of U.S. Navy vessels will be handled by U.S. shipyards. This means that the ceiling mitigation attempted by the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan is gradual and limited by domain, and the expansion of cooperation through KUSPI is inevitably bound within the framework of this division of labor. Nevertheless, what is noteworthy is the very fact that the U.S. administration is attempting to lower the ceiling of Korea-U.S. shipbuilding cooperation through legislative and policy means, suggesting that the policy space for proactive design utilizing KUSPI may be broader than conventionally assumed.

III. North Korea's Naval Nuclearization and the Urgency of Integrated Extended Deterrence

Alongside the domestic U.S. politics surrounding KUSPI and the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan, another variable facing South Korea is North Korea's naval nuclearization. At the 9th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea, held from February 19 to 25, North Korea officially announced its policy to develop naval operational capabilities centered on the nuclear armament of surface and underwater naval forces. For the first time, Kim Jong Un hinted at plans to build two destroyers of 5,000 tons or more annually, with aspirations for larger 8,000-ton destroyers in the future. While the possession of nuclear submarines, presented as one of the five major strategic weapon tasks at the 8th Party Congress, has not yet reached practical operational capability despite the unveiling of the hero submarine Kim Kun Ok and a nuclear-powered strategic missile submarine, the 9th Party Congress indicates a shift in the focus of North Korea's naval nuclear armament from submarines to large surface vessels. The transition to building large surface vessels, which can yield visible results in a short period given the limitations of nuclear submarine technology, can be interpreted as a compromise between North Korea's technological constraints and its desire to maximize political utility.

On March 3 and 4, shortly after the closing of the Party Congress, Kim Jong Un visited the new 5,000-ton class destroyer Ri Hyon to observe a sea-to-ground strategic cruise missile test launch and praised the "satisfactory progress in the nuclear armament of the Navy." Particularly noteworthy is the report that North Korea attempted to officially register the Ri Hyon with the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN agency, earlier this year, marking the first time for one of its warships. According to an analysis of the Korean Peninsula situation published by the U.S. Institute for the Study of War (ISW) on April 22, this registration attempt can be interpreted in two ways. First, it could signify military preparations for long-range voyages and the completion of initial testing and training. Second, it represents a broader diplomatic effort by North Korea to present itself to the international community as a legitimate and responsible state actor. The latter appears to be directly linked to North Korea's pursuit of diplomatic normalization following the 9th Party Congress.

ISW further analyzed on April 12 that the test launch of a domestically modified Russian Kh-35 anti-ship missile during the Ri Hyon's missile test was conducted via a box-like launch mechanism in the central part of the ship, rather than from the vertical launchers installed on the ship. Based on this, ISW assessed that the Ri Hyon is likely to function as a nuclear missile platform due to its limited anti-ship capabilities. This ISW analysis suggests that pursuing a "green water navy" through IMO registration and becoming a nuclear strike platform via the box launcher may not be separate phenomena but rather a single, integrated strategic choice. This is because, amidst North Korea's absolute quantitative naval inferiority, the two prongs—diplomatic efforts towards normalization and the development of asymmetric nuclear platforms—can be seen as part of the same multi-layered strategy. This trend of North Korea's naval nuclearization is also intertwined with the constitutional revision carried out in March. The amended constitution, revealed by the Ministry of Unification on May 6, established a territorial clause defining only the northern part of the Korean Peninsula as territory and deleted the principle of unification through independence, peace, and national unity, thereby constitutionally formalizing a two-state system. Concurrently, the Chairman of the State Affairs Commission was defined as the head of state, and provisions for command and use of nuclear force were newly established. However, the designation of South Korea as an adversary, foreshadowed by Kim Jong Un in January 2024, was not reflected in the constitution, and specific mention of the maritime boundary line was also avoided. This demonstrates North Korea's strategy of solidifying the legal framework for a two-state system while leaving residual space for channels of peaceful coexistence.

In this context, it is necessary to re-examine the significance of KUSPI and the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan from the perspective of Korean Peninsula security. In addition to the structural shifts in the U.S.-China maritime power competition, the variable of North Korea—with its annual addition of two nuclear-capable vessels and its stated intention to develop a green water navy—further exacerbates the dual challenges facing South Korea. North Korea's naval nuclearization following the 9th Party Congress coincides with the scheduled transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) in the second quarter of 2029. This creates a structural challenge where qualitative changes in North Korean maritime threats emerge precisely when the ROK military must exercise operational control independently. Therefore, it is an urgent task to ensure that KUSPI functions not merely as an industrial cooperation governance mechanism but as a complex strategic asset aligned with Korea-U.S. integrated extended deterrence. Notably, the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan emphasizes that a key capability of BBGN nuclear-powered warships is the "deployment of theater nuclear weapons from surface vessels," which "forces difficult strategic calculations upon adversaries, thereby enhancing overall deterrence." This highlights that the maritime dimension of Korea-U.S. integrated extended deterrence is directly linked to the "Fleet of the Future" concept in the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan, providing an additional basis for operating KUSPI as a complex strategic asset extending beyond industrial cooperation.

Furthermore, North Korea's reaffirmation at the 9th Party Congress of its conditional willingness to engage in dialogue with the U.S., premised on recognition of its status as a nuclear power, could place an additional diplomatic burden on South Korea. Given the possibility of unconventional diplomatic approaches from a potential Trump administration, there is a risk that direct North Korea-U.S. negotiations could take precedence over Korea-U.S. industrial and security cooperation. The institutionalization of industrial cooperation through KUSPI could paradoxically serve as leverage to weaken North Korea's bargaining power for nuclear recognition, potentially stimulating North Korea's acceleration of naval nuclearization and reinforcement of asymmetric threats. Therefore, in operating KUSPI, South Korea must strive to institutionalize policy consistency across the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources, the Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Unification Ministry, integrating the North Korean variable not as an external factor but as an internal one.

IV. KUSPI as a Pilot Case for Institutionalizing Allied Industrial Capacity in the Indo-Pacific: Korea's Proactive Design

Synthesizing the analyses above, the significance of KUSPI for South Korea extends far beyond a mere implementational body for $150 billion in investment. As the Indo-Pacific nexus of the MAP-KUSPI-FY27 Shipbuilding Plan policy package, KUSPI represents the first bilateral institutionalization case of the structural realignment of the U.S. naval shipbuilding industry—an attempt to integrate "allied industrial capacity" as a permanent element of the U.S. shipbuilding future blueprint—and a potential conduit through which South Korea can proactively establish its distinct value. However, for this potential to be realized in a manner favorable to South Korea, Korea's proactive design is essential, and this must be pursued simultaneously on three fronts.

First, South Korea must self-define KUSPI not as a mere investment implementation body but as a pilot case for institutionalizing "allied industrial capacity" in the Indo-Pacific, as specified in the ITA press release and the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan. This self-definition positions KUSPI as a permanent nexus of the globally integrated industrial model presented in the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan for the Indo-Pacific, unlike the Finnish ICE Pact model, which is limited to one-off vessel cooperation. Such a definition will enhance South Korea's negotiating power and enable it to position itself as a model designer. In essence, diplomatic efforts to foster the perception that KUSPI is not something granted by the U.S. to Korea or conceded by Korea to the U.S., but rather something co-created by the U.S. and Korea, will be crucial for shaping the future cooperative political foundation.

Second, multi-layered public-private engagement with the U.S., linked to the legislative requests for the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan's FY2027 NDAA, must parallel KUSPI's operation. The three legislative changes requested by the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan—(i) authorization for the overseas construction of two auxiliary ships, (ii) authorization for outsourcing non-sensitive modules for surface combatants abroad, and (iii) extension of the 21-day short-term overseas maintenance authority—are all legislative changes that directly lower the ceiling for Korea-U.S. shipbuilding cooperation. Supporting these naval legislative requests through direct engagement with congressional collaborators is not merely a supplementary role but constitutes proactive legislative diplomacy that aligns South Korea's own interests with the U.S. Navy's policy direction. Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources Kim Jeong-kwan's virtual meeting with U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty on May 7 to discuss cooperation in areas of mutual interest, including nuclear power, can be considered a starting point for such congressional engagement, and this needs to be expanded into systematic congressional engagement directly linked to the three legislative requests of the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan. In conjunction with previously proposed legislation such as the SHIPS Act, ENA Act, and the Allied Partnership for Merchant Vessels Act, there is a need to support the three legislative changes requested by the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan through an integrated Korea-U.S. congressional engagement network involving the National Assembly, corporations, and civil society, utilizing the KUSPI Washington Center as its permanent base camp. Simultaneously, concerns from U.S. shipbuilding industry unions, such as the Steelworkers' Union of the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department, must be addressed to proactively persuade them that South Korea's industrial entry is compatible with U.S. job creation.

Third, policy consistency with integrated extended deterrence in response to North Korea's naval nuclearization must be integrated as an intrinsic dimension of KUSPI's operation. The variable of North Korea—with its annual addition of two nuclear-capable vessels since the 9th Party Congress and its stated intention to develop a green water navy—imparts an urgency that prevents KUSPI from remaining merely an industrial cooperation governance mechanism. Notably, the fact that the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan specifies the "deployment of theater nuclear weapons from surface vessels" as a key capability of BBGN nuclear-powered warships demonstrates a direct link between the maritime dimension of Korea-U.S. integrated extended deterrence and the "Fleet of the Future" concept. Therefore, operational aspects of Korea-U.S. maritime security cooperation must be integrated into the agenda of the KUSPI Washington Center, and institutional guarantees for inter-agency consistency—between the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources, the Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Unification Ministry—must be established, rather than operating solely under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources. North Korea's multi-pronged strategy, comprising diplomatic efforts towards normalization and the development of asymmetric nuclear platforms, as evidenced since the 9th Party Congress, provides the rationale for South Korea to operate KUSPI not as a fragmented industrial governance mechanism but as an integrated strategic asset.

The trends of U.S.-China maritime power competition over the past five years, the MAP-KUSPI-FY27 Shipbuilding Plan policy package of a potential second Trump administration, and the full-scale commencement of North Korea's naval nuclearization following the 9th Party Congress clearly indicate that the structural changes in South Korea's maritime security environment are not mere temporary fluctuations. The fact that the Bridge Strategy, mentioned as only a potential option in the Maritime Action Plan, has begun to be institutionalized bilaterally through KUSPI and is being integrated into the permanent blueprint of the U.S. naval shipbuilding industry through the FY27 Shipbuilding Plan represents the U.S. response to these structural changes and a rare window of opportunity for South Korea to proactively establish its distinct value. A passive stance, accepting this merely as an investment implementation body, carries the risk of squandering that opportunity. When South Korea's proactive design elevates KUSPI to a pilot case for institutionalizing allied industrial capacity in the Indo-Pacific and converts the political capital of that elevation into the strengthening of Korea-U.S. integrated extended deterrence, South Korea will be able to proactively maximize its strategic value amidst the massive structural shifts of the U.S.-China maritime power competition. ■

References

Kwon Jun-young. 2026. "Kim Jeong-kwan's North America Trip…Full Support for $60 Trillion Submarine Order." 〈Digital Times〉 May 5.https://www.dt.co.kr/article/12060783(Accessed: May 14, 2026.)

Park Chan-kyu. 2026. "Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources Kim Jeong-kwan Speeds Up U.S. Investment Discussions…First Investment 'Countdown'." 〈NewsPim〉 May 10.https://www.newspim.com/news/view/20260510000056(Accessed: May 14, 2026.)

〈Seoul Economy〉 (Editorial). 2026. "Korea-U.S. Shipbuilding Alliance 'MASGA' Sets Sail…Hoping to Become a Foundation for Resolving Trade Disputes." May 10.https://www.sedaily.com/article/20042257(Accessed: May 14, 2026.)

〈Seoul-Pyongyang News〉. 2026b. "Korea and U.S. Strengthen Shipbuilding Cooperation MOU…'Expanding Commercial Vessels and Marine Manufacturing Investment'." May 9.https://www.spnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=107059(Accessed: May 9, 2026.)

Jeon Min. 2026. "Kim Jeong-kwan Meets U.S. Secretaries of Commerce and Energy, etc…Signs Shipbuilding Partnership MOU." 〈News1〉 May 10.https://www.news1.kr/economy/trend/6161695(Accessed: May 14, 2026.)

Shipbuilding Industry Team. 2026a. "U.S. Navy Pursues $65.8 Billion Shipbuilding Investment…Trump's 'Golden Fleet' Officially Launched." 〈HaeSa Shinmun〉 May 12.http://www.haesanews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=147943(Accessed: May 13, 2026.)

Shipbuilding Industry Team. 2026b. "U.S. Formalizes 'Trump-Class Nuclear-Powered Warships'…A Crisis and Opportunity for K-Shipbuilding, Shakes Up Korea-U.S. Shipbuilding Cooperation Landscape." 〈HaeSa Shinmun〉 May 13.http://www.haesanews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=148010(Accessed: May 14, 2026.)

Cho Cheol-oh. 2026. "[Exclusive] U.S. Department of Defense Conducts Site Survey of Korean Shipyards…Likely to Bid for Frigate Contract." 〈The Korea Economic Daily〉 May 12.https://www.hankyung.com/article/202605120151i(Accessed: May 13, 2026.)

〈Kyunghyang Shinmun〉. 2026. "Kim Jong Un Watches Test Launch of Latest Destroyer Missile…Part of Naval Power Display, Possibly Considering Iran Situation." March 5.

Kim Jong-won. 2026. "North Korea's 9th Party Congress: Inter-Korean Affairs Domain: Formalization of Hostile States and the Need for Continued Peaceful Coexistence Policy." 『Issue Brief』 No. 821. Institute for National Security Strategy.

〈News1〉. 2026. "North Korean Navy Evolves into a 'Green Water Navy'…Aimed at Neutralizing the NLL and Controlling Maritime Transport Routes." April.https://www.news1.kr/diplomacy/defense-diplomacy/6149229 (تاريخ البحث: 9 مايو 2026)

〈ثقافة اليوم〉. 2025. "صاروخ الدفاع الجوي الروسي: رادار تتبع ومدفع رشاش على متن سفينة 'تشوي هيون' الكورية الشمالية من طراز إيجيس." 30 أبريل. https://www.munhwa.com/article/11502525 (تاريخ البحث: 9 مايو 2026)

معهد أسان للسياسات. 2026. "تحليل نتائج المؤتمر التاسع لحزب العمال الكوري الشمالي: استعراض كبير ولكن فارغ للإنجازات وتأكيد على العداء تجاه الجنوب." 『نشرة قضايا』 رقم 2026-11.

لي جونغ تشول. 2026. "تحليل الدستور المعدل لكوريا الشمالية." ورقة مقدمة في اجتماع صحفي لوزارة التوحيد، 6 مايو.

لي هو ريونغ. 2025. "أكبر إنجازات المؤتمر الثامن للحزب وتوقعات المؤتمر التاسع للحزب." معهد دراسات شرق آسيا. 5 ديسمبر.

〈مونيتوداي〉. 2026. "كوريا الشمالية تحذف 'التوحيد' من الدستور... وتؤسس رسمياً لنظام الدولتين." 6 مايو. https://www.mt.co.kr/politics/2026/05/07/2026050620131380197 (تاريخ البحث: 9 مايو 2026)

〈سيول بيونغ يانغ نيوز〉. 2026أ. "كيم جونغ أون: 'تم تنفيذ التسلح النووي للبحرية بنجاح مرضٍ'... اختبار قدرات سفينة 'تشوي هيون' قبل دخول الخدمة." 5 مارس. https://www.spnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=105063 (تاريخ البحث: 9 مايو 2026)

تشوي إل. 2026. "[واقع الغواصات] اتجاه تطور القوة النووية البحرية لكوريا الشمالية في ضوء المؤتمر التاسع للحزب." 〈سيول بيونغ يانغ نيوز〉 أبريل. https://www.spnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=106196 (تاريخ البحث: 9 مايو 2026)

إدارة التجارة الدولية (ITA). 2026. "الولايات المتحدة وكوريا توقعان مذكرة تفاهم لتعزيز التعاون الثنائي في بناء السفن." وزارة التجارة الأمريكية. 8 مايو. https://www.trade.gov/press-release/united-states-and-korea-sign-mou-advance-bilateral-shipbuilding-cooperation. (تم الوصول إليه: 9 مايو 2026)

البيت الأبيض. 2025. "استعادة الهيمنة البحرية الأمريكية" (الأمر التنفيذي 14269). 9 أبريل.

البيت الأبيض. 2026. خطة العمل البحرية الأمريكية. 13 فبراير. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Restoring-Americas-Maritime-Dominance.pdf (تم الوصول إليه: 9 مايو 2026)

وزارة البحرية الأمريكية. 2026. خطة بناء السفن البحرية الأمريكية، مايو 2026. 11 مايو. https://media.defense.gov/2026/May/11/2003928909/-1/-1/1/NAVY%20SHIPBUILDING%20PLAN%20MAY%202026.PDF (تم الوصول إليه: 15 مايو 2026)

أورورك، رونالد. 2026. "هيكل القوة البحرية وخطط بناء السفن: الخلفية والقضايا للكونغرس." خدمة أبحاث الكونغرس. 20 يناير. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL32665.

أورورك، رونالد. 2025. "تحديث البحرية الصينية: الآثار المترتبة على قدرات البحرية الأمريكية - الخلفية والقضايا للكونغرس." خدمة أبحاث الكونغرس. 24 أبريل. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33153.

وزارة الدفاع الأمريكية. 2026. التقرير السنوي للكونغرس: التطورات العسكرية والأمنية المتعلقة بجمهورية الصين الشعبية 2025. 23 ديسمبر. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Dec/23/2003849070/-1/-1/1/ANNUAL-REPORT-TO-CONGRESS-MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2025.PDF.

معهد أمريكان إنتربرايز (AEI) ومعهد دراسة الحرب (ISW). 2026. "تحديث شبه الجزيرة الكورية، 22 أبريل 2026." 22 أبريل. https://www.aei.org/articles/korean-peninsula-update-april-22-2026/.

البيت الأبيض. 2025. "بناء سفن الأمن القطبية الشمالية." مذكرة رئاسية، 8 أكتوبر. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/10/construction-of-arctic-security-cutters/.

البيت الأبيض. 2025. "ورقة حقائق: الرئيس دونالد ج. ترامب يأذن ببناء سفن الأمن القطبية الشمالية." 9 أكتوبر. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/10/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-authorizes-construction-of-arctic-security-cutters/.

هولاند آند نايت. 2026. "البيت الأبيض يصدر خطة العمل البحرية الأمريكية." فبراير. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/02/white-house-releases-americas-maritime-action-plan.

خان، مها. 2026. "تجاوز الطموح: تقييم خطة العمل البحرية وتداعياتها على بناء السفن." مركز ستيمسون. 18 فبراير. https://www.stimson.org/2026/moving-beyond-ambition-an-assessment-of-maritime-action-plan-and-its-implications-for-shipbuilding/.

كرونين، باتريك. 2026. "لا يمكن للولايات المتحدة ردع الصين بدون أحواض بناء السفن المتحالفة." معهد هدسون. 9 مارس. https://www.hudson.org/innovation/united-states-cant-deter-china-without-allied-shipyards-patrick-cronin.

غوسرو، إيثان. 2026. "البحرية الأمريكية تراهن بكل شيء على الغواصات في خطة بناء السفن الصادرة." أخبار البحرية. 14 مايو. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/05/u-s-navy-goes-all-in-on-submarines-in-released-shipbuilding-plan/(تم الوصول إليه: 15 مايو 2026)

Swagath, BV. 2026. "القوات البحرية الأمريكية تكشف عن خطة بناء السفن للسنة المالية 2027 بثلاثة وثلاثين سفينة جديدة." تكنولوجيا البحرية. 13 مايو. https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-navy-fy27-shipbuilding-plan/(تم الوصول إليه: 15 مايو 2026)

أخبار USNI. 2026. "إدارة ترامب تفصل جهد 'جعل بناء السفن عظيمًا مرة أخرى' في خطة عمل جديدة." 13 فبراير. https://news.usni.org/2026/02/13/.

ذا كوريا هيرالد. 2026. "حكومة ترامب تصدر خطة بحرية تدون التعاون التاريخي لبناء السفن مع كوريا الجنوبية واليابان." 14 فبراير. https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10676894(تم الوصول إليه: 9 مايو 2026)

UPI. 2026. "كوريا الجنوبية واليابان تدخلان في منافسة استراتيجية مع تحرك الولايات المتحدة لإعادة بناء الصناعة البحرية." 23 فبراير. https://www.upi.com/Voices/2026/02/23/South-Korea-Japan-strategic-rivalry-American-Maritime-Action-Plan/7741771863227(تم الوصول إليه: 9 مايو 2026)

Hanwha. 2026. "تم منح Hanwha Defense USA و Hanwha Philly Shipyard عقدًا فرعيًا في برنامج سفينة اللوجستيات من الجيل التالي." بيان صحفي، 31 مارس.

سيول إيكونوميك ديلي. 2026. "سامسونج للصناعات الثقيلة تنضم إلى NASSCO في تصميم مفاهيمي لسفينة لوجستيات إضافية من الجيل التالي." 3 أبريل.

لجنة مجلس الشيوخ الأمريكي للخدمات المسلحة. 2025. قانون تفويض الدفاع الوطني للسنة المالية 2026. 11 يوليو.

البيت الأبيض. 2025. استراتيجية الأمن القومي. نوفمبر.

مركز الدراسات الأمريكية. 2025. "ما وراء المواءمة: دفع شراكة الناتو-IP4 إلى الأمام." 17 ديسمبر.

■ أوه إن هوان_كبير باحثي EAI، محاضر في جامعة سيول الوطنية.

■ المسؤول والمحرر: لي سانغ جون_باحث في EAI

    الاستفسارات: 02 2277 1683 (ملحق 211) | leesj@eai.or.kr