[Arctic Security Dialogue] IV. The Trump Administration's Second Term Arctic Strategy and a New Horizon for the ROK-U.S. Alliance

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXhRgTWbIKU

Introduction to the Arctic Security Dialogue Series

The East Asia Institute is launching an interview series on the Arctic, an area of newly emerging importance. Climate change has led to the emergence of new Arctic sea routes, and the Arctic has become a theater of competition for various major powers in terms of economy, resources, environmental protection, and military security. We will invite experts to discuss various aspects of the Arctic to explore what kind of Arctic strategy South Korea should pursue and what preparations we need to make.

Evolution of U.S. Arctic Strategy

Jeon Jae-seong, EAI Director

I would like to ask the first question. I understand that the United States has significant economic and military-security interests in the Arctic, and that there is considerable competition and rivalry between the US and Russia over the region. What Arctic strategy is the US pursuing in the 21st century, what are its historical background and context, and in particular, with various Arctic-related issues emerging during a potential second Trump administration, we would like to hear about the Arctic strategy of the United States under such a scenario.

Professor Im Kyung-han

The Arctic strategy of the second Trump administration is clear. While past strategies focused on climate change response and cooperation with various countries, the strategy pursued by the second Trump administration centers on enhancing U.S. energy dominance, which ultimately aims to strengthen military power. The U.S. has pursued various Arctic strategies since the mid-20th century. The current U.S. Arctic strategy can be summarized as follows: The Bush administration (January 2000-January 2009) prioritized raising interest in the Arctic and ensuring freedom of navigation. In 2013, President Obama's Arctic strategy recognized the need for managing the entire Arctic region, emphasizing management through global cooperation.

Following the Trump administration, the need for a U.S.-led Arctic strategy was emphasized to counter threats from Russia and China, with the goal of strengthening U.S. capabilities. Subsequently, in 2022, the Biden administration refocused on responding to climate change and ensuring the U.S.'s free use of Arctic shipping routes through U.S.-led global cooperation. With President Trump's return in 2025, he signed the ICE PACT on his first day in office, signaling a strategy to secure U.S.-led icebreakers in cooperation with countries like Canada and Finland, and to directly operate a U.S.-led Arctic strategy. Specifically, the ICE PACT aims for the U.S. Coast Guard to acquire approximately 70 to 90 icebreakers and Arctic security vessels. Contracts have been signed for the construction of 11 vessels by February 2026. If this plan proceeds as intended, the U.S. will be able to lead its own activities in the Arctic in conjunction with allies such as Canada and Finland.

The objective the U.S. seeks to achieve is to secure energy dominance, thereby strengthening its military power and independently executing a U.S.-centric Arctic strategy. The core aim is to counter Russia's Arctic monopoly and preemptively deter China's Arctic strategy.

Arctic Strategy of the Trump Administration

Jeon Jae-seong, EAI Director

I understand that the U.S. Arctic strategy has a significant historical background. In particular, there were considerable controversies surrounding Greenland during the second Trump administration until last year, leading to friction with Denmark. President Trump's remarks about not wanting to be neighbors with China and Russia suggest that he may have been considering potential conflicts with China and Russia over the Arctic. While the situation in Venezuela and the recent conflict in Iran seem to have pushed the Greenland issue to the back burner, in the context of our discussion, Greenland appears to be a crucial policy issue. Therefore, I would like to ask how the U.S. strategy regarding Greenland might unfold in the future.

Professor Im Kyung-han

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, the clear objective of the U.S. Arctic strategy is to make America a "great Arctic power again." Following the war with Iran, President Trump is expected to focus on three foreign policy areas: first, expressing interest in Cuba; second, potentially discussing relations with North Korea; and third, revisiting the issue of Greenland, which he has consistently advocated for since taking office. The background for the U.S. pursuit of control over Greenland can be summarized in three main aspects: first, securing resources; second, gaining control over Arctic shipping routes through Greenland; and third, ensuring U.S. homeland security by pursuing missile defense policies in Greenland.

Specifically, regarding resource acquisition as a global strategic asset, the U.S. is focused on securing rare earth elements. One of the reasons the U.S. appears to be consistently lagging behind China in the context of U.S.-China competition is the issue of rare earth elements. Recognizing this as a vulnerability, the U.S. aims to overcome this by exploring and securing various resources around Greenland, which will serve as a catalyst for strengthening U.S. military power in the future. This is the first objective.

The second objective is to ensure freedom of navigation on Arctic shipping routes. Currently, Arctic shipping routes are only operational for about three to four months a year due to seasonal limitations. While it is projected that Arctic routes will open up significantly after 2035, most of the currently utilized routes are adjacent to or pass through Russian territorial waters. Therefore, the U.S.'s pursuit of route stability and navigational autonomy means securing routes that are completely independent of Russia, which the U.S. can lead and manage. From this perspective, the U.S. is charting new routes originating from Greenland as a starting point to secure these routes.

The third and final aspect is that Greenland is militarily significant for ensuring the security of the U.S. homeland. In the event of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launch from China or Russia towards the U.S., the shortest trajectory would pass over Greenland. From the U.S. perspective, various projects are being conceived to monitor, track, and intercept ballistic missiles passing through Greenland by constructing military bases there. A well-known example is the 'Golden Dome Project.' The Golden Dome Project is a large-scale endeavor with an initial cost of approximately $175 billion, aiming to establish a multi-layered defense system against ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, and drones through thousands of low-Earth orbit satellites, as well as ground-based interceptor systems and missiles.

Since Greenland is the core region for establishing this system, the U.S. clearly recognizes its necessity as a key base for missile defense, ensuring resource acquisition, guaranteeing freedom of navigation, and ultimately protecting the U.S. homeland. Therefore, it is anticipated that the U.S. will revisit the issue of acquiring Greenland at any time.

Arctic Strategy and a New Era for the ROK-U.S. Alliance

Jeon Jae-seong, EAI Director

Indeed, it is evident that Greenland holds multifaceted and significant importance in the U.S. strategy. Its importance extends beyond resources to maritime transport routes, and the fact that Greenland is central to the Golden Dome Project is particularly intriguing. The U.S. security strategy appears to involve substantial resource investment. As an ally of the U.S., the ROK-U.S. alliance perspective also suggests implications of the U.S. Arctic strategy for South Korea. I would like to ask about the opportunities and challenges that the U.S. strategy presents for South Korea as it pursues its own Arctic strategy, and what South Korea should do in this regard.

Professor Im Kyung-han

Yes, recently, there has been a growing interest in maritime security. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has drawn global attention to the region. From the perspective of studying maritime security, this has two implications. First, it has practically demonstrated the importance of maritime traffic routes, which we had previously understood theoretically. Second, it has clearly shown that disruptions to major traffic routes, especially at choke points, can have a severe impact on export-oriented economies like South Korea. In this context, the Arctic issue, which we may not be fully aware of, is a reality that will soon confront us.

Therefore, it is crucial to closely examine the Arctic strategy pursued by the U.S. and identify the roles South Korea can play. In this regard, two points can be discussed. First, consider the Arctic strategy from the perspective of the ROK-U.S. alliance. Let's examine the economic and security aspects of the U.S. Arctic strategy. In terms of economy and security, we experienced logistical disruptions and global supply chain breakdowns due to the recent blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Consequently, if the Arctic shipping route becomes the "next Hormuz," or considering South Korea's position as a key nation utilizing the Arctic route closest to its territory, there is potential for significant benefits through maritime trade and Arctic development. From this perspective, it is beneficial for South Korea to pursue and align with the U.S. Arctic strategy from an economic standpoint. Second, there is the issue of security, which is the core foundation of the ROK-U.S. alliance. South Korea is unknowingly contributing to various U.S. initiatives. Considering the Golden Dome Project, it is highly challenging for the U.S. to succeed solely with its own technological capabilities. We believe that allied nations can provide support in this area. Given South Korea's current capabilities in various weapon systems and its defense industry, it is well-equipped to contribute. By combining its industrial capabilities with its defense capabilities, South Korea can play a significant role not only in the Golden Dome Project but also in various defense and economic industries related to LNG, thereby strengthening the ROK-U.S. alliance.

When all these elements come together, the ROK-U.S. alliance can evolve into a partnership that shares not only economic and security interests but also a common vision between South Korea and the United States.

Jeon Jae-seong, EAI Director

Today, we have had the privilege of hearing from Professor Im Kyung-han of the Korea Naval Academy, a leading researcher in naval strategy and maritime security, who provided a comprehensive and concise overview of the evolution of U.S. maritime security strategy, the competition between the U.S. and Russia in the Arctic, the unfolding U.S. strategy concerning Greenland, and the potential for cooperation and development of South Korea's maritime strategy within the framework of the ROK-U.S. alliance. Thank you.

■ Moderator: Jeon Jae-sung, Director of EAI; Professor at Seoul National University.

■ Discussant: Lim Kyung-han, Professor at the Korea Naval Academy.

■ Planning and Editing: Lim Jae-hyun, Research Fellow at EAI

    Contact: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 209) | jhlim@eai.or.kr

Video Transcript

Changes in U.S. Arctic Strategy and Key Goals for a Second Trump Administration

My first question. I understand that the United States has economic, military, and security interests in the Arctic, and that there is significant competition and rivalry between the U.S. and Russia concerning the region. I would like to ask about the strategy the U.S. is pursuing in the 21st century, its background and history. Specifically, with various Arctic-related issues emerging during the second Trump administration, could you explain the U.S. Arctic strategy? The Arctic strategy of the second Trump administration is clear. Unlike previous policies that pursued Arctic strategies through responses to climate change or cooperation among various nations, the strategy pursued by the second Trump administration centers on enhancing U.S.-led energy dominance, which ultimately aims to strengthen military power. The U.S. has actually pursued various Arctic strategies since the mid-20th century. Here is an overview of the Arctic strategies the U.S. is currently pursuing. During the Bush administration,

the focus was on raising interest in the Arctic and ensuring freedom of navigation in the region. In 2013, President Obama's Arctic strategy recognized the need for managing the entire Arctic region, emphasizing U.S. management approaches through global cooperation. Subsequently, the Trump administration stressed the necessity of a U.S.-led Arctic strategy to counter threats from Russia and China, aiming to strengthen U.S. influence. In 2022, the Biden administration again fundamentally addressed climate change and aimed to ensure the free use of Arctic shipping routes by the U.S. through U.S.-led global cooperation.

With President Trump's inauguration in 2025, he announced a strategy to secure icebreakers on his first day in office, aiming to acquire state-of-the-art vessels led by the U.S. in cooperation with countries like Canada and Finland, and to directly implement a U.S.-led Arctic strategy. Specifically, the plan involves the U.S. Coast Guard acquiring approximately 70 to 90 icebreakers and Arctic security vessels. A contract for the construction of one vessel was signed in February 2026. If this plan proceeds as intended, the U.S. will be able to lead its own activities in the Arctic in conjunction with allies such as Canada and Finland.

Multifaceted Goals of the Second Trump Administration's Arctic Strategy: Focusing on Greenland

As mentioned earlier, the goal the U.S. aims to achieve is to secure energy dominance and thereby strengthen its military power, enabling it to independently execute a U.S.-centric Arctic strategy. The core objective is to counter Russia's Arctic monopoly and preemptively deter China's Arctic strategy. The U.S. Arctic strategy has a significant historical background. In particular, during the second Trump administration, there were considerable controversies surrounding Greenland until last year.

There were clashes with Denmark, and President Trump's remarks included statements about not wanting to be neighbors with China and Russia. Given this context, it is possible that the confrontation with China and Russia was somewhat anticipated in relation to the Arctic. With the situation in Venezuela and the recent conflict in Iran, the Greenland issue seems to have receded from public attention. However, within the context you've described, Greenland appears to be a very important policy matter. Therefore, it will be noteworthy to observe how the U.S. strategy concerning Greenland unfolds.

The goal of the Arctic strategy the U.S. aims to pursue is to make America a great Arctic power once again. Following the conflict with Iran, President Trump is expected to pursue foreign policy on three main fronts: first, expressing interest in Akuba; second, potentially discussing relations with North Korea; and third, very likely revisiting the issue of sovereignty over Greenland, which he has consistently advocated since taking office. The background for the U.S. pursuit of Greenland can be summarized in three main aspects: first, securing resources; second, gaining control over Arctic shipping routes via Greenland; and third, ensuring U.S. homeland security by implementing missile defense policies in Greenland. To elaborate, regarding resource acquisition as a global strategic asset, the pursuit of rare earth elements is

a key aspect. One of the reasons the U.S. appears to be consistently trailing China in the U.S.-China competition is the issue of rare earth elements. The U.S. recognizes this as a vulnerability and aims to overcome it by exploring and securing various resources around Greenland, which will serve as a catalyst for strengthening U.S. military power in the future. This is the first objective. The second objective is to ensure freedom of navigation on Arctic routes. Currently, Arctic routes are known to be navigable for only about three to four months a year due to seasonal limitations. While it is anticipated that Arctic routes will become more accessible after 2035, the routes currently in use are largely within or adjacent to Russian territorial waters. Therefore, ensuring the stability and autonomy of navigation, as the U.S. intends, means securing routes that are completely independent of Russia and can be managed by the U.S. To achieve this,

Greenland can be seen as a starting point for the U.S. to chart new routes. The third aspect is that Greenland is militarily crucial for ensuring U.S. homeland security. The shortest distance for intercontinental ballistic missiles launched from China or Russia towards the U.S. passes over Greenland. Therefore, from the U.S. perspective, various projects are being considered to monitor, track, and intercept ballistic missiles passing through Greenland by constructing diverse military facilities there, such as the well-known Golden Dome project.

The Golden Dome project is a large-scale initiative with initial costs reaching $175 billion. It aims to establish a comprehensive defense system against ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, and drones, utilizing thousands of low-Earth orbit satellites as well as ground-based interception systems. Greenland is the core region for establishing this system. Therefore, as previously mentioned, the necessity of Greenland as a key base for resource acquisition, ensuring freedom of navigation, and missile defense for the U.S. homeland is clearly recognized. Consequently, it is anticipated that the U.S. will revisit the issue of acquiring Greenland at any time. It is evident that Greenland holds multifaceted and significant importance in U.S. strategy. Beyond resources and maritime transport, the fact that Greenland is the core area for the Golden Dome project is particularly interesting. Furthermore, given the substantial investment in U.S. security strategy, there are implications for South Korea as a U.S. ally from the perspective of the ROK-U.S. alliance.

Implications of Arctic Strategy and Exploring South Korea's Role

When South Korea pursues its own Arctic strategy, what opportunities or challenges might the U.S. strategy present, and what should South Korea do? I would like to ask about this comprehensively. Recently, there has been a significant increase in interest in maritime security. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has focused global attention on this region. From the perspective of studying maritime security, this has two implications. First, it has practically demonstrated the importance of maritime traffic routes, which we had only understood theoretically. Second, it has clearly shown that disruptions to major traffic routes, especially at choke points, can severely impact export-oriented economies like South Korea. In this context, the Arctic issue, which we may not be fully aware of, is a looming reality. It is necessary to closely examine the Arctic strategy pursued by the U.S. and identify our potential role.

Exploring Participation in Arctic Strategy Based on the ROK-U.S. Alliance

In this regard, we can discuss two points. The first is how to view the Arctic strategy from the perspective of the ROK-U.S. alliance. Let's examine the economic and security aspects of the U.S. Arctic strategy. Economically, the recent blockade of the Strait of Hormuz led to an oil crisis and disruptions in global supply chains. Therefore, if Arctic shipping routes become the 'next Strait of Hormuz,' or if South Korea is a key nation utilizing Arctic routes in close proximity, we can share substantial benefits not only from maritime transport but also from development in the region. From this perspective, it is necessary for us to pursue and follow the U.S. Arctic strategy from an economic standpoint. The second point concerns security.

Security is, in fact, the core foundation of the ROK-U.S. alliance. South Korea is unknowingly contributing to various U.S. initiatives in numerous ways. Considering the Golden Dome project, it is extremely difficult for the U.S. to succeed with its various technologies solely on its own. Allies can provide support in this regard, and given South Korea's current capabilities in various weapon systems and defense industries, it can adequately fulfill this role. If South Korea can leverage its industrial capabilities, combined with its defense capabilities, not only for the Golden Dome project but also for various defense and economic industries, including LNG, it would significantly strengthen the ROK-U.S. alliance.

When all these elements come together, the ROK-U.S. alliance can evolve into a partnership that shares economic and security interests, and ultimately, a common vision. Today, we have invited Professor Lim Kyung-han from the Korea Naval Academy, who has conducted in-depth research on South Korea's naval strategy and maritime security, to discuss how U.S. maritime security strategy has developed, the competition between the U.S. and Russia in the Arctic, the future trajectory of U.S. strategy concerning Greenland, and the potential for cooperation between South Korea and the U.S. within the framework of the ROK-U.S. alliance, as well as the possibilities for developing South Korea's maritime strategy. He has provided a comprehensive and concise overview.

Thank you. Yes.