[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

Evolution of U.S. Arctic Strategy and Key Goals for a Second Trump Administration

My first question is regarding the United States, which I understand has significant economic and military interests in the Arctic. It is also known that the U.S. and Russia engage in considerable competition and rivalry concerning the Arctic. I will discuss what strategies the U.S. is pursuing in the 21st century, their background and history, and particularly the U.S. Arctic strategy, given the emergence of various Arctic-related issues during a potential second Trump administration. The Arctic strategy of a second Trump administration is clear. Unlike previous policies that addressed climate change or pursued Arctic strategies through cooperation with various countries, the strategy pursued by a second Trump administration centers on enhancing U.S.-led energy dominance, thereby ultimately strengthening military power. The U.S. has indeed pursued various Arctic strategies since the mid-20th century. Examining the Arctic strategies pursued by the U.S. reveals the following. The Bush administration

focused on raising interest in the Arctic and ensuring freedom of navigation within the region. In 2013, President Obama, through his Arctic strategy, recognized the need for managing the entire Arctic region, emphasizing U.S. management 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 enhance U.S. influence. In 2022, the Biden administration again fundamentally addressed climate change and recognized the U.S. goal of freely utilizing Arctic shipping routes through U.S.-led global cooperation.

Upon President Trump's inauguration in 2017, he immediately addressed icebreakers, signaling a strategy to directly operate a U.S.-led Arctic strategy by securing state-of-the-art vessels in cooperation with countries like Canada and Finland. Specifically, the U.S. aimed for the Coast Guard to acquire 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 practice leading its own activities in the Arctic in conjunction with allies such as Canada and Finland.

The goal the U.S. seeks 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 check Russia's Arctic monopoly and preemptively deter China's Arctic strategy. We have learned that the U.S. Arctic strategy has a significant historical background. In particular, during a potential second Trump administration, there were considerable controversies surrounding Greenland until last year.

There were clashes with Denmark, and President Trump also made remarks about not wanting to be neighbors with China and Russia. This suggests that the U.S. may have been anticipating conflicts with China and Russia concerning the Arctic, as you mentioned. With the situation in Venezuela and the recent conflict in Iran, the Greenland issue seems to have receded from the spotlight. However, in the context of our discussion, Greenland appears to be a highly significant policy matter. Therefore, it is noteworthy to observe how U.S. strategy concerning Greenland may unfold in the future.

U.S. Arctic Strategy Goals via Greenland

The goal of the Arctic strategy the U.S. aims to pursue is to make the U.S. 'a great Arctic power again.' President Trump is expected to focus on three main areas of foreign policy after the conflict with Iran concludes: first, expressing interest in Akbar; second, potentially discussing relations with North Korea; and third, very likely reiterating the claim for control over Greenland, which he has consistently advocated since taking office. The background for the U.S. pursuing Greenland can be summarized into three main aspects. First, securing resources. Second, securing control over Arctic shipping routes through Greenland. And third, ensuring U.S. homeland security by pursuing missile defense policies in Greenland. To elaborate, among the resource acquisition efforts pursued by the U.S. as a global strategic asset, securing rare earth elements is

a key objective. One aspect where the U.S. appears to be trailing China in the ongoing U.S.-China competition is the issue of rare earth elements. Recognizing this as a vulnerability, the U.S. aims to clearly overcome this by exploring and securing various resources around Greenland, which will then serve as a catalyst for strengthening U.S. military power in the future. This is the primary objective. The second objective is to ensure freedom of navigation in Arctic shipping routes. Currently, Arctic shipping routes are known to be usable for only about three to four months a year due to seasonal factors. While it is projected that Arctic shipping routes will open up significantly after 2035, the routes currently in use largely lie within or adjacent to Russian territorial waters. Therefore, the significance of ensuring navigational stability and autonomy, as pursued by the U.S., lies in securing routes that are completely independent of Russia and can be led and managed by the U.S. To secure these routes,

Greenland can be seen as a starting point from which the U.S. is charting new routes. The third aspect is that Greenland is militarily crucial for securing the security of the U.S. homeland. When China or Russia launch intercontinental ballistic missiles towards the U.S., the shortest trajectory passes over Greenland. Therefore, from the U.S. perspective, by constructing various military facilities in Greenland, they are envisioning multiple projects to monitor, track, and intercept ballistic missiles passing through Greenland, such as the well-known Golden Dome project.

The Golden Dome project is a large-scale endeavor with an initial cost of $175 billion, aiming 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 mentioned earlier, the necessity of Greenland as a key base for resource acquisition, ensuring freedom of navigation, and finally, missile defense for U.S. homeland security is clearly recognized. Consequently, it is anticipated that the U.S. will revisit the discussion of acquiring Greenland at any time. It is evident that Greenland holds multifaceted and significant importance in U.S. strategy. Beyond resources, it pertains to maritime transport, and the fact that Greenland is the core area for the Golden Dome project is particularly intriguing. Furthermore, given the substantial investment in resources for the deployment of U.S. security strategy, there are implications for South Korea as a U.S. ally within the context of the ROK-U.S. alliance.

Implications of Arctic Strategy and the Role of the ROK-U.S. Alliance

I would like to ask about the opportunities and challenges that the U.S. Arctic strategy might present to South Korea as it pursues its own Arctic strategy, and what South Korea should do more broadly. Recently, there has been a significant increase in attention to maritime security. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has drawn global focus to 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 previously understood theoretically. Second, it has clearly shown that disruptions to key traffic routes, particularly at chokepoints, pose a significant threat to export-oriented economies like South Korea. In this context, the Arctic issue, which may seem distant, is a looming reality. It is necessary to closely examine the U.S. Arctic strategy and identify our potential roles.

From this perspective, we can discuss two points. The first is how to view the Arctic strategy from the standpoint of the ROK-U.S. alliance. Let us examine the economic and security aspects of the U.S. Arctic strategy. Regarding economic and security aspects, we recently experienced logistics disruptions and a global supply chain collapse due to the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Therefore, if Arctic shipping routes become the 'next Hormuz,' or considering South Korea's position as a key nation utilizing the Arctic routes closest to its territory, we can share substantial benefits not only through logistics but also through development in this region. In this regard, it is thought that we should pursue and follow the U.S. Arctic strategy from an economic perspective. The second point concerns security.

Security is, in fact, the core foundation of the ROK-U.S. alliance. South Korea is unknowingly contributing to many aspects of the various issues pursued by the U.S. Considering the Golden Dome project, it is extremely difficult for the U.S. to succeed with its various technologies solely on its own. I believe that U.S. allies can provide support in this area. Based on current standards, South Korea's capabilities in various weapon systems and its defense industry are sufficient to handle this. 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 such as LNG, it will be a significant asset to the ROK-U.S. alliance.

When all these elements come together, the ROK-U.S. alliance can evolve into an alliance 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 been deeply researching South Korea's naval strategy and maritime security, to discuss the development of U.S. maritime security strategy, the competition between the U.S. and Russia regarding the Arctic, the future unfolding of U.S. strategy concerning Greenland, and the potential for cooperation between South Korea and the U.S. centered on the ROK-U.S. alliance, as well as the development possibilities for South Korea's maritime strategy. He has provided a comprehensive and concise overview.

Thank you. Yes.