![US President Donald Trump gestures as he boards Air Force One at Morristown Airport in New Jersey on Sunday (local time). [AP]](https://wimg.heraldcorp.com/news/cms/2026/08/18/rcv.YNA.20260817.PAP20260817123301009_P1.jpg)
American experts largely agree that President Donald Trump's order to sharply scale back joint US-South Korea military exercises is a gesture aimed at reopening direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un — though many warn the move could weaken combined readiness and deterrence at a time when Pyongyang has sharpened its military capabilities through the war in Ukraine.
Andrew Yeo, Korea chair at the Brookings Institution, told Yonhap on Monday (local time) that Trump "appears to be trying to re-engage in diplomatic exchanges with Chairman Kim."
Robert Rapson, a former acting US ambassador to South Korea, offered a similar read. "It's hard to know the exact trigger, but it's most likely some kind of gesture to re-engage with Kim Jong-un," he said.
Trump announced Monday on his Truth Social platform that he had directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to significantly reduce the scale of the joint exercises, citing his good relationship with Kim and saying the drills could send the wrong signal to North Korea.
Trump also disclosed at the White House that day that Kim had already responded to his outreach. Asked by reporters whether Kim had replied, Trump said, "Yes. He responded," and described the situation as "very positive." He did not say when Kim responded, through what channel, or what was communicated.
US experts interpreted the moves as a signal that Trump is pushing to revive the direct leader-to-leader diplomacy with North Korea that went unfinished during his first term.
Emma Chanlett-Avery, director of political and security affairs at the Asia Society, said the announcement "suggests Trump is seeking a return to the direct diplomacy with Chairman Kim that remained an unfinished agenda item from his first term."
Patrick Cronin, chair of Asia-Pacific security at the Hudson Institute, said Trump "has made no secret of his interest in pursuing another round of summit diplomacy with Chairman Kim."
Whether direct US-North Korea talks will actually materialize, however, depends on Pyongyang's posture, analysts noted.
Cronin said the United States "lacks a coherent diplomatic strategy" and that North Korea "shows no willingness to engage in serious diplomacy." Chanlett-Avery echoed that assessment, saying "the problem is that Kim Jong-un, who has further consolidated his leverage in recent years, shows little interest in negotiating with Trump."
Experts were divided on how much of a role South Korea could play if US-North Korea talks gain momentum.
Rapson said South Korean involvement was never taken for granted even during the 2018 talks, adding that Kim "would not care at all" if Seoul were marginalized or excluded from the negotiating process this time around.
Yeo, by contrast, described President Lee Jae Myung's proposal to open end-of-war discussions and Trump's order to scale back the joint exercises as "complementary measures" that could inject flexibility into North Korea diplomacy.
While Lee's proposal may not carry much direct weight at this stage — given that Trump and Kim can communicate directly — Yeo said Seoul's role "will still be important in setting the overall atmosphere for dialogue on the Korean Peninsula."
Lee had earlier proposed in his Liberation Day address to "begin discussions among the parties to end a long-standing war."
A significant number of experts also raised concerns that if Trump's order is carried out, it could erode combined readiness and deterrence against North Korea.
A particular risk factor cited was that North Korea, unlike in the past, has accumulated real combat experience and military technology through the war in Ukraine.
Yeo warned that North Korea appears to have acquired new precision-strike and drone tactics through its involvement in the Ukraine conflict, and that reduced military exercises "could leave US and South Korean forces less prepared to respond to potential North Korean hostilities."
Cronin said the decision to scale back "core alliance combined exercises undermines deterrence and readiness without changing Kim Jong-un's calculus." He added: "Dialogue is good, but we need to negotiate from a position of strength."
Mark Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Wall Street Journal that cutting back on joint exercises was dangerous given that North Korea has grown more militarily capable with technology and equipment acquired from Russia.
Montgomery, a retired US Navy rear admiral, said "this was a mistake in 2018, but it's a bigger mistake in 2026." He argued the reduction would not only diminish America's ability to deter North Korea and China but could also leave allies less confident that the United States is a reliable security partner.
Chanlett-Avery also said Trump's characterization of North Korea as a non-threatening country was "a worrying signal for allies," given that Pyongyang has consistently advanced its nuclear and missile capabilities and has been supporting Russia in the Ukraine war.
Some analysts pushed back, however. Because the current joint exercises are already underway, they argued, a drastic reduction at this point would come too late to have much near-term impact on readiness.
Rapson said Trump's order came too late to significantly scale back the exercises running from Monday through Aug. 27, and that "in the short term, there will likely be little impact on overall alliance readiness."
He pointed to Trump's cancellation and reduction of joint exercises following the 2018 Singapore summit as a precedent, noting that those decisions had a relatively limited effect on readiness at the time.
Some also argued that scaling back the exercises was reasonable given the growing strain on US military resources from conflicts including the war with Iran.
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, told CNN that "bilateral exercises with South Korea unnecessarily consume US resources and readiness at a time when the United States is becoming resource- and readiness-constrained."
Experts also took note of the fact that Trump coupled his order to reduce the exercises with criticism of South Korea for refusing to support the US in the Iran conflict.
Rapson said Trump's expression of frustration over South Korea's stance on the Iran war was "yet another example of how he views alliances through a transactional lens."
As Trump moves to accelerate direct engagement with Kim Jong-un, debate is expected to intensify in the United States over whether scaling back the joint exercises will serve as a card that draws North Korea into genuine negotiations — or simply degrade deterrence without delivering results.
sjy@heraldcorp.com
