Available Downloads
This transcript is from a CSIS event hosted on June 18, 2025. Watch the full video here.
Victor Cha: If you could all take your seats. Thank you all for joining us for –
Senator Andy Kim: (Laughs.)
Dr. Cha: – our session with Senator Kim. Thank you all for joining us with our session with Senator Andy Kim. We are really delighted that he could take the time out of his busy schedule to be with us this afternoon. I know he’s very well known to all of you. He’s kind of a rockstar for this audience. But let me properly introduce him.
Well, first I should introduce myself. I’m Victor Cha, president of geopolitics here at CSIS, professor at Georgetown.
And we’re very happy to welcome Senator Andy Kim to join us today for our discussion on the future of trilateral relations between the United States, Japan, and Korea. As all of you know, he is the United States senator from New Jersey, an office he has held since 2024. Prior to that, he spent three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives representing parts of Burlington, Ocean, Mercer, and Monmouth Counties. He is the first Korean American in U.S. history to be elected to the United States Senate and New Jersey’s first Asian-American senator. In the House, he was a member of the House Armed Services Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a member of the House Small Business Committee, and also worked on the Select Committee on the Coronavirus and Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the CCP. Before being elected to represent New Jersey’s Third Congressional District, he worked as a career public servant under both Democrats and Republicans, having served at USAID, in the Pentagon, at the State Department, on the White House National Security Council, and in Afghanistan as an advisor to Generals Petraeus and Allen.
In the United States Senate, he is a member of four committees: The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, where he is a ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance. He’s on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Senator Kim is a former Rhodes scholar from Magdalen College at Oxford. What was your major at –
Sen. Kim: I did a doctorate in international relations.
Dr. Cha: Wow, that’s intimidating. (Laughter.) He did a doctorate in international relations at Oxford.
Sen. Kim: This is a very thorough bio, by the way. It’s just – (laughter) – do you need my SAT scores or something? (Laughter.)
Dr. Cha: And he’s a proud husband and father of two children. He’s also a Philadelphia Eagles fan; we can talk about that later. (Laughter.) Please, a warm welcome to Senator Andy Kim. (Applause.)
So, Senator, just to get us started, I’ve heard you in different venues talk about the role of U.S. alliances in our foreign policy. And I was wondering if you could start off by just offering us some general thoughts about that, particularly as it relates to the Indo-Pacific region and, of course, the topic today with regard to Japan and Korea.
Sen. Kim: Yeah. Happy to.
First of all, you know, thank you so much for having me. Thank you to CSIS for hosting.
But I think that question about alliances, about coalition building, is critical right now more than ever to talk through, because we’re entering right now a new era of global politics. This is a new era. We’re so clearly no longer in the post-9/11 world. We’re entering into a new era that includes but isn’t solely described by great-power competition. But basically, we’re entering an era that many in America have never fully experienced, which is a multipolar world. And as a result, in this era I think the United States now more than ever needs to think through what are our strategic advantages.
And I believe that one of the most important strategic advantages that we have as a country is the ability to forge alliances and coalitions. Now, some of that requires modernizing NATO and existing alliances and try to meet the moment, and we’ve done that in the past. You know, there was a redefining of NATO after 9/11; we can do it again. But it’s also about forging new groupings. And I think that in particular with the Indo-Pacific that’s important because there is no NATO of the Indo-Pacific, nor necessarily should there be. But you know, there needs to be some understanding of how it is we can come together and to be able to talk through, and I think that’s particularly important for America because we like to call ourselves a Pacific nation but we don’t always live that out. And I think that these coalitions, these abilities for us to gather together with some of the top partners, that helps us try to flex that muscle – you know, get used to the idea that, yes, you know, our identity doesn’t have to be predominantly defined by a transatlantic identity; we do have the capacity to be able to have and build up a Pacific identity. And I think that that’s something that we see with the trilateral, with the Quad, with other types of efforts, and I think that that’s going to be incredibly important.
Dr. Cha: Yeah, I agree with – I mean, I agree wholeheartedly.
As you said, I mean, there is a lot of unprecedented disruption in the world today. I mean, you know well wars in Europe and the Middle East; tariff wars; the growth of this axis that many speak of of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, all of them having supported Russia’s war in Ukraine, for example. I mean, how do you see sort of the U.S. role in this – in this disrupted order? And where do our allies like Korea and Japan fit into that?
Sen. Kim: Yeah. Well, I can’t stress enough how much the invasion of Ukraine has shifted that order. And I know it’s easier to kind of contemplate when it comes to Europe, but you cannot deny the impact that it’s had on Asia.
I think, for instance, the North Korea-Russia connection is something that really stands out to me, is, you know, you see basically just over the last two years or so, you know, you now have North Korean troops in Ukraine fighting for the Russians. You have, I think, about, what, roughly 50 percent of munitions that Russia uses provided by North Korea. You see an unprecedented amount of money, upwards of $20 billion, of economic support coming from Russia the other way, to North Korea. What this has done in many ways is just kind of realigned East Asia, certainly the Korean Peninsula, by making it such that North Korea is no longer predominantly in China’s orbit; it is now predominantly in Russia’s orbit. It means China has less influence on North Korea. It means that we have less influence and South Korea has less influence.
And we don’t know where that’s going because, A, we don’t know where – what’s going to happen with the Ukraine war. We don’t know whether or not Russia’s going to continue to provide support, or whether that relationship can exist beyond the Ukraine war. But right now, you know, North Korea’s feeling like they’re in a fundamentally different place than they were a couple years earlier, you know, when COVID was unbelievably difficult for them to navigate. Prior to that, you know, the talks with Trump in the first administration, like, that all seems like a century ago now.
And so that realignment is something that I think it’s important for us to think through. And again, we don’t understand just how much cohesion there is between those four nations you talked about. I don’t think they know, but they’re in some ways getting kind of backed into it in different ways. But it’s tested in the same way that we don’t know what’s going to happen with Iran, whether diplomacy or more kinetic action. That’s going to have an impact on North Korea. So then you bring in South Korea, you bring in Japan, you bring in the trilateral; well, how does that kind of fit in?
Well, I think fundamentally it redefines it in the same way that it should redefine the U.S. military mission in South Korea, in the region, because of this shifting weight. I think it reinvigorates and actually creates greater fuel for the impetus that created the trilat to start with. I think there’s even more of a reason why the U.S., South Korea, and Japan need to be more closely working together as we’re seeing this emergence of a stronger North Korea-Russia tie, a greater uncertainty about China’s role and that trajectory. And I hope that, you know, what – from our standpoint, the idea is that, yes, we live in a multipolar world, as I said. But I think we can benefit from having a more multipolar Indo-Pacific, a place where – you know, where South Korea and Japan are not going to be overwhelmed or overshadowed about just what’s happening with China.
And I think the emergence of Russia as a bigger Pacific player – again, they’re a nation that, as well, has their identity shifted in different directions. Are they more of a European nation or an Asian nation? And as we’re seeing their gravity being pulled towards North Korea, it’s making them more of a Pacific player. It has to encourage us to be a greater Pacific player too.
Dr. Cha: Right? Well, said. Could I ask you, so, as we all know, South Korea recently concluded a very important presidential election. What do you see as some of the opportunities for deepening cooperation, you know, with this new government in South Korea, and with Japan, for that matter?
Sen. Kim: Yeah, look, I mean, first and foremost, you know, I congratulate President Lee in terms of the election. And, look, I don’t envy him. (Laughter.) You know, coming into an incredibly challenging moment in Korean politics. And I say that, knowing full – going full well through a lot of challenges in domestic politics here in the United States. Both of our nations have gone through a lot. And I think first and foremost the priority on both of our sides needs to be about economic security and economic opportunity. I mean, that is the mandate that President Lee has to follow up on. That is the number-one thing on the minds of people there.
It is still the number-one thing on people’s minds here too. It’s just that this administration doesn’t always act like it. And the issue of lowering costs here in America seems to take a back seat to just trying to have political domination on the domestic and the international fronts. So I’m hoping that this is an opportunity for both nations to try to reengage with that priority at its core, and not get pulled into all these sort of deviations of that.
You know, no doubt that, you know, we’ve seen the news of the Trump administration thinking through what to do with troop level numbers and things like that. You know, I think that that’s a perfect way to derail this relationship at a critically important moment. I think that the next couple of months are vital, you know, to really solidifying U.S.-South Korea relations with these two new leaders, to see which path it goes down. And I think that’s going to set a lot of tone in terms of how the U.S. is going to engage more broadly in the Indo-Pacific.
So I’ve encouraged this administration to hopefully engage in these conversations as soon as possible. I was disappointed that President Trump left the G-7 before he was able to have a sit-down with the new president. But I’m hopeful that they can go on. And I’ve kind of relayed, like, again, you need to treat this new administration – both sides need to treat each other with respect. And hopefully they can be able to move past, you know, some of these initial, you know, obstacles that are in their way. But it’s very – this is a very treacherous moment for this. I hope it goes well. And I’ll certainly do everything I can to try to make it go as smoothly as possible.
Dr. Cha: Can I ask you just one follow up on that? And that is, I mean, if you talk to folks both in Tokyo and Seoul right now, like, the number-one issue when it comes to their bilateral relationships with the United States are the tariffs, right? And so I don’t know what your thoughts are on that. In the context of this broader, very complicated environment in which we need allies like this, I mean, how do you look at this?
Sen. Kim: Yeah. I mean, I look – in some ways, this goes back to your first question that you asked me, which is about the importance of alliances. I gave my answer. But, I’ll be honest with you, my answer appears to be very different than what the Trump administration’s answer would be to that question, about the importance of alliances and partnerships and coalitions. And I think that that’s some of what is fundamentally at risk here, and why we are having the battles that we’re having here in D.C. about what our posture is.
When I look at the Trump administration’s foreign policy, I don’t see chaos, like a lot of people talk to me about. I see a very coherent implementation of what appears to be a neo-isolationism policy, something that is reducing our relationships down to transactional relationships. And, you know, when I asked Secretary Lutnick about this in a hearing, I said, are you going to – this was before all the tariffs started, when he was doing his confirmation hearing. I said, are you going to treat allies and partners differently than adversaries and competitors?
And he basically said, no. I think that’s a huge mistake. And I think that this is, you know, something that’s causing unnecessary friction between us and our allies and our partners, at a time when we have real strategic challenges when it comes to competitiveness. Not just with China, Russia, and others, but we also have this brand-new technology that is emerging right now. So not only do we have a new era of global politics, but we have a generational moment of technology that is very much up for grabs with AI. And this is the wrong time for us to be causing this type of friction.
So, you know, yes, it’s deeply problematic. And I’ll just say this one last thing. The problem is, is that it is turning America from being the indispensable nation into being the unreliable nation. And that affects us in so many different ways. Who is going to want to be in the greater security cooperation with the United States if they deem us unreliable? Who is going to want to invest in American businesses, or to headquarter American businesses in their capitals in the Indo-Pacific, if we’re deemed unreliable, unpredictable, chaotic?
And so, like, that is the challenge that we’re facing right now, and why it’s so important that we don’t let our relationships with South Korea and Japan go down that path. Because if the United States is unable to maintain a strong working relationship and a partnership with South Korea and Japan, two of our strongest partners for so long, what kind of signal is that going to send to nations in Southeast Asia and elsewhere around the region that don’t have the economic might that those three nations have, and the history behind us? And so I think a lot of countries around the world are looking towards the trilat as a barometer of America’s commitment. And if we can’t commit to South Korea and Japan, who the hell are we going to commit to? And I think that that’s why it’s so important as well.
Dr. Cha: Hmm. Interesting. Very interesting point. So let me shift a little bit to – we’ve talked about the U.S.-Japan, U.S.-Korea relations, our commitment to our allies. Let me ask you a little bit about Japan and Korea. I mean, so this month is the 60th anniversary of the normalization of relations between Japan and Korea. And at least the initial statements coming out of the Lee government, the Ishiba government have been positive, generally positive, about continuing strong bilateral and trilateral cooperation that was started under previous administrations, as you said. I mean, where do you see opportunities for Congress to engage and to help build sort of this three-way and bilateral relationship?
Sen. Kim: Yeah. Well, I’ll start by saying, you know, the fact that the leaders on both sides there are signaling openness and interest in continuing, that’s good. That’s good in and of itself. I mean, when I came into Congress, you know, six and a half years ago, that relationship was really at a low point, you know? And I think, sort of, we always have to keep in mind the delta of what has happened. I mean, this has been one of the most remarkable, sort of, connections that we’ve seen over the last decade. But that’s a good thing. It has the opening.
Now the question is, how do we make sure that this new round of leaders can make this their own? You know, they don’t want to just continue this off the inertia of their predecessors. That’s not going to give them a sense of satisfaction. There needs to be a redefinition of this, a sense of ownership of that. And so that’s what I’m going to be looking towards, to try to get a sense of what are their priorities, how can this embed in? You know, I think certainly on the economic side, you know, there’s a lot of interest across all three of our nations when it comes to supply chain, especially supply chain resilience, in a way that can better secure.
On the broader security front, yes, you know, I think the questions that are – we talked about North Korea, certainly, is of concern. But also, I’ve had very strong conversations with leadership in both capitals about, you know, cybersecurity, about next-gen technologies. And especially when I – you know what I was talking about with this, like, innovation curve that we’re in, you know, this is the steepest innovation curve I’ve ever seen during my lifetime. And there is a real race on this in terms of the build-up and proliferation of AI technology. And each of our nations can complement one another incredibly well.
We would benefit from working together to build the same AI stack, all of us joining in partnerships that can very much stand as a counter to what we’re seeing proliferating out of China. So I think that there’s a lot of win-win-wins. And I’m hopeful that we can continue on. Now, from my standpoint, you know, I’m certainly continuing to encourage the executives on all three countries to stay engaged, and I will do so. But I do think that there’s a greater ability for me, in particular, I’ve been talking about how to start this up in maybe an interparliamentary way, you know, trying to think through how can we make sure that – between the National Assembly, the Diet, the U.S. Congress, you know, we can be sharing and building relationships and partnerships on that front.
And I think that will benefit too, because, you know, by nature of our institutions, you know, we are ones that are more public facing. You know, try to make a stronger case to the public why this partnership is important, and to be able to bring it together. Also, each of us represents different geographic parts of our own nations, and we can try to build partnerships between states and provinces and other areas. So, like, I’m intrigued by how that could potentially take it to the next level.
And, look, certainly for me, personally, I feel very invested in trying to be a bridge between the United States and the Indo-Pacific, in particular. This is my top priority when it comes to foreign policy, and something that I hope to be able to build on for some time to come. So I’m going to – I’m going to personally invest a lot into trying to build that relationship up. And solidifying it, so that it is something that is durable and isn’t just based off the whims of individual leaders.
Dr. Cha: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that’s really great to hear. I mean, the point – your point about, sort of, the legislative exchanges is really important, because, as you mentioned, some of the issues that we’re talking about – supply chain security and some of these other things – I mean, they really require coordination or pretty detailed legislation on all three sides. I mean, the executive branch can sort of make pronouncements, but it’s the Congress, the Diet, the National Assembly that have to write the laws and the regulations that allow for that. So that’s really great to hear.
You mentioned this earlier, Senator, in one of your other remarks, but I just want to sort of ask you a separate question on this. And that is this question about the U.S. troop commitments there. You know, as you know, there has been some discussion, at least from the outside, some press reports that have been written about a potential withdrawal of U.S. troops from Korea. You know, perhaps brigade-size of U.S. troops from Korea. It’s not been confirmed one way or the other. The administration has said that the story is not true. But, I mean, but, I think, many in the D.C. think tank community believe these ideas are under study.
I mean, what is – what are your thoughts on that? What does that mean in terms of our commitment? And, perhaps even more importantly, what does it mean for deterrence and preparedness, vis-à-vis North Korea and China?
Sen. Kim: Yeah. I mean, like, look, you know, you use the word that was – that’s at the heart of so much of what we talk about in national security, which is deterrence. And that certainly has an important role to play, but sort of the opposite of that is also important. Right now there’s a time for assurance as well.
You know, this is a moment where the United States needs to provide assurance about whether or not we’re going to live up to our responsibilities and our roles, and when it comes to this 70-year alliance with South Korea, you know, the idea that the United States would unilaterally make a decision of that magnitude and that the South Koreans might read about it in the newspaper, I mean, that’s irresponsible.
You know, it’s disrespectful, and I’ve said that directly to senior leadership at this – in the Trump administration is don’t surprise South Korea. Don’t surprise our allies. You know, they deserve to have respect in that. There’s a lot there that we can think through in terms of modernizing this alliance, modernizing our partnership.
I don’t discount the idea that we can be having conversations about strategic flexibility or about OPCON transfer or other types of things that are important. But they have to have a whole conversation about it. You know, if we just make – the Trump administration just makes unilateral decisions upon this, springs it upon the South Koreans, you know, it’ll be, first of all, you know, something that is seen, as I said, disrespectful to the alliance.
But it’s also going to be something that just weakens whether or not other countries, again, want to partner with us. It’s going to hurt our ability to move forward. It does nothing but embolden our competitors and our adversaries.
So, you know, I hope that there can be a conversation. You know, in the same time that we’re talking about tariffs and the economic aspects, you know, they should be able to have a broader conversation as well that brings in some of these other elements so that we ensure that it’s being talked about and brought out into the light and I think that is, certainly, something I’m trying to do from the congressional side is just bring that into the light, have a better understanding of what this administration is considering.
Have they thought through the repercussions? Have they thought through how we will be perceived by those that are friendly and unfriendly?
And I think that that’s, you know, something I don’t currently have confidence in in terms of how this is being done and orchestrated. So, you know, that’s what I hope transpires in terms of, you know, that more open process here in D.C. as well as between capitals to be able to engage in that and, hopefully, come up with a mutual decision on what’s best.
Dr. Cha: Right. So you’re saying that there is – so that there are ways that the administration can carry out a plan with regard to the force posture in the region that could be in the context – well, first, more transparent, more consultative, but particularly in the context that is about modernizing our alliance relationship rather than simply saying we’re pulling out some troops, right?
Sen. Kim: Yeah, that’s right, and I’ve been – you know, I’ve been focused on that idea of modernizing that relationship.
You know, I wrote a – you know, an op-ed about this before the state visit talking about how, you know, as we celebrated the – you know, the 70th anniversaries of these – you know, of the alliance and of these different aspects that we can’t just be backwards looking.
We have to look at the next 70 years – what does that mean, and it means that we shouldn’t be looking at this solely through sort of a military security partnership. You know, now really embracing what we can do when it comes to our economic security, the innovation, how we can build upon that.
I still believe in that and I’m hopeful that we can open up the conversation in that kind of way. And when I look at Trump, when I look at Lee, like, I see some possibilities there where – you know, where they can potentially build off what each other wants and, you know, be able to try to execute this.
And so – and I’ve signaled to the White House. I told them, like, look, if you’re going to be thoughtful about this and strategic about this, like, I’m ready to be somebody to engage in bipartisanship about South Korea, about Japan, about the Indo-Pacific, because just too much is happening.
We cannot ignore it for a couple years. Like, I have to engage because so much is unfolding right before our very eyes and I think it’s going to be critically important.
Dr. Cha: Yeah. Yeah. I remember that op-ed. That was an excellent op-ed.
Let me – if I could just ask you a little bit about yourself now just as we get towards the end of our time together. You know, as I mentioned in your bio you are the first Korean American in U.S. history to be elected to the U.S. Senate, you know, so that is truly a historic accomplishment.
Could you just reflect on, like, what that means for you, how – if at all how you’ve thought about that, and then also do you have plans to go out to the region, to Korea, Japan as well?
Sen. Kim: Yeah. I appreciate the question.
You know, it’s a humbling experience to – you know, when I was getting sworn in, you know, to have my parents in the gallery of the Senate, you know, watching me raise my right arm, to have my kids there, to have three generations of my family in the Senate chamber as I’m getting sworn in to be the first Korean American – I was the first – I’m the first Asian American in the U.S. Senate from the entire East Coast of America. I’m the tenth Asian American ever in the Senate. I was sworn in by the ninth, Vice President Kamala Harris. It was a lot. It was a lot to process.
I’ll be very honest with you, I did not do this to set out to break this barrier of being the first Korean American but I understand the importance of that for my family, for my kids, for the Korean community in the United States as well as, you know, for South Korea, and I am trying to think through what does that mean – you know, what is the role for me.
I’m still grappling with that and understanding where I can be of most impact. I think what’s important for me is to approach this with some humility. I don’t have some perfect agenda that’s going to, you know, set out for the Korean Peninsula or for the Korean-American community.
But what I do think I can play a role on is, hopefully, be able to get the Korean-American community and the Asian-American community more engaged in politics here in the United States.
When I think through the struggles that I’ve seen in terms of getting the American government – Congress, the executive branch – to focus more in on the Korean Peninsula, on the Indo-Pacific, as I’ve told you, you know, the challenges of this nation embracing its identity as a Pacific nation, I think part of what’s going to unlock that is to have greater participation, greater engagement and voice from the Asian-American communities, from Korean-American communities, talking about this.
I see how other diaspora groups are very effective in terms of agenda setting in Congress, in the executive branch. I don’t see as much of that. When Trump was considering the talks with North Korea, you know, in his first administration I saw zero outreach to the Korean-American community, and I was the only Korean American in Congress at the time and reached out. I said I’m happy to engage. Zero interest in talking to me.
You know, so I’m hopeful that, like, we can find a greater voice and I think that that can benefit, more broadly. I really do. I mean, like, I hope that we can recognize the power that is there and also that so much of what’s going to happen right now is about society – the society relations as well.
So much of what is being driven is, you know, business to business, people to people, university to university. There are other ways in which we can strengthen ties between the United States, you know, and South Korea, Japan, and elsewhere.
We don’t have to just sit back and wait for some 10-point plan released from the State Department or the White House. You know, there are ways in which we can do this in a different vector.
So I’m interested in exploring that. And yeah, look, I mean, I hope I can get out to – I’m hoping to get out to South Korea, you know, potentially this summer if not shortly thereafter. I got a 7-year-old and a 9-year-old, though, I’m trying to balance. You know, I just –
Dr. Cha: Take them with you. (Laughs.)
Sen. Kim: Oh, yeah. You’re going to babysit them on a 17-hour flight, you know?
I’m trying to figure out how best to be able to navigate that. But I do want to get out there and I’m eager to just step up and figure out how I can be of help because, like I said, this stuff is not going to fix itself.
Dr. Cha: Yeah. Yeah.
Well, Senator Kim, you’ve been very generous with your time. Your comments and perspective on U.S. policy in the Indo-Pacific, U.S. identity as an Indo-Pacific power, and the value of alliances really is invaluable and we really want to thank you for joining us this afternoon.
Sen. Kim: Yeah. Thanks, Vic.
Dr. Cha: So thank – please thank Senator Kim for joining us. (Applause.)
Oh, and so we’re adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Yeah. Yeah. So I forgot. (Laughter.)
(END.)
