Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Israel-Iran
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / North Korea / Trump’s North Korea conundrum
North Korea, Air power, Asia, Balance of power, Global posture, Land power, Naval power

June 12, 2025

Trump’s North Korea conundrum

By Daniel DePetris

In 2018, at the urging of then–South Korean President Moon Jae-in, Trump decided to do what no sitting American president had done before: meet the head of North Korea’s Kim dynasty face-to-face. His national security advisers at the time were gobsmacked at the idea and advised against it. But there was some logic in Trump’s diplomatic gamble. First, diplomacy was better than the alternatives. Second, everything else had been tried and produced nothing but disappointment. And third, there was only one man in North Korea who could sign off on an agreement anyway, and his name was Kim Jong-un. Why not test the proposition?

By now, we all know the story. Much like the presidential diplomacy of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, which took a more bottom-up approach to the North Korean nuclear problem, Trump’s top-level interaction with a North Korean leader, which included two summits and a historic step into the Hermit Kingdom by a sitting U.S. president, couldn’t produce a comprehensive deal. Although Kim agreed to suspend nuclear and long-range missile tests as long as talks were progressing, the negotiations ultimately ran into the same big obstruction that prior efforts met with: The positions of the two sides were irreconcilable, and neither man was willing to walk away with half a loaf. Trump wanted North Korea to hand over its nuclear warheads for destruction, and Kim wanted to keep his warheads and have a blossoming bilateral relationship with the United States at the same time. Working-level discussions collapsed in October 2019, turning the joint garden strolls and cordial photo opportunities into an odd interlude.

Yet Trump never forgot about the experience. In fact, he consistently reminded anybody who would listen that his personal relationship with Kim was great, that his summitry was the right move despite the naysayers, and that he single-handedly averted what could have been a catastrophic war on the Korean Peninsula. Whether any or all of this is true is beside the point; the president clearly believes it.

Read at National Review

Author

Photo of Daniel DePetris

Daniel
DePetris

Fellow

Defense Priorities

More on Asia

ExplainerMilitary analysis, Air power, Basing and force posture, Land power, Naval power

Aligning global military posture with U.S. interests

By Jennifer Kavanagh and Dan Caldwell

July 9, 2025

In the mediaGrand strategy, Asia

‘Restrainers’ propose slashing U.S. troop numbers in South Korea, Okinawa

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh and Dan Caldwell

July 9, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Americas, China, Great power competition

What is Trump’s “new realism” in foreign policy?

By Lyle Goldstein

July 4, 2025

In the mediaChina, Asia, Taiwan

American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea

Featuring Lyle Goldstein

July 4, 2025

op-edNATO, Alliances, Asia

Why America’s East Asian allies skipped the NATO summit

By Lyle Goldstein

July 2, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia

There is no ‘axis of autocracy’

By Daniel DePetris

July 1, 2025

Events on North Korea

See All Events
in-personNorth Korea, Asia, Deterrence, Diplomacy, Nuclear weapons

Past In-Person Event: Ending the North Korea standoff

March 5, 2018
in-personGrand strategy, Iran, North Korea, Nuclear weapons

Past In-Person Event: Managing nuclear proliferation crises

October 30, 2017

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved