Korea has agreed to pay 1.52 trillion won ($1.14 billion) in 2026 for the maintenance of the 28,500-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), marking an 8.3 percent increase from 2025. The agreement, reached on Friday, concludes negotiations on defense cost-sharing between the two allies. The talks, which began in April, included eight rounds over the past five months. This deal will be effective from 2026 until 2030. The arrangement comes after the 11th negotiations for the five-year agreement, known as the Special Measures Agreement (SMA), in which Seoul committed to a 13.9 percent increase in its cost-sharing contributions.

The conclusion of the negotiations comes just a month before the U.S. presidential election. Under the agreement, Seoul's SMA contribution is now linked to the consumer price index, estimated to be in the 2 percent range. This represents a shift from the previous system, which was tied to Korea's defense budget with an average annual growth rate of 4.3 percent. The negotiators also agreed to cap the annual increase at 5 percent, except 2026, as the U.S. side requested the implementation of the 5 percent rule starting in 2027.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs assessed the deal positively, stating, "The two nations managed to reach a desirable and mutually acceptable agreement. The prompt completion of the negotiations has laid the groundwork for the stable stationing of the USFK."

What's significant is that Korea is expected to pay a lump sum without a detailed breakdown of how the funds will be allocated. Under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), Korea is required to provide bases for the USFK, while the U.S. is responsible for the costs associated with stationing its forces in the country. However, in 1991, an exception was made, allowing Korea to cover certain expenses, such as wages for Korean employees working at U.S. bases. Although the initial cost-sharing was relatively modest, it began to increase significantly through negotiations, exceeding 1 trillion won in 2019 and now reaching 1.5 trillion won in a span of just seven years.

Of the total, an estimated 1.7 trillion won remains unused, indicating that the current contribution is excessive and there is potential for downsizing. In light of this, it is essential to introduce a "cost-based" system that takes into account the actual funds used, rather than continuing the current "lump sum payment" model that automatically increases the contribution each year.

The money is supposed to cover expenses like salaries for Korean workers, construction of military facilities and logistics support. However, the contentious point lies in the fact that Korea does not have clear insights into how the funds are used or how much remains unused.

It is encouraging that both sides agreed to limit the use of defense costs exclusively to troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula, preventing these funds from being used to support American soldiers based in other countries.

In addition, with the completed relocation of USFK to Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, there are no large-scale military construction projects underway. Many Koreans may question why they should contribute such a substantial amount of money for the cost of maintaining the USFK without a clear understanding of how the funds are being spent.

Contributions should be determined fairly and reasonably, grounded in mutual respect and trust between Korea and the United States. The recent deal should be upheld, irrespective of any potential shifts in the political landscape in either country.

The National Assembly should conduct a thorough review to determine whether the current system is reasonable. This is essential because cost-sharing is closely linked to our national security and sovereignty, extending beyond mere financial considerations.

The Yoon Suk Yeol administration should prepare measures to properly address the issue in case Donald Trump returns to the White House by winning the November election. The deal, signed between the two allies, should remain intact irrespective of the outcome of the U.S. election. Whoever wins the vote, the value of the alliance should be honored. Its value is so precious that it should not be tarnished by any commercial deal.