On June 3, at a US House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the State Department budget, Representative Darrell Issa made a request.

“Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article entitled ‘South Korea Takes a Hard Left Turn Against America’ be placed in the record.”

The moment was symbolic, but it reflected a broader shift. On issues ranging from alliance policy and border security to free speech and China’s influence, some of the sharpest objections to the Lee administration now come from Washington politicians such as Issa, a Republican from Califorrnia, rather than from South Korea’s conservative opposition.

The opinion piece in the Journal by Nicholas Eberstadt and Lawrence Peck argued that South Korea’s ruling camp is pursuing constitutional and institutional changes that could weaken democratic checks and undermine the strategic foundations of the US-South Korea alliance. When the government reacted angrily, one of the article’s co-authors doubled down on the analysis.

A role reversal

For decades, South Korean conservatives presented themselves as defenders of liberal democracy, strong national defense and close alignment with the US. They defined themselves in opposition to North Korea’s dictatorship and warned against excessive dependence on China.

Weeks after its defeat in the June 3 local elections, the People Power Party remains mired in disputes over leadership, accountability and factional control. Senior figures continue arguing over resignations, responsibility for the loss and the party’s future direction.

Meanwhile, US congressional committees are increasingly focused on alliance policy, Chinese influence and freedom of expression in South Korea.

The wartime command question

Consider the administration’s renewed push to assume wartime operational control, or OPCON, from the US.

The Lee administration presents the move as the completion of South Korean sovereignty.

Critics argue that South Korea’s military remains deeply integrated with US intelligence, logistics and strategic capabilities, making command authority difficult to separate from the assets that sustain it.

Congress has responded cautiously.

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s fiscal 2027 defense bill requires the Pentagon to provide Congress with regular reports on any transfer process and bars implementation spending until the administration certifies that the move serves US interests.

This year’s language also changed, reinforcing congressional certification and approval requirements for any transfer.

Lowering the guard

A similar debate is unfolding along the inter-Korean frontier.

On June 17, the Ministry of National Defense announced plans to move the Civilian Control Line northward by an average of two kilometers, easing military restrictions across approximately 720 square kilometers and removing anti-tank barriers from more than 20 locations.

The decision follows the suspension of loudspeaker broadcasts and restrictions on cross-border leaflet campaigns.

The government describes these measures as efforts to improve local livelihoods and promote regional development.

Critics argue that they amount to a gradual relaxation of deterrence despite no evidence of reciprocal concessions from Pyongyang.

The contrast extends beyond military policy. On June 16, US officials met with families of South Korean citizens detained by North Korea, keeping attention on an issue that has largely faded from Seoul’s political debate.

Policing speech

The contest over free expression also extends into the digital sphere.

The ruling party’s proposed revision of the Information and Communications Network Act would empower authorities to act against “false or manipulated information” and strengthen punitive damage provisions.

The ruling party argues that the legislation is necessary to combat disinformation. Civil-liberties advocates contend that the language is broad enough to allow government officials to determine what constitutes permissible speech.

Opposition to the bill was not limited to conservatives. Even some of the administration’s usual allies warned that it could restrict free expression.

The US State Department expressed “serious concerns about the Government of Korea approving amendments to the Information and Communications Network Act,” warning that the changes could undermine freedom of expression and complicate technology cooperation.

The China question

Beneath these debates lies a question South Korean conservatives once raised relentlessly but now address far less frequently: China’s influence.

As the Lee administration pursues what it calls a “full-scale restoration” of relations with Beijing, concerns about Chinese influence have drawn increasing attention in Washington.

For the first time, the US Senate has directed the Pentagon to assess the extent of the Chinese Communist Party’s influence activities in South Korea and their impact on American military and commercial interests.

Democracy on paper

What links these disputes is not policy, but underlying power.

Allies of the administration have floated proposals that could eliminate the president’s ongoing criminal exposure while reopening debate over South Korea’s single five-year presidential term.

The op-ed in the Wall Street Journal warned that such developments could contribute to one-party dominance. The Blue House dismissed the claim as a serious distortion and pointed to South Korea’s democratic vitality.

The vacuum

The US faces mounting commitments in Europe, including the war in Ukraine, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific.

Yet Washington continues to devote attention to developments in South Korea involving alliance policy, democratic governance and relations with China.

That continued scrutiny should prompt reflection within South Korea’s conservative movement.

Many of the concerns now being raised in Washington were once central to South Korean conservatism’s own understanding of its mission.

No foreign legislature, administration or ally can permanently defend another country’s institutions.

Ultimately, the defense of those institutions rests with Koreans themselves.

Hanjin Lew, a political commentator specializing in East Asian affairs, is a former international spokesman for South Korean conservative parties.