President Lee Jae-myung has decided not to attend the NATO summit in The Hague this week, stepping back from what would have been his first appearance at the annual gathering of Western leaders. The decision comes amid mounting domestic pressures and growing geopolitical uncertainty following renewed conflict in the Middle East.
The summit, scheduled for June 24–25, had been viewed as a critical diplomatic opportunity for Lee, particularly with the possibility of a long-anticipated meeting with U.S. President Donald J. Trump. But in a written briefing, presidential spokesperson Kang Yoo-jung said Lee ultimately determined that “it was simply not feasible” to attend in person, citing “a confluence of urgent domestic issues and growing instability in the Middle East.”
South Korea is expected to send a senior official in Lee’s place, though the delegation has yet to be finalized in coordination with NATO.
The announcement followed a day of confusion and shifting signals from the presidential office. On June 22 afternoon, National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lac had been slated to give a briefing on the summit, with aides suggesting Lee’s attendance would be confirmed. The briefing was abruptly canceled, and three hours later, the presidential office issued a written statement confirming the president’s absence.
“Given the ongoing war in the Middle East and the likelihood of volatility in oil prices and currency markets, concerns were raised about the president being away for several days—especially with the cabinet still incomplete,” a senior official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official added that security and foreign policy teams had assessed the pros and cons of attending, and Lee concluded, “It’s better not to go this time. I’ve made every effort, and I think the press knows that.”
The move quickly drew criticism from the conservative opposition, the People Power Party, which called the decision a “diplomatic misstep” born of “complacency.” The party warned that skipping the summit could weaken trust among allies and diminish South Korea’s diplomatic and security standing.
At the same time, figures within Lee’s own Democratic Party expressed growing unease over the United States’ actions in the Middle East. Lawmaker Choo Mi-ae wrote on Facebook that the U.S. lacked “justification” for its recent strike on Iran, calling it a “preventive attack not permitted under international law.” Lawmaker Kim Hyun added that even in Washington, the operation—launched without congressional approval—was facing criticism as a possible violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Some ruling-party officials have also raised concerns that South Korea’s participation in the NATO summit could be seen as taking sides in a rapidly escalating conflict. “There is worry that a symbolic show of support might be misinterpreted,” one official said.
The opposition remained unconvinced. “This isn’t about domestic concerns or the Middle East,” said Rep. Kim Jae-seop of the People Power Party. “This is about appeasing China and Russia. The president’s excuses are flimsy, and even his trademark ambiguity has worn thin.”
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO has regularly invited four Indo-Pacific partners—South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand—to its summits in an effort to strengthen cooperation with like-minded democracies. Former President Yoon Suk-yeol attended three consecutive meetings, aligning Seoul more closely with the U.S.-led alliance.
Lee had initially shown interest in continuing that trajectory. After failing to secure a meeting with Trump at the recent G7 summit, officials suggested the NATO gathering could serve as a second chance. But hopes for substantive engagement have reportedly waned. “Even if a meeting with President Trump did happen, there’s little expectation it would lead to meaningful progress on tariff negotiations,” one aide said.
Lee’s decision not to attend now risks fueling speculation that his administration is reorienting South Korea’s foreign policy—stepping back from the previous government’s clear alignment with Western allies in favor of a more balanced, or arguably ambiguous, approach.