As a scholar observing the shifting dynamics of the US-South Korea alliance, I have become increasingly concerned by what appears to be a notable new pattern: The utilization of Washington’s lobbying machinery by corporate leaders seeking to avoid legal accountability in Seoul.
Recent interventions by the US government and members of Congress on behalf of Coupang and Hybe (the entertainment company behind the K-pop phenom BTS) point to not only the potential power of lobbying, but also, I would argue, a deeper systemic issue within the US political system itself.
What we are witnessing is a highly transactional approach to statecraft, influenced by the institutional shifts of the Trump era. It now threatens to undermine the judicial sovereignty of a key democratic ally and to erode the foundations of US democracy itself.
Consider the case of Bom Kim, the CEO of e-commerce giant Coupang. The company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and its headquarters are located in the United States. Yet, call it an American company on the streets of Seoul, and you are likely to get a double-take; after all, roughly 90 percent of its revenue comes directly from the Korean market.
Confronted with what appear to be legitimate inquiries by South Korean authorities into serious allegations — ranging from unauthorized data breaches and illegal labor practices to algorithmic manipulation and blacklisting — Coupang reportedly used its extensive lobbying resources in Washington. The company insists its lobbying was focused on Korea-US economic cooperation and visa issues, but it is hard to believe that the highly assertive letter from US lawmakers to the Korean ambassador was a coincidence.
In it, they appear to mischaracterize the record, downplaying alleged violations as a “low-sensitivity data leak” and framing Korean law enforcement as a “whole-of-government assault on Coupang.” More concerning is their conflation of corporate scrutiny with geopolitics. The letter warns that sanctioning Coupang would create a vacuum that “would quickly be filled by Chinese platforms like Temu, Alibaba, and Shein,” thereby precipitating allegedly “unacceptable security consequences.”
To compound matters, the US administration has reportedly gone so far as to threaten the suspension of high-level bilateral talks on the deployment of nuclear-powered submarines and the US-ROK civil nuclear agreement unless assurances are provided regarding Kim’s legal standing in Korea. Conditioning a national-security alliance on the protection of one executive from indictment is highly irregular.
Furthermore, this strategy of securing American political pressure to bypass Korean justice may have become a template.
Hybe founder Bang Si-hyuk allegedly misled investors by denying IPO plans, inducing share sales to an acquaintance's private equity fund before taking Hybe public. This non-public deal reportedly earned him 190 billion won ($129 million) personally, alongside 260 billion won for related parties.
Yet, in what looks like the result of a “Coupang copycat” maneuver, the US Embassy in Seoul reportedly intervened, asking Korean police to lift Bang’s travel ban. The stated justification was that Bang needed to visit the US ahead of BTS’s upcoming US tour. But this is an unusually direct request by a foreign mission in the midst of an active criminal investigation.
The contradictory nature of the United States in such matters is difficult to overstate. This is, after all, the same country that routinely asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction through statutes like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It is a striking double standard to object, labeling investigations as “targeted” or “discriminatory,” when South Korea applies its own laws to US-linked figures.
This reflects the inherent tensions of modern, hyper-capitalist US lobbying: Legislators acting as advocates who wield state power to shield corporate interests. It signals a significant decline in political standards, where public service blurs into corporate advocacy amid unchecked transactional governance.
These executives’ actions are equally subject to scrutiny. If members of the business elite rush to Capitol Hill to seek political protection from judicial oversight in Seoul, they demonstrate a striking deficit of ethical responsibility. It is a notable contradiction: leveraging a foreign superpower to influence the justice system of the very country in which they made their fortunes.
The 1980s era of a fragile South Korea yielding to US dictates is, or should be, over. Granted, Korea has its own house to put in order — our elites and wealthy are often subject to criticism regarding greed, impunity and entitlement, and we have a long way to go before becoming a fully mature and accountable society. But that does not absolve Washington of its own reckoning with this: True alliances thrive on mutual respect and democratic principles, not pressure that shelters embattled tycoons. This will remain true long after the Trump administration has departed the White House. I therefore urge the US to cease this inappropriate meddling and allow Korea’s judiciary to maintain its independent course.
- - -
Lim Woong
Lim Woong is a professor at the Graduate School of Education at Yonsei University in Seoul. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed.
khnews@heraldcorp.com
