Experts say the Donald Trump administration’s Model Allies concept defines a functional, transactional alliance centered on allies’ willingness and ability to defend themselves, burden-sharing, and concrete strategic contributions. Analysts argue Seoul must define the scope and limits of cooperation based on national interest, not simply increase contributions.
Sejong Institute researchers Jo Bi-yeon and Lee Seong-won write in an Thursday report, Conditions of Model Allies, that the Trump administration expects allies to have the will and capacity to defend themselves, shoulder greater responsibility, and act in ways that reduce the U.S. strategic burden.
The report says this model departs from traditional, value-centered alliances and is being reframed as a functional arrangement that allocates actual costs and risks while easing America’s strategic load.
The authors explain that Washington now intervenes selectively in core areas, while allies assume primary responsibility for their own security and take lead roles on the battlefield.
The researchers point to recent U.S.-Israel operations against Iran as an example: Israel led operations on the ground while the U.S. provided decisive but limited support, intervening in constrained areas such as deep strikes.
On the Korea-U.S. alliance, the report argues the focus is shifting from simply doing more together to demonstrating both contribution and restraint.
Given South Korea’s advanced defense capabilities and defense-industry base, the authors recommend Seoul establish clear criteria to set the scope and limits of cooperation on a case-by-case basis.
In offshore crises such as a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, they say Seoul should prioritize noncombat and diplomatic contributions—grounded in universal interests like freedom of navigation, maritime-route security, and energy stability—rather than committing military forces.
Allies must be able to contribute to deterrence, the researchers conclude, but they also need to avoid unnecessary entanglement and preserve strategic priorities.