Korea-US $200 Billion Investment Talks Face Nuclear and Funding Hurdles
South Korea and the United States are still negotiating reactor choices, funding schedules and risk-sharing terms for Seoul’s $200 billion investment commitment, leaving an agreement expected this week uncertain.
SEOUL — An agreement governing South Korea’s $200 billion investment commitment to the United States remains uncertain as the two governments work through disputes over nuclear projects, funding schedules and the allocation of investment risks.
The uncertainty became more visible after South Korea’s Industry Ministry postponed a planned briefing to lawmakers on the first project under the framework. The ministry said the matters described in media reports were still under negotiation and that no final decisions had been made.
Foreign Minister Cho Hyun, speaking before departing for Washington on Thursday, played down suggestions of a rupture. He characterized the delay as more closely related to clarifying domestic procedures than to a fundamental disagreement between Seoul and Washington. Cho said he would communicate South Korea’s position clearly and defend the country’s interests when he meets US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday.
Nuclear power has emerged as a central issue. The two sides have discussed a package involving eight reactors in the United States, including six Westinghouse AP1000 units and two Korean-designed APR1400 units. South Korea could invest as much as $120 billion in the nuclear portion of the plan, but the inclusion of the Korean reactor design reportedly faces resistance from US interests.
The negotiations also involve a possible South Korean investment in Westinghouse. Seoul is seeking a stake large enough to secure voting rights and board representation, while Westinghouse reportedly prefers a holding below the level that would provide a board nomination right. That discussion carries broader significance for South Korea because intellectual-property arrangements with Westinghouse affect Korean nuclear exports.
The timing of cash transfers is another point of contention. Washington has reportedly requested more than 13 trillion won, or about $9.4 billion, by the end of this year, before individual projects and allocations have been finalized. Seoul had considered providing at least $2.2 billion this year and investing up to $20 billion annually from 2027 under a 10-year plan. A larger early transfer could place additional pressure on public finances and foreign-exchange reserves.
Other projects under review include an Alaska liquefied natural gas development, a gas-fired power plant in Texas and a US spent-nuclear-fuel processing project. Their combined cost and uncertain returns have added to concerns that the overall package could exceed the agreed ceiling.
Seoul and Washington also differ over how to calculate returns. South Korea favors treating the investments as a portfolio, allowing gains from successful projects to offset losses elsewhere. The United States favors project-by-project accounting. Under the broader framework, the US side would receive 90 percent of net profits after principal and interest are recovered, making the accounting method an important determinant of how risks and returns are ultimately shared.