South Koreans hold a press conference during a protest to denounce a U.S. congressional report accusing their government of discriminating against U.S.-listed electronic commerce giant Coupang, near the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea, Friday, July 3, 2026. The signs read “The U.S. House of Representative must discard the false report on Coupang.” (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon) This month marked two milestones in the U.S.-South Korea alliance. As Americans celebrated the nation’s 250th birthday, South Korea joined other allies in lighting landmarks red, white, and blue to honor a partnership that has helped anchor security in the Indo-Pacific for more than 70 years. Days later, however, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee released a report raising troubling questions about whether Seoul is living up to the principles that have long defined that alliance.
Ceremonies and symbolism matter. But alliances are ultimately measured not by public displays of friendship, but by how governments treat one another’s citizens and businesses. On that score, South Korea’s recent treatment of an American company should concern anyone who believes our alliances should be grounded in the rule of law rather than political expediency.
During my time on the House Intelligence Committee and the House China Task Force, I spent years studying how authoritarian governments use state power to pressure American companies. I never expected to see an American ally adopt tactics that look so familiar.
Yet that is exactly what the Korean government is doing to Coupang, a Fortune 150 U.S. tech company and American exporter with major operations in Korea and throughout Asia.
The basic facts are straightforward. Late last year, a former Coupang employee improperly accessed basic user data related to customers in South Korea and Taiwan — the kind of information you’d find in a phonebook, like names and addresses. He downloaded roughly 3,000 records to his computers, which soon after were recovered. None of the data was sold or misused, and no consumers suffered any harm. By any reasonable standard, this should have triggered a regulatory review, improvement plan, and perhaps a fine. In fact, that is exactly what happened in Taiwan.
But political leaders in Seoul instead chose to detonate an all-out government assault. Police repeatedly raided the company. A dozen regulatory agencies launched investigations and enforcement actions, most of which with no connection to data security. The company’s American founder was branded a “devil.” Lawmakers hauled in the company’s acting CEO — also a U.S. citizen — for days of theatrical hearings: they denied him assistance of American counsel, shouted epithets, ordered interpreters to mangle his answers, accused him of perjury for plainly truthful testimony, and threatened him with travel bans, criminal charges, and even jail time.
Officials pressured Korea’s national pension fund to dump Coupang’s stock. Lawmakers threatened to drive the company out of Korea and encouraged the public to switch to domestic competitors. The prime minister urged regulators to pursue the company “with the same determination used to wipe out mafias.” Then they fined Coupang $409 million — the largest privacy fine in the country’s history and more than four times larger than the next-highest fine imposed on a Korean company, which had exposed significantly more sensitive information.
This is precisely the kind of conduct I spent a decade on the Intelligence Committee warning American companies about when the country in question was China, Russia or Iran. South Korea should not belong on that list.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee conducted a thorough investigation and just published a formal report detailing this pattern of discrimination and abuse. The bilateral trade and commercial dimensions matter, particularly given the scale of the U.S.-South Korea economic relationship. But Americans should not lose sight of the broader strategic dimension.
State-directed pressure campaigns against American companies are precisely the kind of behavior the U.S. intelligence community is trained to identify in adversarial systems. Such actions are flatly inconsistent with the principles that have long underpinned the U.S.-ROK alliance.
What does it tell us if political actors can mobilize regulators, prosecutors, lawmakers, and even the national pension fund against an American company over a routine data incident? What message does that send to other U.S. allies and partners across the Indo-Pacific?
And most importantly, what kind of message does it send to Beijing?
The Chinese Communist Party has spent years promoting the idea that American companies should be viewed as political instruments rather than commercial actors. It has encouraged governments around the world to treat successful U.S. firms as convenient political targets. When elected officials in allied countries embrace similar tactics, they validate a model that Beijing has long sought to export.
Every time an ally treats an American company as a political villain rather than a market participant, the Chinese Communist Party notches a win. Every time a friendly government appears willing to weaponize regulatory power against a U.S. company, Beijing’s argument against the rules-based economic order gains credibility.
The lack of reciprocity should concern every American who believes alliances must operate by the same rules in both directions. Korean firms operating in the United States — Samsung, Hyundai, LG, SK, and many others — benefit from due process, transparent regulation and predictable enforcement. Their executives are not subjected to public political spectacles simply because politicians need a target.
If South Korea expects fair treatment for its companies in the American market, it must extend the same standard to American companies doing business in Korea.
Washington is not a passive observer. The House Judiciary Committee’s findings give Congress a compelling reason to act. Many in the Trump administration have already raised concerns, as have some of my former Democrat colleagues like Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Rep. Suzan DelBene (Wash.). Seoul still has an opportunity to course-correct: separate legitimate cybersecurity oversight from political theater, end all politicized enforcement actions against U.S. companies, and reaffirm that South Korea remains committed to a rules-based economy. Or Seoul can continue down a path that increasingly resembles the coercive political and economic tactics the United States has long identified in its enemies.
The current leadership in Korea must be made aware that actions such as this are seriously detrimental to our relationship. Most importantly, they weaken the American people’s resolve to protect the relationship between our two nations, creating an environment that makes Korea less stable and secure. We’re grateful for the red, white, and blue lights in Seoul — more important is that Seoul’s actions reflect the alliance those lights were meant to celebrate.
Former Rep. Chris Stewart was a senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Appropriations Committee and its Subcommittee on Defense, and the House China Task Force. He’s also a world record-setting Air Force Pilot — flying both the B1 Bomber and combat rescue helicopters — and a New York Times best-selling author.
Add as preferred source on Google Tags Coupang Indo-Pacific South Korea U.S. U.S. House Judiciary CommitteeCopyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments: Link copiedMore Opinions - International News
See All
Opinions - International Illicit gold is a global security threat the US must address by Carla Sands, opinion contributor 1 day ago Opinions - International / 1 day ago 
