The South Korean National Assembly was the stage for a dramatic and heated exchange on February 9, 2026, as Prime Minister Kim Min-seok and People Power Party lawmaker Park Chung-kwon clashed during a government question session focused on political, diplomatic, unification, and security issues. What started as a routine inquiry quickly escalated into a full-blown confrontation, exposing deep divisions over the nation's military readiness, foreign policy, and the handling of recent U.S. tariff hikes.
From the outset, Park Chung-kwon wasted no time in challenging the government’s diplomatic performance. Referring to last month’s meeting between South Korean officials and U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Park asked pointedly, "You met with Vice President Vance and even promoted a new hotline, but as soon as you returned, we were hit with a 25% tariff hike. The negotiation team came back empty-handed. How did this happen?" (as reported by NEWSIS and JoongAng Ilbo).
Prime Minister Kim responded firmly, "The expression 'being hit in the back of the head' is inappropriate. Most of the U.S. government, except President Trump and a few trade officials, were unaware of this tariff message. If we use that expression, it would mean the entire U.S. government was blindsided, which is not accurate." He pressed Park for clarity, asking, "Are you criticizing us or the United States?" (according to Yonhap News and The Fact).
Park, undeterred, accused the administration of fostering an anti-American and pro-China image in U.S. political circles, even referencing the so-called Coupang incident as evidence. Kim, however, demanded specifics: "Who in the U.S. is saying this? Please provide names or sources." Park cited a national security advisor but did not offer further details, prompting Kim to press again for concrete evidence. The lack of specifics only fueled the tension between the two (as detailed by JoongAng Ilbo).
The confrontation soon shifted to security matters, with Park repeatedly questioning the government’s response to North Korea’s unveiling of a new nuclear-powered submarine at the end of the previous year. "Have you seen North Korea’s new nuclear submarine? How much of a threat do you think it poses to us?" Park demanded. Kim replied, "The entire North Korean nuclear arsenal is already a serious threat. There is no need to single out just the submarine; we are taking the overall threat very seriously."
Park, unsatisfied with what he saw as evasive answers, accused Kim of dodging the issue, saying, "Don’t try to slip away like a slippery eel. Do you understand how dangerous this weapon is?" Kim retorted, "That is a personal insult. Please withdraw the expression. It is inappropriate to use such language in this setting." The back-and-forth continued for nearly two minutes, with Park refusing to retract his words and Kim insisting, "Withdraw it before you continue questioning." The session grew increasingly chaotic, with members from both ruling and opposition parties shouting for decorum and respect (as reported by Yonhap News and NEWSIS).
The dispute intensified as Park broadened his criticism to encompass the military’s overall preparedness. He cited the reduction of joint U.S.-ROK military exercises, disputes with the United Nations Command over the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), and a recent incident where army guards considered using batons instead of firearms. Park declared, "The military lacks threat awareness, countermeasures, discipline, and training. The only thing it does is serve Kim Jong-un’s mood."
Kim Min-seok’s reaction was immediate and forceful. "That is an insult to the South Korean military. Withdraw your statement and apologize at once. If you do not, I will not answer further questions," he said, his voice rising above the commotion. "Ask your questions with at least a minimum of respect for the Republic of Korea and its armed forces. Where do you get off saying that our military does nothing?" (according to The Fact and JoongAng Ilbo).
Park, however, stood his ground, insisting his questions were legitimate. The standoff continued, with Kim refusing to respond unless Park retracted his remarks. Calls for apologies echoed from the ruling party benches, while opposition members criticized Kim’s handling of the exchange. The session teetered on the brink of collapse, with interruptions and jeers punctuating the debate.
The broader context of the session included other pressing issues. Lawmakers debated the government’s response to the U.S. tariff hike, with the People Power Party blaming the administration for neglecting the Korea-U.S. Investment Special Act. Kim countered that delays in legislation were the primary cause, stating, "It’s 100% due to legislative delays." Foreign Minister Cho Hyun added that the U.S. would increase tariffs if progress on non-tariff barriers was not made, and that a U.S. negotiation team would visit Korea later in February to discuss nuclear submarine acquisition and nuclear cooperation agreements (as reported by JoongAng Ilbo).
Unification Minister Jung Dong-young revealed that the government was actively considering lifting the 5·24 sanctions against North Korea, a measure imposed after the 2010 Cheonan warship sinking, to restore inter-Korean trust. Meanwhile, questions about Prime Minister Kim’s political future surfaced, with Kim reiterating his commitment to governance and denying any plans to run for Seoul mayor, despite speculation about his ambitions within the Democratic Party.
The session, meant to address national security and diplomatic challenges, instead laid bare the deep political rifts within the Assembly. The fierce exchanges between Kim and Park not only highlighted divisions over military policy and foreign relations but also reflected broader anxieties about South Korea’s place in a rapidly changing global landscape. The uproar underscored just how fraught the nation’s political discourse has become, with vital security concerns at risk of being overshadowed by partisan rancor.
As the dust settles, the events of February 9 serve as a stark reminder of the challenges facing South Korea’s leaders—both in defending the nation’s interests abroad and in maintaining civility and respect within its own halls of power.