The Background

In July 2017, North Korea conducted two tests of its Hwasong-14 missile. In August, they fired a ballistic missile directly over Japan into the Pacific. In September, North Korea detonated what it claims was a thermonuclear bomb and launched another missile over Japan. In November, they test-fired its new Hwasong-15, a missile which analysts believe could have reached the entirety of the U.S. mainland, depending on the weight of the warhead. These developments are not only reckless, they run contrary to international law. Since 2006, the U.N. Security Council has passed a number of resolutions condemning North Korea's activities, calling on the country to cease its nuclear and missile programs, all of which violate prior resolutions.

As North Korea's capabilities have grown, so too has tension with the U.S., which has only worsened with bellicose rhetoric from President Trump. Over the past year, Trump has threatened North Korea with “fire and fury,” warned that the U.S. would “totally destroy” the country, and characterized pursuing a diplomatic solution as a “waste of time.” Trump’s rhetoric is often at odds with his own administration, making things worse. Under Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, U.S. policy toward the North has been characterized as one of “maximum pressure and engagement,” in which sanctions and diplomacy are used to reduce the regime’s nuclear activity.

Experts agree that the U.S. lacks a viable military option against North Korea. Aside from massive casualties on the Korean Peninsula, including the deaths of thousands of American citizens, a conflict with North Korea could trigger a nuclear exchange, raising the death toll to millions and ushering in a years-long nuclear winter. Despite this, recent reports indicate that the White House has given serious consideration to an extraordinarily reckless “bloody nose” attack on the country. While administration officials deny such a strategy exists, the fact that it was even considered is alarming.

The Latest

President Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un held a summit on June 12, reversing long-standing U.S. policy which designated denuclearization as a precondition for any meeting between the two heads of state. The summit concluded with a vague joint statement in which North Korea committed to returning the remains of American POWs and "complete denuclearization," a promise it had previously made in Panmunjom. For its part, the United States committed to "security guarantees" for the North Korean regime. Outside of the signed agreement, President Trump told the media that he had agreed to halt joint military exercises with South Korea and that Kim Jong-un had pledged to destroy a missile engine testing facility.

One month later, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Pyongyang to continue the dialogue, intending to "fill in the details" of North Korean commitments to denuclearize and to return POW remains, but he neither extracted new commitments nor met face-to-face with Chairman Kim. North Korea expressed its desire for an incremental rollback in sanctions as it rolls back its nuclear program, but the Trump administration was unwilling to reduce sanctions until the process is complete. In the aftermath of the talks, the North Korean regime called the process "deeply regrettable" and criticized the United States' "gangster-like" approach. After originally calling the talks "productive," Secretary Pompeo responded to these criticisms saying, "the world is a gangster."


  • Call your senators at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to support the Preventing Preemptive War in North Korea Act (S. 2047), which states that, "No funds may be used for kinetic military operations in North Korea absent an imminent threat to the United States without express congressional authorization." Under the Constitution, Congress alone can authorize the use of military force. This important legislation, spearheaded by Senator Chris Murphy, reinforces that point. 
  • You can also ask your congressional representatives to cosponsor the No Unconstitutional Strike against North Korea Act (H.R. 4837/S. 2016), which assert that only Congress can authorize U.S.-initiated military action against North Korea. We need lawmakers to express public support for a more effective U.S. diplomatic approach toward North Korea. These two bills offer a great way for them to do that.