The “Korean Peninsula Peace Act,” which calls for a declaration of the end of the Korean War and the establishment of a peace treaty on the Korean Peninsula, has been reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. However, amid growing concerns within the Korean-American community that the bill is premature given the tense situation on the peninsula—including North Korea’s advancing nuclear armament—the legislation has become a point of contention, with opposition voices intensifying.

While Rep. Young Kim (Republican), a three-term congresswoman and chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, has been vocal in her opposition to the bill, Rep. Dave Min (Democrat), a first-term Korean-American congressman, has publicly expressed his support. This has sparked criticism of Min within the Korean-American community, heating up the debate over the legislation.

Officially introduced to the House on the 4th as HR-1841, the bill is currently pending in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The lead sponsor is Rep. Brad Sherman (Democrat), joined by 33 co-sponsors, including Korean-American Rep. Dave Min and Chinese-American Rep. Judy Chu, both representing Southern California districts.

The bill urges the Secretary of State to pursue diplomatic efforts with North Korea and South Korea to negotiate a binding peace agreement to formally end the Korean War, requiring the submission of a detailed roadmap to Congress. It also calls for negotiations to establish liaison offices in the capitals of the U.S. and North Korea and a comprehensive review of the travel ban to North Korea. Recently, Rep. Dave Min, in declaring his support, described the bill as “a very reasonable first step toward declaring the end of a war that effectively ended over 70 years ago.”

However, Rep. Young Kim has countered, “The Korean Peninsula Peace Act will not bring peace to the peninsula; it will only embolden Kim Jong Un.” She argued, “Ending the Korean War without any conditions addressing North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and human rights abuses is an insult to the victims of the Korean War and the innocent people suffering daily under Kim Jong Un. This is not even a matter up for discussion.” Kim has consistently opposed the bill, citing reasons such as its potential to give North Korea an advantageous negotiating position, weaken the U.S. stance on denuclearization, North Korea’s history of disregarding peace agreements, and the necessity of denuclearization as a prerequisite.

Conservative Korean-American organizations have also raised objections. They argue that the bill is problematic because: ▲ its core focus is a declaration to end the armistice and move to the next chapter without demanding denuclearization from North Korea; ▲ it makes no mention of human rights conditions in North Korea; and ▲ it fails to account for North Korea’s pattern of overturning previous agreements through provocations.

Im Tae-rang, president of the National Conference for Unification and Democracy in America, criticized supporters of the bill, saying, “A declaration of the end of the war would provide a pretext for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and without denuclearization, the balance of power would inevitably tilt toward North Korea. In this context, a bill advocating for an end-of-war declaration would only empower North Korea—a regime with an untrustworthy track record—without any safeguards.”

Rep. Sherman, the bill’s sponsor, described it as “a mutual step toward peace,” expressing hope that, following the 1953 armistice that ended military conflict, 2025 could mark a formal end to the war.

Meanwhile, the Korean Peninsula Peace Act was introduced and subsequently dropped in the 117th and 118th Congresses, making this its third introduction in the current 119th Congress.

<Hyung-Seok Han>