SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea’s parliament has voted to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol, a stunning fall from grace for a man who rose from political obscurity to the height of political power.
His decades of achievement could be on the verge of crumbling due to a single, baffling decision to send out troops under martial law over vague claims that one of Asia’s leading democracies was under threat.
The impeachment suspends Yoon’s presidential powers until the Constitutional Court determines whether to dismiss him as president or restore his powers. Yoon also faces investigations meant to find whether his Dec. 3 decree amounts to rebellion, a crime that is punished by up to the death penalty in South Korea if convicted.
Yoon, a staunch conservative and longtime prosecutor, went from political novice to president of South Korea in 2022, ending five years of liberal rule that saw failed efforts to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis and a slackening economy.
His time in office, however, was marked by near-constant friction with an opposition-controlled parliament, threats of annihilation from North Korea and a series of scandals involving him and and his wife. Observers said he was impulsive, took criticism personally and relied too much on the advice of hardcore loyalists.
No one thing explained his attempt to shut down the mechanisms of a democratic nation over his claim that “anti-state forces" were acting under the influence of North Korea.
But there are strands in Yoon's background, and especially in the intense acrimony with the liberal opposition and his hardline standoff with North Korea, that help illuminate the defining moment of his presidency.
Despite 2 1/2 years as president, Yoon's career was overwhelmingly about the law, not politics.
Yoon, 63, was born in Seoul to two professors, and went to prestigious Seoul National University, where he studied law.
A major moment, according to Yoon, happened in 1980 when he played the role of a judge in a mock trial of then-dictator Chun Doo-hwan, who had staged a military coup the previous year, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. In the aftermath, Yoon had to flee to the countryside as Chun’s military extended martial law and placed troops and armored vehicles at various places including his university.
Yoon returned to the capital and eventually began a career as a state prosecutor that would last nearly three decades, building an image as strong-minded and uncompromising.
But he also faced criticism that his personality was unsuited to high-level leadership.
“President Yoon isn’t well-prepared, and he does things off the cuff," Choi Jin, director of the Seoul-based Institute of Presidential Leadership, said. "He also tends to express his emotions too directly. The things that he likes and dislikes are easy to see, and he tends to handle things with a small group of his own people, not the majority of people.”
During a parliament audit in 2013, Yoon, then a senior prosecutor, said he was under pressure from his boss, who said he opposed Yoon's investigation into an allegation that the country’s spy agency had conducted an illicit online campaign to help conservative President Park Geun-hye win the previous year’s election.
At the time, he famously said, “I’m not loyal to (high-level) people.”
He was demoted, but after Park’s government was toppled over a separate corruption scandal in 2017, then President Moon Jae-in made Yoon head of a Seoul prosecution office, which investigated Park and other conservative leaders. Moon later named Yoon the nation’s top prosecutor.
Yoon only joined party politics about a year before he won the presidency, abandoning the liberal Moon after an impasse over a probe of Moon's allies. Moon’s supporters said he was trying to thwart Moon’s prosecution reforms and elevate his own political standing.
The 2022 presidential race was Yoon’s first election campaign.
Yoon beat his rival, liberal firebrand Lee Jae-myung, by less than 1 percentage point in South Korea’s most closely fought presidential election.
Their campaign was one of the nastiest in recent memory.
Yoon compared Lee’s party to “Hitler” and “Mussolini.” Lee’s allies called Yoon “a beast” and “dictator” and derided his wife’s alleged plastic surgery.
Yoon’s time as president was dominated by frustration and acrimony, much stemming from his narrow victory and his party’s failure to win control of parliament throughout his term.
When Yoon declared the state of emergency, he said a goal was to eliminate “shameless North Korea followers and anti-state forces” in an apparent reference to the opposition Democratic Party.
In a fiery speech on Thursday, Yoon again defended his martial law decree and vowed to “fight to the end” in the face of attempts to impeach and investigate him. He called the Democratic Party “a monster” and “anti-state forces” that he argued has flexed its legislative muscle to impeach top officials and undermined the government’s budget bill for next year.
Claims of corruption also battered his approval ratings.
Yoon recently denied wrongdoing in an influence-peddling scandal involving him and his wife. Spy camera footage in a separate scandal also purportedly shows the first lady, Kim Keon Hee, accepting a luxury bag as a gift from a pastor.
Choi said he thinks Yoon likely planned the “clumsy martial law” edict to divert public attention away from the scandals.
“He tried to massively shake up the political world,” Choi said. “But he failed. He likely believed there was no other option.”
If political squabbles and scandal set the tenor of Yoon's domestic presidency, its foreign policy was characterized by a bitter standoff with North Korea.
Yoon early on in his presidency promised “an audacious plan” to improve the North’s economy if it abandoned its nuclear weapons.
But things turned sour quickly, as North Korea ramped up its weapons tests and threats to attack the South. North Korea eventually began calling Yoon “a guy with a trash-like brain” and “a diplomatic idiot.”
North Korea took that trash theme literally, sending thousands of balloons filled with garbage over the border, including some that made it to the presidential compound in Seoul at least twice.
Yoon's mention of North Korea as a domestic destabilizing force reminded some of an earlier South Korea, which until the late 1980s was ruled by a series of strongmen who repeatedly invoked the threat from the North to justify effort to suppress domestic dissidents and political opponents.
Klug reported from Tokyo.
FILE - South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol answers a reporter's question during a news conference at the Presidential Office in Seoul, South Korea, Thursday, Nov. 7, 2024. (Kim Hong-Ji/Pool Photo via AP, File)
In this photo provided by South Korea Presidential Office, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol speaks during a press briefing at the presidential office in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2024. (South Korea Unification Ministry via AP).
People hold candles during a candlelight vigil against South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol in Seoul, South Korea, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2024. (AP Photo/Lee Jin-man)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials who they believe are interfering with the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration, saying they could face criminal charges, in an apparent warning to the dozens of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions across America.
The memo, from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, signals a sharp turnabout in priorities from President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, with the Justice Department’s civil division told to identify state and local laws and policies that “threaten to impede” the Trump administration’s immigration efforts and potentially challenge them in court.
It also tells prosecutors in no uncertain terms that they will be on the front lines of an administration-wide effort to crack down on illegal immigration and border crime and that they are expected to carry out the policy vision of President Donald Trump’s Republican White House when it comes to violent crimes, the threat of international gangs and drug trafficking.
“Indeed, it is the responsibility of the Justice Department to defend the Constitution, and accordingly, to lawfully execute the policies that the American people elected President Trump to implement,” wrote Bove, who prior to joining the administration was part of the legal team that defended Trump against two criminal cases brought by the Justice Department.
“Sanctuary” has no legal definition, but the term encompasses a range of protection for immigrants, particularly those living in the U.S. illegally. Most often, the laws put legal limits on how law enforcement in those jurisdictions can cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Courts have repeatedly upheld most sanctuary laws, and legal experts said that while prosecutions are possible, they doubted the charges would have any traction in court.
“What would you charge these people with?" asked Robert J. McWhirter, a constitutional scholar and longtime Arizona-based immigration lawyer. “Nothing obligates local law enforcement to cooperate with federal law enforcement on any issue. Not even bank robbery.”
In Chicago, which has some of the strongest sanctuary protections nationwide, city leaders brushed off word of potential investigations. The nation’s third-largest city has been a sanctuary city for decades, limiting cooperation between police and federal immigration agents.
“If the federal government is going to investigate, that is their prerogative,” said Alderman Andre Vasqez, who is Mayor Brandon Johnson’s handpicked chair of the City Council immigration committee.
Vasquez, the son of two Guatemalan immigrants, noted a 2016 campaign rally at the University of Illinois Chicago that Trump abruptly scrapped as crowds of boisterous protesters grew. The cancellation remains a badge of honor for many young activists in the Democratic stronghold.
“There will always be that kind of relationship between Chicago, President Trump and the Republican Party,” said Vasquez. “I was born and raised in Chicago, in an immigrant family. It will take more than that to make me feel a little scared.”
Bove's memo says federal prosecutors must “take all steps necessary to protect the public and secure the American border by removing illegal aliens from the country and prosecuting illegal aliens for crimes committed in U.S. jurisdiction."
It also directs prosecutors to investigate for potential criminal charges against state and local officials who obstruct or impede federal functions. As potential avenues for prosecution, the memo cites a conspiracy offense as well as a law prohibiting the harboring of people in the country illegally.
“Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests,” the memo says. “The U.S. Attorney’s Offices and litigating components of the Department of Justice shall investigate incidents involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution.”
But in Colorado, where state law bars local law enforcement from helping federal immigration agents without a court order, the attorney general’s office said it knew of no state or local officials obstructing immigration enforcement.
“The federal government—not local law enforcement—is responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws," the office of Phil Weiser, a Democrat, said in a statement.
The memo includes a series of directives beyond those related to sanctuary jurisdictions. It suggests there will be a spike in immigration cases under the new administration, instructing U.S. attorney’s offices across the country to inform courts of its policy “and develop processes for handling the increased number of prosecutions that will result.” Any decisions by federal prosecutors to decline to prosecute immigration violations must be disclosed to Justice Department headquarters in so-called urgent reports, which are used to update leadership on law enforcement emergencies or significant matters of national interest.
The memo also says the department will return to the principle of charging defendants with the most serious crime it can prove, a staple position of Republican-led departments meant to remove a prosecutor’s discretion to charge a lower-level offense. And it rescinds policies implemented by Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland, including one designed to end sentencing disparities that have imposed harsher penalties for different forms of cocaine.
“The most serious charges are those punishable by death where applicable, and offenses with the most significant mandatory minimum sentences,” Bove wrote.
It is common for Justice Departments to shift enforcement priorities under a new presidential administration in compliance with White House policy ambitions. The memo reflects the constant push-and-pull between Democratic and Republican administrations over how best to commit resources to what officials regard as the most urgent threat of the time.
The edict to charge the most readily provable offense, for instance, is consistent with directives from prior Republican attorneys general including John Ashcroft and Jeff Sessions, while Democratic attorneys general including Eric Holder and Garland have replaced the policy and instead encouraged prosecutorial discretion.
Associated Press writers Sophia Tareen in Chicago and Colleen Slevin in Denver contributed to this report.
President Donald Trump speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
FILE - The logo for the Justice Department is seen before a news conference at the Department of Justice, Aug. 23, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)