Edo Naito 
Japanese and American officers shake hands on the commencement of the Iron Fist 24 joint military exercises. (Courtesy of USINDOPACOM, February 28, 2024)
There is much confusion about the United States military in Japan, its objectives, and how much Japan pays in support.
On March 13, George Glass, the candidate to become US Ambassador to Japan, stated that he would press Japan to pay more for hosting US troops in Japan. Perhaps Mr Glass should first read the US Forces Japan (USFJ) website. It states that the mission of US forces in Japan is to fulfill US commitments to its security partners throughout the Indo-Pacific region.
USFJ comprises about 60,000 military personnel across the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy, and Space. There are an additional 35,000 US dependents and 7,000 Department of Defense contractors.
These forces utilize all or parts of 120 bases throughout Japan. Japan hosts more US bases than any country in the world.
Understanding US Forces In the Region
US Forces Korea (USFK) has about 28,000 military personnel, the majority of which are US Army, to fulfill its stated mission of defending South Korea.
America also has mutual security treaty commitments with the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand. However, there are few US military personnel permanently based in the other treaty countries in Asia.
Since the World Trade Center terrorist attack in 2001, US forces based in Japan have also routinely deployed for extended periods to support operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Compared to USFK, the makeup of the US forces in Japan confirms the stark difference in their mission. US Army Japan only has about 2,000 personnel tasked with managing port facilities and logistics for US bases in Japan.
Headquartered at Yokota Air Base, 45 km from Tokyo, US Air Forces consist of about 13,000 airmen. It conducts operations throughout the Indo-Pacific region from multiple air bases, including Kadena in Okinawa.
The US Navy's 7th Fleet operates from Yokosuka on Tokyo Bay with about 13,000 sailors. It is the most potent forward-deployed naval force outside the US, with its amphibious ships at Sasebo in Nagasaki.
The US III Marine Expeditionary Force, with about 18,000 Marines, is one of three MEF fighting groups in the world. However, it is the only one deployed outside the US. It is based in Okinawa and Iwakuni (facing the Inland Sea in Yamaguchi Prefecture). The Marines are linked to specific 7th Fleet vessels assigned to carry them to any location in the region.
Distinguishing Their Purpose
USFK is there explicitly to defend South Korea from the direct threat posed by North Korea, while US forces in Japan are to meet US commitments throughout the extended region, including backup to the US forces in Korea.
There is another stark distinction. Operational command of US forces in Korea has long resided with USFK. Meanwhile, operational command of US forces in Japan resides in Hawaii. USFJ is focused on liaison with Japan, not command. That may now be changing given the increasing regional threats.
The USFJ mission statement concludes that US forces in Japan serve "as a vital pillar for stability in the region through close cooperation with Japanese allies." USFJ expects to meet its mission throughout the Indo-Pacific region through close cooperation with the Japan Self-Defense Forces.
Paying Costs as a 'Sympathy Budget'
The discussion of how much Japan should pay for the USFJ and any comparison with other countries that host US bases worldwide needs to be understood with the above background in mind.
During Donald Trump's first term, the President demanded a 4X increase to $8 billion USD annually for the "defense of Japan." The parties compromised on a much lower amount when they concluded the current five-year agreement.
Mr Glass appears ready to revisit Japan's financial support for US bases, or what in Japan until 2021 used to be called the annual "sympathy budget."
The term "sympathy" came to be used in 1978 because Japan was not obligated to pay anything to support the US bases under the 1960 Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement ー except to cover their land rental cost. The annual payment covered utilities, labor costs for Japanese who worked on US bases, and various maintenance costs.
The ongoing five-year agreement, now dubbed the "alliance-strengthening budget," runs until March 2027. It totals ¥1.06 trillion, or about $1.8 billion per year. It is no longer about sympathy or hosting but providing materials and equipment to improve the joint training environment. That includes new hardened hangers for fighter aircraft to survive attacks and other expenses to enhance the interoperability of US forces in Japan with JSDF.
Studying the Costs Covered by Japan
While always the public focus, this is a small part of the costs covered by Japan.
Far greater costs are being covered by Japan associated with the relocation of US forces inside of Japan. Two examples are moving the US Naval aircraft from Atsugi near Yokohama to Iwakuni and the US Marines from Japan to Guam. There is also the construction of new bases in Japan, such as the massive Henoko project.
In 2020, there was a US Congress-mandated study of the costs to maintain US Forces in Japan and Korea. It covered the period of 2016-2019.
As per the US Government Accounting Office study, the US incurred costs of about $5.3 billion per year for US forces in Japan. These included personnel costs, operations and maintenance, housing operations, and construction. They incurred about $3.3 billion annually for the same items for USFK.
The Japan costs were highest for the US Air Force, with the Marines a close second, and the Navy third. There were minimal costs associated with the US Army in Japan.
Correspondingly, the costs in South Korea were overwhelmingly for the US Army. The Air Force came in a distant 2nd, and costs for the Navy were minimal.
The study stated that Japan paid the US a "sympathy" budget for US forces relocations, construction, and other annual costs totaling about $3.4 billion. South Korea paid the US about $1.25 billion per year.
Ballooning Costs and Subsidies
In 2020, Japan budgeted $1.1 billion for annual land rental and related payments, with the amount increasing yearly. It is unclear whether this is accounted for in the defense budget.
Relocation costs have become enormous, as the Marine relocation to Guam is now estimated to cost $6 billion in total. Also, the cost of constructing Henoko has ballooned by some independent estimates to as much as $17 billion from its original estimate of $2.4 billion.
Japan additionally continues to pay annual subsidies, separate from the customary national distributions to regional governments, called the "Okinawa promotion budget," of over $2 billion per year. This goes to cities in Okinawa that host US bases and for support of dual-use airports and other facilities linked to the US military presence.
These costs have historically never been counted as defense expenditure or included in the percent of GDP calculation. The 1% cap on defense spending was perhaps a convenient fiction.
One Japanese "progressive" media site estimated that the expenses incurred by Japan related to US military forces in Japan for the fiscal year 2023 exceeded ¥1.1 trillion JPY or $7.8 billion. With Henoko costs rising, it would be higher in 2025.
Trump Administration Aims
There was speculation that Trump did not raise base hosting costs during Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's recent visit to Washington because there was no longer a question of whether Japan was paying its fair share to support the regional security mission of US forces in Japan.
Mr Glass's comments suggest otherwise.
Trump also did not raise Japan's total defense budget as a percentage of GDP with Prime Minister Ishiba. Currently, that is on target to hit 2% by 2027. (This still excludes the items noted above.) However, other senior officials and nominees have suggested that "3% of GDP as early as possible" would be reasonable.
On March 6, in a White House press conference, Trump repeated a statement made in his first term to then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. That was that it was "unfair" that the US was required to defend Japan, but Japan was not required to defend the US. In fact, that is true where an attack on US forces is unrelated to Japan, such as in Europe or the Middle East. However, since 2015, that is not true if the attack on the US relates to Japan.
The confusion continues.
Japan's Contributions Now
Japan has stepped up in a major way since Shinzo Abe recognized the growing threat from China and North Korea in 2012. He placed Japan on a path where it would assume primary responsibility for its defense, except for strategic (nuclear) deterrence. For much of the postwar period until then, there was a question of whom Japan needed to be defended from.
Today, there is a valid argument that Japan would struggle to defend itself against China without US support. I agree.
Equally valid, however, is that the US forces in Japan could not fulfill their regional mission today to its other security partners without Japan SDF's support.
That is as it should be.
Over the decades, the US and Japan have moved toward becoming partners in the joint effort to maintain peace in the Indo-Pacific region.
I sense that President Trump respects partners that are more independent than dependent.
With no public fanfare, acting as a leader of "a free and open Indo-Pacific region," Japan has viewed this security collaboration with the US as our contribution to peace in our region.
RELATED:
- Joint Operations Command Comes to the Self-Defense Forces
- Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Needs a To-Do List For Japan
- Defense of Okinawa Depends On the Self-Determination of Japan
Author: Edo Naito
