Enablers behind Kim Keon-hee’s growing influence

Under former President Yoon Suk-yeol, the conduct of the presidential couple became unusually transparent. First Lady Kim Keon-hee was reported to have voiced strong opinions about senior government appointments. Some personnel decisions made in the presidential office were even reversed after the president’s return home. These cases fueled perceptions that power within the administration did not rest solely with the president. In some government circles, Kim was referred to as “VIP 0,” a title implying greater authority than the president, with no visible effort to address the matter.

Prosecutors’ handling of the case made it clear that Kim’s role extended beyond that of a typical first lady. While the president is shielded from prosecution during his term except in cases of insurrection or treason, the first lady has no such immunity and is expected to face investigation like any private citizen. Yet Kim was effectively treated as above the law. The failure to launch a timely inquiry not only breached protocol but also granted her an extraordinary advantage. A proper investigation early on might have prevented further misconduct.

More troubling than Kim’s evasion of investigation was the way the prosecutorial structure was reshaped to benefit her. Such moves would not have been possible without presidential authorization. In May last year, seven months before martial law was declared, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor—who had pushed to question Kim in person over the Deutsche Motors stock manipulation case—was abruptly replaced. The new leadership interviewed Kim privately at the Presidential Security Service building, without notifying the Prosecutor General, and later cleared her of charges. The nation’s top prosecutor at the time warned that “if even one person stands above the law, the republic will collapse.” To some, the prosecution’s handling of the case resembled advocacy more than accountability. In retrospect, it amounted to a deliberate failure to investigate.

While in office, President Yoon rejected three attempts to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Kim, arguing that the allegations either predated their marriage or lacked political relevance. After martial law was imposed and power shifted early, Kim now faces scrutiny not only for stock manipulation but also for receiving luxury goods, intervening in appointments and nominations, and at least 16 other charges. The investigation has widened to include her mother, her mother’s business associate, her brother, and even her brother’s mother-in-law, effectively forming a broad probe into the Kim Keon-hee family. The scale and nature of the allegations suggest a pattern of entrenched power abuse.

If Kim complies with the special prosecutor’s summons, she is expected to appear for the first time before cameras at the prosecution office on Aug. 6. Some analysts argue that her actions contributed not only to the opposition’s string of election losses but also helped ignite the political crisis that led to martial law. Had she agreed to questioning while Yoon was still president-elect—or at least before the reshuffling of the prosecution’s leadership—the outcome might have been significantly different.

Kim bears primary responsibility for abandoning accountability and embracing privilege, but it was the prosecution that enabled and reinforced this culture of entitlement. No prosecutor stepped up to conduct a proper investigation or probe the well-known allegations involving key figures. Prosecution reform must begin with dismantling barriers that hinder prompt and thorough investigations. Law enforcement agencies must be empowered to oversee one another, compete when needed, and ensure that no individual, regardless of position, stands above the law.