Lee Steps Directly Into Debate Over Investigative Agencies' "Neutrality"

Two straight days of rebuttals on social media... Lee escalates rhetoric, stands by policy
Cites "unconstitutional sophistry," "grounds for impeachment" and "dereliction of duty"
Blue House backs him in separate briefing
Unprecedented attendance sparks widening debate over agency independence

President Lee Jaemyung has stepped directly into the debate over the attendance of the heads of investigative and prosecution agencies at Cabinet meetings, escalating his rebuttal day after day. After calling arguments against their attendance “unconstitutional sophistry,” he went on to cite “grounds for impeachment” and the “crime of dereliction of duty,” making clear that he would stick to the current policy. The Blue House also backed the president’s position in a separate briefing, but some observers say its hard-line response to concerns about the political neutrality of investigative agencies has instead widened the debate.

President Lee Jaemyung speaks at a Cabinet meeting held at Cheong Wa Dae on Oct. 20, 2026. Yonhap News.

On the 22nd, President Lee wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that “giving up the authority to direct and supervise the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency is a violation of the Constitution and the Government Organization Act and grounds for impeachment,” adding that it would be “a crime punishable under criminal law as dereliction of duty.” He continued: “Are you saying the Agency should not be directed and supervised, in violation of the Constitution and the law?” and asked, “Are you saying that direction and supervision should not take place at an open meeting, but behind closed doors?”

He stressed that “excluding them from attending open meetings as an ‘exception’ is not a way to ensure political neutrality,” and that “the claim that the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency should not attend open Cabinet meetings is sophistry that runs counter to the Constitution, the law and common sense.” His position is that the president’s authority to direct and supervise administrative agencies is a constitutional duty, not a matter of choice.

The previous day, President Lee introduced a response from the generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool Gemini and called the argument that the heads of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and the Prosecution Agency could not attend Cabinet meetings “unconstitutional sophistry.” He also said, “Correcting the misguided perception and practice of treating agencies with investigative authority as special is part of normalizing what has become abnormal,” adding, “There is no need to worry, as I will not direct investigations into specific cases.”

After criticism that he had used an AI response as a basis for governing, President Lee issued a rebuttal on the 22nd as well. He explained, “I did not cite Gemini because I did not know the answer. I did so to make people realize just how elementary the reasoning was, how far it strayed from the facts, and how low its standard was.”

The Blue House also came to his defense. In a separate briefing at the Chunchugwan press center that morning, Senior Secretary for Public Relations and Communications Sung Gihong rebutted reports that the president was relying on AI to run the government, calling them “misleading or distorting the facts.” He explained that President Lee had already stated his position on the matter at a Cabinet meeting on the 13th, and that AI had been used as a tool to check relevant provisions of the Constitution and the law. He added categorically, “Cabinet meetings will not address anything related to directing investigations or prosecutions in specific individual cases.”

The Blue House also countered that the past exclusion of the prosecutor general from Cabinet meetings did not necessarily guarantee political neutrality. Its argument was that shifting contacts between those in power and investigative agencies from private settings to public Cabinet meetings could actually improve transparency. While acknowledging concerns about the attendance of agency heads, the Blue House said it did not agree that their attendance itself was the source of the problem.

The attendance of investigative agency heads at Cabinet meetings began after the Lee administration took office. After President Lee directed the heads of agencies under central ministries to attend Cabinet meetings in late 2025, the prosecutor general and the acting commissioner general of the Korean National Police Agency attended starting on January 20, 2026. According to materials obtained from the Ministry of the Interior and Safety by Rep. Shin Dong-wook of the People Power Party, the prosecutor general had never attended a Cabinet meeting from 2000 through before December 2025. The police commissioner attended only three times over the same period.

Concerns that the independence of investigative agencies could be undermined were also raised in January, but the debate did not gain traction at the time. Both the prosecution and the police were then under acting leadership, and the move was largely seen as an administrative efficiency measure to expand Cabinet meeting attendance to agencies under central ministries more broadly. This time, however, the political significance has changed because the first head of the newly launched Serious Crimes Investigation Agency attended in the wake of the abolition of the Prosecutors’ Office and the separation of investigation and prosecution.

The opposition, including the People Power Party, argues that the investigative agency heads’ regular face-to-face meetings with the president could themselves exert unspoken pressure. The People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy has also called for them to refrain from attending regularly, saying that even without specific instructions on individual cases, their attendance could place political pressure on investigative and prosecution agencies.

The prevailing view in legal circles is that it would be difficult to legally prohibit attendance itself. Article 8 of the Cabinet Meeting Regulations stipulates that the chair may have the head of a central administrative agency attend if deemed necessary. However, the provision permits attendance; it does not require the regular attendance of investigative agency heads. This is why some argue that the president’s authority to direct and supervise agencies should be considered separately from whether their attendance at Cabinet meetings is appropriate.

Kim Jiyong, chief of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, delivers remarks at a Cabinet meeting presided over by President Lee Jaemyung at Cheong Wa Dae on Oct. 20, 2026. Yonhap News

Some in political circles have also questioned President Lee’s response. The debate has shifted in character because he countered questions about whether the agency heads’ attendance was appropriate with phrases such as “unconstitutional sophistry” and “the crime of dereliction of duty.” It is also difficult to rule out the possibility that the issue has been amplified as criticism from some quarters is treated as a challenge to the president’s constitutional authority.

However, with President Lee and the Blue House repeatedly reaffirming the policy, the way Cabinet meetings are conducted is unlikely to change in the near term. An official from the ruling party said, “The key question in the debate going forward will be how much political neutrality the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and the Prosecution Agency, established as part of prosecution reform, can secure within the president’s system for directing state affairs.”

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.