SEOUL: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has brought his young daughter on his most significant foreign trip in years, a trip to China that marks his latest attempt to break out of isolation and bolster his position by balancing between traditional allies Moscow and Beijing.
The girl is believed to be named Kim Ju Ae and is around 12 or 13 years old. Not much else is known about her.
Since 2022, Kim Jong Un has showcased her at a growing number of major public events tied to his nuclear-armed military, fueling speculation she is being primed as the country’s next leader.
Kim’s daughter’s name and age are unconfirmed
While North Korean state media have described Kim’s daughter as “beloved” and “respected,” they have never called her by name.
The assumption that the girl’s name is Ju Ae is based on an account by former NBA champion Dennis Rodman where he recalled holding Kim Jong Un’s baby daughter during a trip to Pyongyang in 2013.
Ju Ae’s exact age is unconfirmed but South Korean intelligence officials believe she was born in 2013.
In a closed-door briefing to lawmakers in 2023, South Korea’s main spy agency said it believes Kim Jong Un and his wife Ri Sol Ju also have an older son and a younger third child whose gender is unknown.
Kim Jong Un beamed as he stepped out of his family’s iconic green armored train to shake hands with senior Chinese officials upon arrival in Beijing on Tuesday. He was closely followed by Ju Ae.
Dressed in a navy pantsuit with her hair styled in a half-updo, a look reminiscent of her mother’s public appearances, Ju Ae stood in front of senior North Korean officials, including Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui.
However, she did not make a public appearance the next day as her father shared center stage with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in a massive military parade at Tiananmen Square. The parade demonstrated a deepening alignment between Washington’s adversaries.
She’s being increasingly showcased in her father’s events
Kim Jong Un chose to publicly unveil his little-known daughter at a major military event — a test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile — in November 2022.
State media released a series of photos of Kim and his daughter at the event, marking the first time her image was made public. She wore a white coat and red shoes as she watched a soaring missile from a distance and walked hand-in-hand with her father.
The missile test marked the first in a series of major military events where Kim Jong Un displayed his daughter. Her carefully-crafted appearances have included missile tests, military parades, and the launch of a naval destroyer in April, an event hailed as a major step in expanding North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Kim Jong Un has recently expanded his daughter’s public appearances beyond military events to include some of his most ambitious economic projects and cultural events, including the opening of a beach resort in June.
Her trip to Beijing fuels speculation she is the future heir
Ju Ae’s increasing number of public appearances and presence in state media has led to speculation that she is being primed as her father’s successor. The theory has been further fueled by her first known foreign trip to China.
South Korea’s National Intelligence Service issued a careful assessment last year that it views Ju Ae as her father’s likely successor, citing a comprehensive analysis of her public activities and the state protocols provided to her.
However, the spy agency said there are still various possibilities regarding North Korea’s power succession process because Kim Jong Un, 41, is still young, has no major health issues and has other children.
Some South Korean officials and experts initially expressed doubts over Ju Ae as the future heir, citing North Korea’s male-nominated power structure and Confucian influence.
Since its foundation in 1948, North Korea has been successively ruled by male members of the Kim family. Kim Jong Un inherited power upon his father Kim Jong Il’s death in late 2011. Kim Jong Il took over power after his father and state founder Kim Il Sung died in 1994.
North Korea’s state media have yet to make any direct comments on a power succession plan beyond Kim Jong Un. It has also not commented on whether Ju Ae has any siblings.
![]()
Kim Jong Un has brought his daughter to Beijing. What to know about the possible North Korean heir
Short Url
https://arab.news/zg3wq
Kim Jong Un has brought his daughter to Beijing. What to know about the possible North Korean heir
- Since 2022, Kim Jong Un has showcased his daughter at a growing number of major public events tied to his nuclear-armed military, fueling speculation she is being primed as the country’s next leader
Trump’s new tariffs shift focus to balance of payments; economists see no crisis
President Donald Trump’s temporary 15 percent tariffs to replace those struck down by the US Supreme Court are meant to resolve a problem that many economists say does not exist: a US balance of payments crisis, making them potentially vulnerable to new legal challenges.
Hours after the high court on Friday struck down a huge swath of tariffs Trump had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president announced the new duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a never-used statute that even his own legal team dismissed as irrelevant months ago.
Collections of the new 15 percent tariffs began at midnight on Tuesday as IEEPA tariff collections of 10 percent to 50 percent halted.
The Section 122 law allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on any and all countries to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits and “fundamental international payments problems.”
Trump’s tariff order argued that a serious balance of payments deficit existed in the form of a $1.2 trillion annual US goods trade deficit and a current account deficit of 4 percent of GDP and a reversal of the US primary income surplus.
Some economists, including former International Monetary Fund First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath, disagreed with the Trump administration’s alarm.
“We can all agree that the US is not facing a balance of payment crisis, which is when countries experience an exorbitant increase in international borrowing costs and lose access to financial markets,” Gopinath told Reuters.
Gopinath rejected the White House’s claim that a negative balance on the US primary income for the first time since 1960 was evidence of a large and serious balance of payment problem.
She attributed the negative balance to a large increase in foreign purchases of US equities and risky assets over the past decade, which outperformed foreign equities over this period.
Mark Sobel, a former US Treasury and IMF official, said that balance of payments crises are more associated with countries that have fixed exchange rates, and noted that the floating-rate dollar has been steady, the 10-year Treasury yield fairly stable, with US stocks performing well.
Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council think tank, agreed, noting that a balance of payments crisis occurred when a country could not pay for what it was importing or was unable to service foreign debt. That was fundamentally different from a trade deficit, he added.
Brad Setser, a currency and trade expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a senior adviser to the US Trade Representative in the Biden administration, took a somewhat contrarian view, arguing in lengthy X posts on Sunday that the Trump administration may have a reasonable case that there is a “large and serious” balance of payments deficit.
He noted that the current account deficit was far higher than when then-president Richard Nixon erected tariffs in 1971 to address a balance of payments crisis, and the US net international investment position is much worse. This “gives the administration a real argument,” in favor of its tariffs, Setser wrote.
The White House, US Treasury and US Trade Representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the use of Section 122.
WRONG STATUTE FOR THE JOB
Despite the Trump administration’s new focus on balance of payments, the Justice Department had previously argued that Section 122 was the wrong statute to handle a national emergency over the trade deficit.
In court filings in its defense of IEEPA tariffs, the Justice Department said Section 122 would not have “any obvious application here, where the concerns the president identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”
Neal Katyal, who argued at the Supreme Court on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the IEEPA tariffs, told CNBC that the Trump administration’s stance against the use of Section 122 for a trade deficit will make those tariffs vulnerable to litigation.
“I’m not sure it will necessarily even need to get to the Supreme Court, but if the president adheres to this plan of using a statute that his own Justice Department has said he can’t use, yeah, I think that’s a pretty easy thing to litigate,” Katyal said.
It is unclear who might take the lead in challenging the Section 122 tariffs.
Sara Albrecht, chair of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit, public-interest law firm representing several small businesses that challenged the IEEPA tariffs, said the group would closely monitor any new statutes being invoked.
Albrecht did not reveal any future litigation strategy, adding: “Our immediate focus is simple: making sure the refund process begins and that checks start flowing to the American businesses that paid those unconstitutional duties.”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not give instructions regarding refunds, instead remanding the case to a lower trade court to determine next steps.
Hours after the high court on Friday struck down a huge swath of tariffs Trump had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president announced the new duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a never-used statute that even his own legal team dismissed as irrelevant months ago.
Collections of the new 15 percent tariffs began at midnight on Tuesday as IEEPA tariff collections of 10 percent to 50 percent halted.
The Section 122 law allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on any and all countries to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits and “fundamental international payments problems.”
Trump’s tariff order argued that a serious balance of payments deficit existed in the form of a $1.2 trillion annual US goods trade deficit and a current account deficit of 4 percent of GDP and a reversal of the US primary income surplus.
Some economists, including former International Monetary Fund First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath, disagreed with the Trump administration’s alarm.
“We can all agree that the US is not facing a balance of payment crisis, which is when countries experience an exorbitant increase in international borrowing costs and lose access to financial markets,” Gopinath told Reuters.
Gopinath rejected the White House’s claim that a negative balance on the US primary income for the first time since 1960 was evidence of a large and serious balance of payment problem.
She attributed the negative balance to a large increase in foreign purchases of US equities and risky assets over the past decade, which outperformed foreign equities over this period.
Mark Sobel, a former US Treasury and IMF official, said that balance of payments crises are more associated with countries that have fixed exchange rates, and noted that the floating-rate dollar has been steady, the 10-year Treasury yield fairly stable, with US stocks performing well.
Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council think tank, agreed, noting that a balance of payments crisis occurred when a country could not pay for what it was importing or was unable to service foreign debt. That was fundamentally different from a trade deficit, he added.
Brad Setser, a currency and trade expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a senior adviser to the US Trade Representative in the Biden administration, took a somewhat contrarian view, arguing in lengthy X posts on Sunday that the Trump administration may have a reasonable case that there is a “large and serious” balance of payments deficit.
He noted that the current account deficit was far higher than when then-president Richard Nixon erected tariffs in 1971 to address a balance of payments crisis, and the US net international investment position is much worse. This “gives the administration a real argument,” in favor of its tariffs, Setser wrote.
The White House, US Treasury and US Trade Representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the use of Section 122.
WRONG STATUTE FOR THE JOB
Despite the Trump administration’s new focus on balance of payments, the Justice Department had previously argued that Section 122 was the wrong statute to handle a national emergency over the trade deficit.
In court filings in its defense of IEEPA tariffs, the Justice Department said Section 122 would not have “any obvious application here, where the concerns the president identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”
Neal Katyal, who argued at the Supreme Court on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the IEEPA tariffs, told CNBC that the Trump administration’s stance against the use of Section 122 for a trade deficit will make those tariffs vulnerable to litigation.
“I’m not sure it will necessarily even need to get to the Supreme Court, but if the president adheres to this plan of using a statute that his own Justice Department has said he can’t use, yeah, I think that’s a pretty easy thing to litigate,” Katyal said.
It is unclear who might take the lead in challenging the Section 122 tariffs.
Sara Albrecht, chair of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit, public-interest law firm representing several small businesses that challenged the IEEPA tariffs, said the group would closely monitor any new statutes being invoked.
Albrecht did not reveal any future litigation strategy, adding: “Our immediate focus is simple: making sure the refund process begins and that checks start flowing to the American businesses that paid those unconstitutional duties.”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not give instructions regarding refunds, instead remanding the case to a lower trade court to determine next steps.
Latest updates
© 2026 SAUDI RESEARCH & PUBLISHING COMPANY, All Rights Reserved And subject to Terms of Use Agreement.