America’s adversaries may be watching President Donald Trump weaken long-standing alliances, reduce military deterrence and create openings for the kind of surprise attack the nation’s security system was designed to prevent.
That is the chilling warning from Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff who helped draft Trump’s first-term National Security Strategy.
Taylor now says the president has dismantled the very framework his administration once adopted—and may have placed the United States in “unnecessary mortal peril.”
“I warned [in 2019] that flipping the script would put the United States in unnecessary mortal peril by exposing us to surprise attacks and stripping us of our greatest legacy and strongest protection: leadership of the free world,” Taylor wrote Monday.
“It’s happening now.”
Taylor’s use of Pearl Harbor is an analogy, not a prediction that a specific attack is imminent. His argument is that weakening alliances and reducing visible military preparedness could create the conditions in which an adversary believes it can strike without facing an immediate, unified response.
The warning followed Trump’s unprecedented order to “substantially reduce” joint military exercises between the United States and South Korea.
Those drills have formed a central part of the alliance’s defense against nuclear-armed North Korea since the 1970s. They allow American and South Korean troops to practice communicating, coordinating and responding during a crisis.
North Korea has repeatedly denounced the exercises as rehearsals for invasion.
Trump adopted a similar description Sunday, calling the drills “inappropriate and hostile” toward a country he characterized as “unthreatening and respectful.”
He also complained that South Korea had refused to participate in his war against Iran and emphasized the cost of the exercises to the United States.
For Taylor, the decision represented an extraordinary concession to Kim Jong Un.
“Ah yes, Mr. President, they are so ‘unthreatening’ that during your first term we had to urgently plan for the possibility that the hermit kingdom might launch a nuclear attack on the continental United States because Kim Jong Un was so ‘respectful,’” he wrote sarcastically.
The threat is not theoretical.
A senior U.S. military official warned Sunday that North Korea has successfully tested intercontinental ballistic missiles with enough power to deliver a nuclear payload anywhere in North America.
Kim has continued expanding his nuclear arsenal while sending troops to support Russia’s war against Ukraine. Yet Trump’s reduction of military exercises appears to offer Pyongyang a significant strategic benefit without requiring North Korea to dismantle a weapon or alter its behavior.
Taylor argues that the move is only one part of a broader retreat.
Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy committed the United States to defending Taiwan, resisting Russian aggression against NATO and responding firmly to North Korean provocations.
Taylor said aides largely shaped that document, establishing a conventional framework centered on military strength, alliances and American leadership.
Now, he argues, Trump is abandoning each commitment.
Near Taiwan, the United States faces what has been described as a Pacific “carrier gap,” potentially limiting America’s ability to respond rapidly if China launches a blockade or attack.
Near NATO territory, Russia’s expanding drone operations and alleged secret bases are generating fears that Moscow is developing new methods to threaten alliance members.
In Korea, Trump is reducing joint exercises at the moment North Korea’s missiles are becoming more capable.
Individually, each decision may have an explanation. Aircraft carriers rotate through maintenance and deployment cycles. Military exercises can be adjusted for costs, diplomatic negotiations or operational needs. Presidents also have the authority to reconsider how America allocates its forces.
Together, Taylor sees something far more dangerous: the erosion of deterrence across multiple regions at once.
Deterrence depends on convincing an enemy that aggression will fail or carry unacceptable consequences. That message becomes weaker if American forces are absent, allies doubt Washington’s commitment or adversaries believe the president is unwilling to respond.
“Our enemies are gobsmacked by what’s happening,” Taylor wrote.
“Under Donald Trump, we’ve walked out onto thin ice and handed our foes a sledgehammer. They must be fist-pumping in foreign briefing rooms.”
The Pearl Harbor comparison carries enormous historical weight.
Before Japan attacked Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1941, American officials possessed scattered warnings but failed to anticipate where and when the blow would fall. The disaster demonstrated the catastrophic cost of underestimating an adversary’s intentions and leaving critical defenses vulnerable.
Taylor is not claiming history will repeat itself exactly.
He is warning that surprise becomes more likely when opponents see weakness, confusion and gaps in readiness.
Trump presents his approach as a rejection of expensive foreign commitments and unnecessary provocation. His supporters argue that allies have relied too heavily on American protection and that personal diplomacy can reduce the risk of war.
Taylor sees the opposite.
To him, America’s alliances are not charitable gifts. They are an early-warning network, a system of forward defense and a promise that adversaries cannot isolate the United States from its partners.
By weakening that system, Trump may believe he is pulling America away from danger.
Taylor’s warning is that he could be bringing danger closer.
