'I worked for Donald Trump - his deadly snakes suggestion revealed his true colours'

Miles Taylor, a former senior official at the Department of Homeland Security, has once again raised serious concerns about Donald Trump’s approach to power this time focusing on what he describes as a disturbing pattern in how Trump has spoken about civilians.

As tensions rise around a possible U.S. ground operation involving Iran, Taylor alleges that Trump has repeatedly shown what he calls an “almost obsessive attraction” to the idea of harming non-combatants. Drawing from his time inside the administration, Taylor says these weren’t isolated remarks but part of a broader mindset he witnessed firsthand.

Taylor, who previously authored A Warning anonymously before revealing himself ahead of the 2020 election, describes multiple internal discussions where Trump allegedly pushed for extreme and legally questionable measures. According to Taylor, these included proposals to make the southern border physically dangerous in ways that would deter migrants through fear and injury. He recounts conversations about superheating the border wall, adding sharp spikes, and even suggesting outlandish ideas like a fortified moat filled with dangerous animals.

What stands out in Taylor’s account is not just the severity of these suggestions, but the reaction inside the room. He describes aides scrambling to explain legal boundaries and prevent actions that could violate both U.S. and international law. In his telling, there was often a clear tension between Trump’s impulses and the constraints imposed by advisors and legal frameworks.

Taylor also connects this pattern to more recent rhetoric around Iran. He points to threats targeting critical infrastructure such as energy and desalination facilities that experts warn could disproportionately harm civilians. Legal scholars have noted that intentionally targeting systems essential for civilian survival can cross into collective punishment, which is prohibited under international humanitarian law.

Adding to the concern, Taylor recalls moments where Trump appeared wary of leaving a paper trail. In one meeting, he allegedly objected to note-taking altogether, which Taylor interprets as an awareness of the potential legal consequences of such discussions.

The administration, however, has firmly rejected these characterizations. Trump’s spokesperson has stated that any actions taken by the United States would remain within legal limits and consistent with the rules governing armed conflict.

As the situation involving Iran continues without a clear resolution, these competing narratives one from a former insider raising alarms, the other from officials defending policy and intent highlight a deeper debate about leadership, accountability, and the boundaries of executive power in times of crisis.