The New Year’s Day terrorist attack by Islamic State-inspired extremist Shamsud-Din Jabbar, which killed 14 people, made headlines. But he was only one of dozens of extremists on American shores willing to carry out attacks.

That’s the chilling reality laid bare in a major new report from the House Homeland Security Committee, which was shared exclusively with The Washington Times ahead of its public release today. Here’s the big takeaway: The U.S. homeland is vulnerable. And the report details more than 50 jihadist cases in 30 states over just the last four years. Most of those cases involved individuals charged with attempting to provide material support to terror groups such as ISIS, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and others.

The combination of those extremist cases at home and the political chaos and instability in Syria, Afghanistan, northern Africa and other terrorist hotbeds has created a dangerous cocktail for the U.S. and its allies in Europe. Across the Atlantic, the GOP report said, there have been 187 terror-related attacks, plots or arrests in Europe just since just the beginning of 2023. 

One of the terror cases cited in the House GOP report involved Asif Merchant, a Pakistani national with ties to Iran who was charged last September in an alleged murder-for-hire plot believed to have been targeting Mr. Trump. Iran-linked figures have also targeted former White House National Security Adviser John Bolton, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other former Trump administration officials for assassination. This all stems from their role in the January 2020 U.S. airstrike that killed former top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Mr. Bolton and other officials have had significant security details amid those Iranian threats. But Mr. Bolton said Tuesday that Mr. Trump has canceled the Secret Service detail Mr. Biden had provided for him. Mr. Bolton went from Mr. Trump’s national security adviser to one of his most vocal critics, and there’s clearly no love lost between the two men.

Mr. Trump has also targeted the security clearances of former U.S. intelligence officials who signed a public letter prior to the 2020 election suggesting information about Biden family corruption found on a laptop computer once owned by Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, was a Russian disinformation ploy. National Security Correspondent Bill Gertz has all the details on this rapidly developing story, which is already creating ripples inside national security and intelligence circles. 

It has quickly emerged as one of the most high-stakes national security questions of Mr. Trump’s early days in office: Will he actually dispatch U.S. troops to Mexico to target dangerous drug cartels?

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum seems to be taking the idea seriously. She said at a press conference Tuesday that her nation would defend its sovereignty and independence, but would also coordinate with Washington to fight the cartels.

Mr. Trump might have the legal grounds for direct military action after he formally designated the cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations” in an executive order earlier this week. Mr. Trump said it “could happen.” He’s already made clear he’ll send significant numbers of troops to the border, though sending them into Mexico itself is obviously a much different proposition.

But the idea isn’t new in Republican political circles. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a key Trump ally, called for such action back in 2023. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a 2024 Republican presidential primary candidate, said he’d do it if elected. Some foreign policy analysts, however, argue that sending troops to Mexico wouldn’t actually work and could be a foreign policy disaster for the U.S.

Washington Times Asia Editor Andrew Salmon has a fresh dispatch from Seoul, where he reports that South Korea and other key U.S. allies in Asia are bracing for what Mr. Trump’s return to office could mean for them. Concerns, Mr. Salmon reports, center on an “America First” president who has focused on the U.S. cost of Asian alliances, and who has made clear that no ally will get a “free ride.” Mr. Trump has also vowed to get tough on Japan and South Korea, which have significant trade surpluses with the U.S.

And it’s worth keeping in mind: No single NATO-style U.S.-led defense network shields the Asian ally nations. Japan, South Korea and the Philippines have separate treaties with the U.S. but no overarching security architecture.

South Korea, of course, is dealing with its own domestic political turmoil after the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol. National Security Editor Guy Taylor has an exclusive interview with Na Kyung-won, a member of the South Korean parliament and of Mr. Yoon’s conservative People Power Party. She was in Washington this week calling on Mr. Trump to express support for freedom and democracy in Northeast Asia at a moment when China and North Korea may seek to take advantage of the political crisis in Seoul. 

She said that Mr. Trump could “strengthen the U.S.-South Korea alliance” by backing Mr. Yoon’s party publicly at a moment when she said the liberal opposition in Seoul is on the attack in ways that may benefit China.

For all of his other priorities, Mr. Trump’s ultimate legacy could largely hinge on whether he can defeat the single greatest existential threat to American democracy: the Chinese Communist Party. 

That’s the argument from Washington Times columnist Miles Yu, who makes the case that Mr. Trump must make clear to the world that it’s no longer possible to be neutral in the U.S.-China standoff. 

“Fortunately, we have already witnessed President Trump’s determination to challenge geopolitical opportunism, as evidenced by his bold demands for Panama to return control of the Panama Canal (now under Chinese interests) and his desire to acquire Greenland, a strategic chokepoint coveted by Beijing,” Mr. Yu writes. “The rationale behind ending global neutrality between the U.S. and China is profound, vital and indispensable for free nations’ future.”

• Jan. 22 — Saving Georgian Democracy: A Conversation with President Salome Zourabichvili, American Enterprise Institute

• Jan. 24 — Project on Nuclear Issues live debate: AI Integration in U.S. Nuclear Command, Control and Communications, Center for Strategic & International Studies

• Jan. 28 — The North Caucasus and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine, Wilson Center

• Feb. 10-11 — Artificial Intelligence Action Summit, Government of France