Joe Kent, who served as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center under former President Donald Trump, has resigned, voicing significant concerns over the ongoing conflict with Iran. His departure has drawn attention not only because of his resignation but also due to claims that he was already under investigation by the FBI for allegedly leaking classified information.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/Joe-Kent-director-National-Counterterrorism-Center-031926-tout-002007ccdf5148b0aa30020d9df62cf3.jpg)
In a letter addressed to President Trump, Kent, a former Army and CIA officer, expressed his inability to support the war in Iran, contending that it offers no meaningful benefit to the American people and does not justify the loss of American lives. He suggested that the conflict had been instigated under pressure from Israel and powerful lobbies in the United States. Kent, who had held his position since February 2025, opened his letter by stating, “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.”
The resignation letter further accused higher-ranking Israeli officials and certain segments of American media of engaging in misinformation campaigns that undermined Trump’s “America First” policy. He described how these efforts misled the administration into perceiving Iran as a looming threat requiring immediate military action. Kent’s letter reflects deep-seated frustrations shared by some former officials regarding how foreign policy decisions are influenced by external pressures.
In the days following Kent’s resignation on 17 March 2026, reports from multiple media outlets indicated that his departure was linked to a lengthy FBI investigation. This investigation reportedly focuses on allegations concerning the leaking of classified information during his tenure. Administration sources described Kent as a “known leaker,” suggesting concerns over his conduct had been present for some time. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that Kent had not participated in the president’s intelligence briefings for several months before his departure.
After resigning, Kent appeared on conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson’s show, where he asserted that the Trump administration lacked credible intelligence regarding any imminent threat from Iran. He went on to criticise former Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, remarking that Khamenei had been managing Iran’s nuclear programme and preventing the country from acquiring nuclear weapons. Kent warned that removing such a stabilising figure could potentially unify the Iranian population around the regime.
Adding to the controversy, Kent claimed that he felt stifled in his ability to inform the president about intelligence that contradicted the prevailing narrative within the administration. He described his resignation as an act of conscience, stating that remaining in his role would have compromised his capacity to voice alternative perspectives on the administration’s trajectory regarding Iran.
Kent’s statements have not gone unnoticed, with some critics, including former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, labelling him as holding views considered “virulently anti-Semitic.” The implications of his remarks about Israel and the ongoing war efforts have drawn scrutiny and prompted debates about the intersections of foreign policy, intelligence, and personal ideologies within the US administration.
In his conversation with Carlson, Kent also alluded to the circumstances around the assassination of Charlie Kirk, an advisor to Trump, who had opposed the war with Iran. He suggested that Kirk’s assassination was tied to his anti-war stance, raising further questions about the motivations behind such actions within the political landscape. His claims connect the dots between political pressures and violent outcomes, although they remain largely unsubstantiated.
Kent’s controversial narrative has been met with mixed reactions, indicating the complexities and divisions within US foreign policy discussions. His resignation and the surrounding allegations continue to spark conversations about accountability, the influence of lobbying within political circles, and the broader implications for US relations in the Middle East.
As the situation unfolds, Kent’s claims and the FBI investigation may shed further light on the intricacies of intelligence operations and the potential ramifications of policy decisions that shape international relations. The broader context of these developments is likely to provoke continued debate and scrutiny as officials and analysts assess the implications for US security and the political landscape. Kent’s actions and his subsequent discourse serve as a focal point for discussions around the effectiveness and integrity of US foreign policy strategies.