Kent’s resignation as director of the National Counterterrorism Center on Tuesday underscored the sharp divide over why the U.S. moved toward military strikes in Iran, with the senior counterterrorism official saying he could not support President Donald Trump’s war “in good conscience.” Kent, who had been responsible for analyzing and detecting terrorist threats, said in a statement posted on social media that Iran posed no imminent threat to the U.S. and that the U.S. started the war because of pressure from Israel and its “powerful American lobby.” Trump and top allies have disputed Kent’s claims, and Trump said from the Oval Office that he wanted officials in his administration who agreed that Iran was a “tremendous threat.”
Kent’s departure came as lawmakers were set to ramp up scrutiny of intelligence and security threats. The resignation also landed amid heightened anxiety about terrorism following several recent violent attacks in the U.S., including an incident in New York City involving a far-right protest and homemade bombs, a deadly vehicle attack on a synagogue in Michigan, and a university classroom shooting in Virginia that ended after the gunman was killed by students.
In describing his decision, Kent said it came down to what he wrote was the reasoning behind the strikes on Iran. He argued that the case for the strikes did not match what he said was available at the time, saying he “cannot in good conscience” back the Trump administration’s war. His statement also asserted that the war began under pressure from Israel—an account Trump has denied, even as the White House has offered shifting reasons for the Iran strikes.
Trump said Tuesday that he always thought Kent was “weak on security,” and he added that if a person in his administration did not believe Iran posed a threat, “we don’t want those people.” Speaking more broadly about Iran, Trump said, “Iran was a tremendous threat.” Trump’s comments followed a year earlier, when he had praised Kent during a nomination, saying Kent had “hunted down terrorists and criminals his entire adult life.”
Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, whose office oversaw Kent’s work, also weighed in through a social media post. Gabbard wrote that after reviewing the information available to Trump, the president concluded that Iran’s leadership posed an imminent threat and acted based on that conclusion. Gabbard’s post did not address her own views of the strikes.
The political fight over Kent’s views has extended beyond the administration. Democrats had opposed Kent’s confirmation last year, arguing that his past ties and public statements raised concerns. After Kent resigned, Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Kent’s concerns about the war in Iran were justified. Warner said he disagreed with many of Kent’s positions, particularly ones that risk politicizing the intelligence community, but said on the Iran war point, “he is right,” adding that there was no credible evidence of an imminent threat from Iran that would justify rushing the U.S. into “another war of choice.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, meanwhile, pushed back against Kent’s account at a Tuesday press conference. Johnson said he believed the threat was imminent and argued that Iran was close to enrichment of nuclear capability and was building missiles at a pace Johnson said no one in the region could keep up with. Johnson said he was convinced that if Trump had waited, the U.S. would have faced “mass casualties of Americans, service members and others,” and that the U.S. “installation would have been dramatically damaged.”
Kent’s resignation also comes against a backdrop of competing narratives about how the U.S. moved from diplomacy to strikes and what intelligence showed. The AP reported that Trump has offered shifting reasons for the Iran strikes and has rejected claims that Israel forced the U.S. to act. Johnson’s comments, and Gabbard’s description of Trump’s conclusions, reflect the administration’s view that the U.S. faced an imminent threat.
As officials and lawmakers focus on counterterrorism and intelligence questions, the hearing pipeline is also expanding this week. Gabbard, along with CIA Director John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel, are scheduled to testify before lawmakers about threats facing the U.S. That annual hearing, the AP said, is expected to be dominated this year by questions about the Iran war and the revelation that outdated intelligence likely contributed to the U.S. firing a missile that hit an elementary school in Iran and killed more than 165 people. Kent’s resignation adds another layer to those disputes, with Democrats and Republicans drawing opposite conclusions from the same core issue: whether the evidence justified immediate action.
Kent, 45, is a former Green Beret and has had a long political trajectory that included unsuccessful campaigns for Congress. Before joining Trump’s administration, he ran two campaigns in Washington state, and during his time in military service he saw combat in multiple deployments before retiring and joining the CIA. The AP reported that Kent’s wife, a Navy cryptologist, was killed in 2019 by a suicide bomber in Syria, leaving him with two young sons, and he has since remarried.
Trump supporters rallied behind Kent’s military background and narrative of personal sacrifice. In addition to his service record, the AP described how Kent had pursued political campaigns and had drawn attention during past races for ties and associations that critics said raised concerns. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Kent refused to distance himself from a conspiracy theory that federal agents instigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol and from false claims that Trump won the 2020 election over Democrat Joe Biden. Republicans defended Kent’s record in counterterrorism and intelligence, with Sen. Tom Cotton saying Kent had “dedicated his career to fighting terrorism and keeping Americans safe.”
After Kent resigned, his resignation underscored unease within at least one senior part of Trump’s national-security apparatus, even among people who had previously backed the president’s broader approach. While the White House disputed Kent’s rationale, the resignation itself demonstrated that the debate over the justification for the Iran strikes can reach beyond public critics and into top officials tasked with threat analysis.
Sources in the wider Trump-aligned world also pointed to internal disagreements about the intelligence and decisions behind the Iran war. With hearings scheduled and security threats in focus, Kent’s departure leaves the National Counterterrorism Center and the surrounding national-security leadership facing questions that extend beyond staffing and into the fundamental premise for the war decision—whether Iran posed an imminent threat that required immediate action.