Breaking Report: Joe Kent Was Leaker Who Had Been Cut from President's Intel Briefings for Months

The resignation of Joe Kent is being viewed by many in Washington as a necessary course correction inside the national security apparatus, with reports suggesting his exit removes a suspected source of internal leaks during a critical period for U.S. foreign policy.

Kent, who had been serving as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced his departure in a public post on X, where he also sharply criticized U.S. involvement in the ongoing conflict with Iran.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” Kent wrote after releasing his resignation letter.

Swift Republican Backlash

Kent’s comments drew immediate condemnation from Republicans, including Rep. Don Bacon, who did not hold back.

“Good riddance. Iran has murdered more than a thousand Americans. Their EFP land mines were the deadliest in Iraq. Anti-Semitism is an evil I detest, and we surely don’t want it in our government,” Bacon posted on X.

The remarks underscore broader concerns among conservatives about national security leadership at a time when the United States is confronting escalating threats abroad.

Leak Allegations and Internal Friction

Multiple reports indicate Kent had already been sidelined within the Trump administration prior to his resignation. According to Aishah Hasnie, a senior administration official described Kent as “a known leaker” who had been excluded from presidential intelligence briefings months earlier.

“A senior administration official tells FOX, Joe Kent was: a known leaker and he was cut out of POTUS intelligence briefings months ago,” Hasnie reported.

“He has not been part of any Iran planning discussions or briefings at all,” she added.

Hasnie further claimed that the White House had urged Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to remove Kent over the suspected leaks, though that account has been disputed.

Mary Margaret Olohan reported conflicting information, stating, “It is not true that DNI’s Tulsi Gabbard was asked by the White House to fire Kent, source says — if she had been asked to do so, she would have fired him.”

Olohan did confirm, however, “that it’s true that Joe Kent wasn’t part of the planning of the Iran war or briefings on the war.”

Trump: ‘A Good Thing That He’s Out’

President Donald J. Trump weighed in on Kent’s departure, making clear he believes the exit strengthens the administration’s national security posture.

“I read his statement,” Trump said. “I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security, very weak on security.”

“I didn’t know him well, but I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy, but when I read his statement, I realized that it’s a good thing that he’s out,” Trump continued. “Because he said that Iran was not a threat.”

Rejecting Kent’s assertion, Trump emphasized the seriousness of the Iranian threat on the global stage.

“Iran was a threat. Every country realized what a threat Iran was. The question is whether or not they wanted to do something about it,” he said.

The president also reiterated his longstanding position that Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons, pointing to his decision to withdraw from the Obama-era nuclear agreement.

“If I didn’t terminate Obama’s horrible deal that he made, the Iran nuclear deal, you would have had a nuclear war four years ago,” Trump said. “You would have had nuclear holocaust, and you would have had it again if we didn’t bomb the site.”

“So when somebody is working with us that says they didn’t think Iran was a threat: We don’t want those people,” he added. “They’re not smart people, or they’re not savvy people.”

A Broader Message on National Security

Kent’s exit highlights a broader theme within the Trump administration’s second term: a renewed emphasis on loyalty, operational security, and a hardline stance against foreign adversaries.

For many conservatives, the episode reinforces the importance of having national security officials who align with the administration’s priorities—particularly at a time when global instability demands clarity and resolve from U.S. leadership.