Good riddance Joe Kent - reaction. (US/Israel no one dies "for" others)

[Thethingsz]

Question.
If it is true that Trump asked Tulsi way earlier to fire Kent, why didn't she?

Another comment I will add is that the definition of 'imminent danger' is not so simple to dismiss. See what Rasmussen says at the bottom.

*

Summary resignation of failed leaker Joe Kent and reaction

The resignation of Joe Kent as head of the National Counterterrorism Center triggered widespread political reaction centered on U.S. policy toward Iran.

Administration response​

Donald Trump welcomed Kent’s departure, criticizing his view that Iran was not a threat and asserting the opposite. Tulsi Gabbard emphasized that the president determines national security threats and stated that Trump concluded Iran posed an imminent danger requiring action.

Kent’s position and resignation​

Kent resigned amid disagreements with the administration’s approach to Iran, including military action. In his statements, he argued Iran was not a direct threat and suggested U.S. decisions were influenced (supposedly) by Israel.

Criticism and allegations​

• The Anti-Defamation League and (even anti-Israel) J Street said his remarks echoed antisemitic conspiracy theories.
• Rep. Don Bacon supported his resignation and criticized both Iran and antisemitism.
• Reports also pointed to Kent’s past associations with extremist racist figures and earlier controversies, including election denialism.

Reactions within conservative circles​

• Laura Loomer and others accused Kent of inconsistency, citing his prior statements that Iran had threatened Trump following the killing of Qasem Soleimani.
• Some allies labeled him disloyal or a leaker, with reports claiming he had been excluded from intelligence briefings before resigning.

Political reactions​

Although Democrats had previously opposed Kent’s nomination due to his ties and views, some of them, suddenly promoted his "theories" in their overall anti Trump war.

References​

• Eric Mack, Fox News (March 17, 2026): Trump bids goodbye to intel official who resigned over Iran [link]
• Bill Barrow, Associated Press (via KOAT): What to know about Joe Kent’s resignation [*]
• Andrew Bernard, JNS (March 17, 2026): US counterterror center head resigns over Iran war [*]
• Marc Rod, Jewish Insider (March 17, 2026): Democrats elevate Kent’s resignation letter [link
• Times of India (March 18, 2026): Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Kent controversy [link]
• X (Twitter) posts:
  • @JKash000 (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]
  • Laura Loomer (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]
  • Rep. Don Bacon (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]
  • Anti-Defamation League (March 17, 2026)[link (*)]
  • Tulsi Gabbard (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]

(From this)

###

Nicholas Rasmussen:

Well, the question of imminence when you're talking about threats, national security threats, is not a black-and-white matter, as you can imagine. And even in what Director Kent put on the record with his letter today, he didn't speak specifically to the nuclear threat or the threat to U.S. interests from terrorism or the threat from, for example, Iran's ballistic missile program.

So in a sense, we don't know exactly what he was alluding to with his comments. As I was saying a bit ago, the concept of imminence is not black and white. It can have a very temporal component to it. If the intelligence community, for example, were in possession of information that said or suggested that an attack on U.S. interests was going to happen at this place on that day in this manner, that would certainly constitute an imminent threat.

But you can have imminence without having all of those elements as well. If you feel like -- and I say feel -- if you feel like you don't have the ability to forecast and project when an attack might happen, that might create a sense of imminence, even if you don't have that specific intelligence giving you time and place.

What Joe Kent’s resignation says about U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism efforts

To discuss Joe Kent’s comments about the Iran war and what his resignation says about the intelligence community, Nick Schifrin spoke with Nick Rasmussen. He directed the National Counterterrorism Center under the Obama administration.

www.pbs.org

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Question.
If it is true that Trump asked Tulsi way earlier to fire Kent, why didn't she?

*

Summary resignation of failed leaker Joe Kent and reaction

The resignation of Joe Kent as head of the National Counterterrorism Center triggered widespread political reaction centered on U.S. policy toward Iran.

Administration response​

Donald Trump welcomed Kent’s departure, criticizing his view that Iran was not a threat and asserting the opposite. Tulsi Gabbard emphasized that the president determines national security threats and stated that Trump concluded Iran posed an imminent danger requiring action.

Kent’s position and resignation​

Kent resigned amid disagreements with the administration’s approach to Iran, including military action. In his statements, he argued Iran was not a direct threat and suggested U.S. decisions were influenced (supposedly) by Israel.

Criticism and allegations​

• The Anti-Defamation League and (even anti-Israel) J Street said his remarks echoed antisemitic conspiracy theories.
• Rep. Don Bacon supported his resignation and criticized both Iran and antisemitism.
• Reports also pointed to Kent’s past associations with extremist racist figures and earlier controversies, including election denialism.

Reactions within conservative circles​

• Laura Loomer and others accused Kent of inconsistency, citing his prior statements that Iran had threatened Trump following the killing of Qasem Soleimani.
• Some allies labeled him disloyal or a leaker, with reports claiming he had been excluded from intelligence briefings before resigning.

Political reactions​

Although Democrats had previously opposed Kent’s nomination due to his ties and views, some of them, suddenly promoted his "theories" in their overall anti Trump war.

References​

• Eric Mack, Fox News (March 17, 2026): Trump bids goodbye to intel official who resigned over Iran [link]
• Bill Barrow, Associated Press (via KOAT): What to know about Joe Kent’s resignation [*]
• Andrew Bernard, JNS (March 17, 2026): US counterterror center head resigns over Iran war [*]
• Marc Rod, Jewish Insider (March 17, 2026): Democrats elevate Kent’s resignation letter [link
• Times of India (March 18, 2026): Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Kent controversy [link]
• X (Twitter) posts:
  • @JKash000 (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]
  • Laura Loomer (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]
  • Rep. Don Bacon (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]
  • Anti-Defamation League (March 17, 2026)[link (*)]
  • Tulsi Gabbard (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]

(From source)

He was not being briefed on Iran because he was a leaker, therefore he had no information about Iran's threat.

 

[Thethingsz]

He was not being briefed on Iran because he was a leaker, therefore he had no information about Iran's threat.

Your reply DOES make sense.

 

[Thethingsz]

Joe Kent Didn’t Find His Conscience. He Found His Audience.
Mar 17, 2026.

Before the media canonizes Joe Kent, Americans deserve to know who he actually is.
Joseph Kent’s resignation letter is textbook antisemitic dog-whistling dressed up as patriotism.

He didn’t resign over intelligence failures. He didn’t resign over a policy disagreement on strategy or sequencing. He resigned because, in his telling, America is fighting Israel’s war, waged through a Jewish lobby and an echo chamber of Israeli officials and American media. He says his wife died in “a war manufactured by Israel.”

Let’s be precise about what Kent is actually claiming: that the United States government was deceived into military action by Israeli influence operations — that American officials, American intelligence, and the American president himself were manipulated by Jewish power into a war that serves no American interest. That is not a foreign policy critique. That is a conspiracy theory with a body count of history behind it, and Americans deserve a full accounting of who Kent is, what he has done, and what his record reveals about the sincerity of his sudden conscience.

During his two congressional campaigns in Washington’s 3rd District, Kent’s campaign received significant criticism over its alleged ties to white nationalist groups. He entered into a dispute with far-right commentator Nick Fuentes, who described a phone call the men had in which Kent purportedly said, “I love what you’re doing.” After Kent disavowed Fuentes and stated he had not sought his endorsement, Fuentes chastised Kent for not being sufficiently conservative. Kent was later interviewed by an organization associated with Fuentes and stated American culture was “anti-white” and “anti-straight-white-male.”

The Fuentes connection alone would be disqualifying for any serious public official. Fuentes is an avowed white nationalist who describes his ambition as “fighting for a white majority” and who organized the America First Political Action Conference, a gathering that drew members of Congress willing to mainstream his ideology into Republican politics. Kent consulted with him on social media strategy early in his campaign and defended him publicly when he was banned from Twitter, tagging Fuentes by name in a post arguing his de-platforming represented dangerous government overreach.

Fuentes was only one node in Kent’s far-right network. The Associated Press reported that Kent’s campaign paid a member of the Proud Boys as a consultant, that Kent was a political ally of far-right Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson, and that Kent photographed himself with Greyson Arnold, a self-described Christian nationalist and, according to CNN, a man who has publicly described Adolf Hitler as “a complicated historical figure which many people misunderstand.” Kent also made repeated references in his campaign to Sam Francis, a white nationalist writer.

Each time these associations surfaced, Kent’s response was the same: I didn’t know who they were. He didn’t know who Nick Fuentes was, despite tagging him by name on Twitter. He didn’t know his own paid consultant was a Proud Boy. He didn’t know Greyson Arnold held the views he held, despite giving him an interview. The pattern of convenient ignorance, repeated across multiple relationships and multiple years, strains credulity past the breaking point.

At his nomination hearing, House Homeland Security Committee members noted that Kent had “ties to white nationalists, has called to defund the FBI and ATF, supported January 6th rioters who attacked police officers, sought political support from a Holocaust denier, dog whistles to the racist far-right, and spreads conspiracy theories that undermine democracy.”

Fast forward, not even a year.

Kent’s resignation letter claims that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.” He presents this as settled fact, as though it were the intelligence community’s consensus view, one that he, as NCTC Director, was uniquely positioned to know.

But Kent himself said the opposite, in his own words, less than two years ago. In September 2024, Kent posted on X: “Iran has been after Trump since January of 2020 after he ordered the targeted killing of the terrorist Qasem Soleimani. This isn’t a new threat.” He wrote this in the context of Trump warning publicly about Iranian assassination plots – plots that Kent, at the time, treated as entirely credible.

Either Kent was wrong then, or he is lying now. There is no third option. The man who today insists Iran was never a serious threat is the same man who, months before his appointment, was publicly affirming that Iran had been actively targeting the President of the United States for years. His conversion on this point coincides precisely with his exit from power – and with the anticipated Tucker Carlson interview that, per Axios, the Trump administration is now bracing for.

Kent invokes his combat deployments and his Gold Star status as a shield. Both are to be respected, but they earn him nothing on this point. The nobility of personal sacrifice does not sanitize the poison of what he’s written. Gold Star parents and veterans have been wrong before. Cindy Sheehan made the same argument from the same grief. The argument doesn’t improve with credentials.

The pattern here is not accidental.

What connects Kent’s far-right associations and his resignation letter is a consistent ideological thread: a reflexive tendency to locate Jewish power at the center of American foreign policy failures. The letter is not an aberration. It is the logical endpoint of a career built on these foundations.

We have now run the experiment. We have tried placing people with Kent’s background – documented associations with white nationalists, far-right paramilitary groups, and Holocaust-adjacent figures – into positions of serious government authority. Kent’s resignation letter is the verdict on this experiment. It didn’t work.

This is not a partisan observation. Extremism disqualifies. It disqualifies on the left and on the right. A government official who enters office carrying the ideological baggage of the white nationalist movement does not shed that baggage at the door — and when the pressure comes, as it always does, those underlying sympathies will find expression. They found expression here, on official National Counterterrorism Center stationery, in a letter that will be celebrated tonight by every antisemitic media outlet in the country.

People with extremist views and extremist sympathies – on any side of the political spectrum –should be seen as pariahs, not brought into government. That is not a call for ideological conformity. It is a recognition that there is a difference between unconventional views and views that are fundamentally incompatible with the equal dignity of all Americans. Kent’s letter crossed that line. His career, carefully examined, shows he was always pointed toward it.

President Trump answered Kent directly when asked by reporters today. He was characteristically blunt: “I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security, very weak on security.” Then, on the central factual claim in Kent’s letter – that Iran posed no imminent threat – the President was unequivocal: “When I read his statement, I realized that it’s a good thing that he’s out because he said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat. Every country realized what a threat Iran was.”

That’s the commander-in-chief, with access to the full intelligence picture, saying plainly what Kent’s own prior public statements confirmed: Iran was a threat. Kent knew it. He said so himself before his appointment. His resignation letter doesn’t represent a whistleblower’s courage; it represents a fired official’s revisionism, dressed up in the language of patriotism and laced with the oldest smear in the canon.

Kent should be asked, under oath if necessary, what he knew about Iran’s threat posture when he was advising the president – and why, the moment he left, his assessment inverted completely. The American people deserve an answer. So does the Jewish community, which has once again been handed the bill for someone else’s ideological grievances.

The Blogs: Joe Kent Didn’t Find His Conscience. He Found His Audience.

From the blog of Gerard Filitti at The Times of Israel

blogs.timesofisrael.com

 

[braalian]

Joe Kent Didn’t Find His Conscience. He Found His Audience.
Mar 17, 2026.

Before the media canonizes Joe Kent, Americans deserve to know who he actually is.
Joseph Kent’s resignation letter is textbook antisemitic dog-whistling dressed up as patriotism.

He didn’t resign over intelligence failures. He didn’t resign over a policy disagreement on strategy or sequencing. He resigned because, in his telling, America is fighting Israel’s war, waged through a Jewish lobby and an echo chamber of Israeli officials and American media. He says his wife died in “a war manufactured by Israel.”

Let’s be precise about what Kent is actually claiming: that the United States government was deceived into military action by Israeli influence operations — that American officials, American intelligence, and the American president himself were manipulated by Jewish power into a war that serves no American interest. That is not a foreign policy critique. That is a conspiracy theory with a body count of history behind it, and Americans deserve a full accounting of who Kent is, what he has done, and what his record reveals about the sincerity of his sudden conscience.

During his two congressional campaigns in Washington’s 3rd District, Kent’s campaign received significant criticism over its alleged ties to white nationalist groups. He entered into a dispute with far-right commentator Nick Fuentes, who described a phone call the men had in which Kent purportedly said, “I love what you’re doing.” After Kent disavowed Fuentes and stated he had not sought his endorsement, Fuentes chastised Kent for not being sufficiently conservative. Kent was later interviewed by an organization associated with Fuentes and stated American culture was “anti-white” and “anti-straight-white-male.”

The Fuentes connection alone would be disqualifying for any serious public official. Fuentes is an avowed white nationalist who describes his ambition as “fighting for a white majority” and who organized the America First Political Action Conference, a gathering that drew members of Congress willing to mainstream his ideology into Republican politics. Kent consulted with him on social media strategy early in his campaign and defended him publicly when he was banned from Twitter, tagging Fuentes by name in a post arguing his de-platforming represented dangerous government overreach.

Fuentes was only one node in Kent’s far-right network. The Associated Press reported that Kent’s campaign paid a member of the Proud Boys as a consultant, that Kent was a political ally of far-right Patriot Prayer founder Joey Gibson, and that Kent photographed himself with Greyson Arnold, a self-described Christian nationalist and, according to CNN, a man who has publicly described Adolf Hitler as “a complicated historical figure which many people misunderstand.” Kent also made repeated references in his campaign to Sam Francis, a white nationalist writer.

Each time these associations surfaced, Kent’s response was the same: I didn’t know who they were. He didn’t know who Nick Fuentes was, despite tagging him by name on Twitter. He didn’t know his own paid consultant was a Proud Boy. He didn’t know Greyson Arnold held the views he held, despite giving him an interview. The pattern of convenient ignorance, repeated across multiple relationships and multiple years, strains credulity past the breaking point.

At his nomination hearing, House Homeland Security Committee members noted that Kent had “ties to white nationalists, has called to defund the FBI and ATF, supported January 6th rioters who attacked police officers, sought political support from a Holocaust denier, dog whistles to the racist far-right, and spreads conspiracy theories that undermine democracy.”

Fast forward, not even a year.

Kent’s resignation letter claims that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.” He presents this as settled fact, as though it were the intelligence community’s consensus view, one that he, as NCTC Director, was uniquely positioned to know.

But Kent himself said the opposite, in his own words, less than two years ago. In September 2024, Kent posted on X: “Iran has been after Trump since January of 2020 after he ordered the targeted killing of the terrorist Qasem Soleimani. This isn’t a new threat.” He wrote this in the context of Trump warning publicly about Iranian assassination plots – plots that Kent, at the time, treated as entirely credible.

Either Kent was wrong then, or he is lying now. There is no third option. The man who today insists Iran was never a serious threat is the same man who, months before his appointment, was publicly affirming that Iran had been actively targeting the President of the United States for years. His conversion on this point coincides precisely with his exit from power – and with the anticipated Tucker Carlson interview that, per Axios, the Trump administration is now bracing for.

Kent invokes his combat deployments and his Gold Star status as a shield. Both are to be respected, but they earn him nothing on this point. The nobility of personal sacrifice does not sanitize the poison of what he’s written. Gold Star parents and veterans have been wrong before. Cindy Sheehan made the same argument from the same grief. The argument doesn’t improve with credentials.

The pattern here is not accidental.

What connects Kent’s far-right associations and his resignation letter is a consistent ideological thread: a reflexive tendency to locate Jewish power at the center of American foreign policy failures. The letter is not an aberration. It is the logical endpoint of a career built on these foundations.

We have now run the experiment. We have tried placing people with Kent’s background – documented associations with white nationalists, far-right paramilitary groups, and Holocaust-adjacent figures – into positions of serious government authority. Kent’s resignation letter is the verdict on this experiment. It didn’t work.

This is not a partisan observation. Extremism disqualifies. It disqualifies on the left and on the right. A government official who enters office carrying the ideological baggage of the white nationalist movement does not shed that baggage at the door — and when the pressure comes, as it always does, those underlying sympathies will find expression. They found expression here, on official National Counterterrorism Center stationery, in a letter that will be celebrated tonight by every antisemitic media outlet in the country.

People with extremist views and extremist sympathies – on any side of the political spectrum –should be seen as pariahs, not brought into government. That is not a call for ideological conformity. It is a recognition that there is a difference between unconventional views and views that are fundamentally incompatible with the equal dignity of all Americans. Kent’s letter crossed that line. His career, carefully examined, shows he was always pointed toward it.

President Trump answered Kent directly when asked by reporters today. He was characteristically blunt: “I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security, very weak on security.” Then, on the central factual claim in Kent’s letter – that Iran posed no imminent threat – the President was unequivocal: “When I read his statement, I realized that it’s a good thing that he’s out because he said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat. Every country realized what a threat Iran was.”

That’s the commander-in-chief, with access to the full intelligence picture, saying plainly what Kent’s own prior public statements confirmed: Iran was a threat. Kent knew it. He said so himself before his appointment. His resignation letter doesn’t represent a whistleblower’s courage; it represents a fired official’s revisionism, dressed up in the language of patriotism and laced with the oldest smear in the canon.

Kent should be asked, under oath if necessary, what he knew about Iran’s threat posture when he was advising the president – and why, the moment he left, his assessment inverted completely. The American people deserve an answer. So does the Jewish community, which has once again been handed the bill for someone else’s ideological grievances.

The Blogs: Joe Kent Didn’t Find His Conscience. He Found His Audience.

From the blog of Gerard Filitti at The Times of Israel

blogs.timesofisrael.com

TL;DR

 

[JoeB131]

Let’s be precise about what Kent is actually claiming: that the United States government was deceived into military action by Israeli influence operations — that American officials, American intelligence, and the American president himself were manipulated by Jewish power into a war that serves no American interest. That is not a foreign policy critique. That is a conspiracy theory with a body count of history behind it, and Americans deserve a full accounting of who Kent is, what he has done, and what his record reveals about the sincerity of his sudden conscience.

I'm not sure how you can see it any other way.

For 40 years, the Zionists have been trying to get us to Attack Iran for them.

They just couldn't find a US President stupid enough to do it until now.

 

[JoeB131]

Reading Kent's letter in full, it is an indictment of the influence the Zionist Lobby has on our policy.

It's like the moment when the small child yells, "The Emperor has No Clothes."

 

[SweetTea]

I'm not sure how you can see it any other way.

For 40 years, the Zionists have been trying to get us to Attack Iran for them.

They just couldn't find a US President stupid enough to do it until now.

Right, there weren’t a threat but Obama felt the need to reach a nuclear agreement with the non-threat and give them billions of dollars back. Yeah, they don’t fund terrorism around the world and they have no desire to destroy Israel or the US. That is all just bluster, nevertheless, we HAD to have a nuclear agreement with them.

You guys are pretty dense.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Yet another antisemitic Jew hater.
ISRAEEEEEEEEEEEEL

 

[Thethingsz]

I'm not sure ...

Nothing personal . But I recall, months ago you, terribly, rationalized the Holocaust as "they couldn't get along. "

May the LORD have mercy on your soul.

 

[Thethingsz]

US government is FAR better off without conspiracy theorist Joe Kent.
By Post Editorial Board.
Published March 17, 2026, 6:51 p.m. ET

Feverish Iran-war critics Tuesday seized on Joe Kent’s resignation as national counterterrorism director as somehow proving President Donald Trump was foolish to launch Operation Epic Fury, when in fact Kent’s “I quit” letter proves he never belonged in that high post.

It’s not just that he contradicted his own past positions (e.g., saying Trump should’ve attacked Iran’s weapons programs in 2020) in a letter that now says Iran posed no “imminent threat” and insists Trump went to war two weeks ago “due to pressure from Is.. and its powerful American lobby.”

It’s that he bizarrely blamed Is. for the Gulf War (which Ariel Sharon quietly advised against) and even for his own wife’s tragic death in Syria at the hands of ISIS in a campaign begun by Israel-hating President Barack Obama (to clean up the mess created by Obama’s own policies).

US government is FAR better off without conspiracy theorist Joe Kent

President Trump has condemned antisemitism and is leading a successful war effort over the objections of extremists, left and right. If any more Joe Kents are still working for him, they need to go…

nypost.com

 

[citygator]

He was not being briefed on Iran because he was a leaker, therefore he had no information about Iran's threat.

Link?

 

[Thethingsz]

Link?

No need . That poster makes sense. As it sounds like Kent has a personal grudge

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like almost everyone else in Congress and America, Kent was not privy to Jared's Tingling Spidey Sense

 

[Thethingsz]

..Kent was not privy ..

Nor is Trump . Are you saying that Islamist powerful Qatar's 100 billion dollar lobbying is weak?
Yet again, Trump is not seeking reelection so who influences him? He has his own mind.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Reading Kent's letter in full, it is an indictment of the influence the Zionist Lobby has on our policy.

It's like the moment when the small child yells, "The Emperor has No Clothes."

Looks like the one thing good out of all this is exposing how much control Israel has over America.

Before 2025, that was a conspiracy theory.

Now it is obviously true.

BTW, Has anyone seen Netflix Yahoo lately?

 

[Thethingsz]

AP reported in July 2022 that Kent:
"has connections to right-wing extremists, including a campaign consultant who was a member of the Proud Boys.". At Kent's hearing July 2025: Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, described him as a “conspiracy theorist who espouses white supremacist views and is patently unqualified for this important role in just about every way imaginable”. But his letter brought it all up. As in: Kent’s ties to the Far Right. His political career was defined as much by his extremist associations as his military record. During his 2022 campaign, a political consultant arranged a call that included Nick Fuentes—a white nationalist who participated in the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville; praised Hitler; and even said Jews hold the U.S. “hostage.” Fuentes later claimed in a livestream he told Kent “I love what you’re doing” and his network actively boosted Kent’s social media following.

 

[Thethingsz]

TL;DR

SUMMARY

The article points out that Joe Kent’s resignation was not based on policy disagreements but on claims framed as antisemitic conspiracy theories, alleging U.S. actions were driven by Israeli and Jewish influence. The author, Gerard Filitti, contends this reflects a consistent ideological pattern in Kent’s past.

It highlights Kent’s ties to far-right and white nationalist figures, including Nick Fuentes, and associations with extremist groups, alongside repeated claims by Kent that he was unaware of these connections. The article argues this pattern of “convenient ignorance” undermines his credibility.

Filitti also points to an apparent contradiction in Kent’s stance on Iran: previously acknowledging it as a threat, but later claiming it posed none, suggesting opportunism after leaving office.

The piece concludes that Kent’s resignation letter is not an act of conscience but the culmination of longstanding extremist views, arguing that individuals with such backgrounds are unfit for government roles. It cites criticism from Donald Trump, who stated Iran was indeed a threat, reinforcing the claim that Kent’s position is inconsistent and revisionist.

 

[Independent thinker]

Question.
If it is true that Trump asked Tulsi way earlier to fire Kent, why didn't she?

Another comment I will add is that the definition of 'imminent danger' is not so simple to dismiss. See what Rasmussen says at the bottom.

*

Summary resignation of failed leaker Joe Kent and reaction

The resignation of Joe Kent as head of the National Counterterrorism Center triggered widespread political reaction centered on U.S. policy toward Iran.

Administration response​

Donald Trump welcomed Kent’s departure, criticizing his view that Iran was not a threat and asserting the opposite. Tulsi Gabbard emphasized that the president determines national security threats and stated that Trump concluded Iran posed an imminent danger requiring action.

Kent’s position and resignation​

Kent resigned amid disagreements with the administration’s approach to Iran, including military action. In his statements, he argued Iran was not a direct threat and suggested U.S. decisions were influenced (supposedly) by Israel.

Criticism and allegations​

• The Anti-Defamation League and (even anti-Israel) J Street said his remarks echoed antisemitic conspiracy theories.
• Rep. Don Bacon supported his resignation and criticized both Iran and antisemitism.
• Reports also pointed to Kent’s past associations with extremist racist figures and earlier controversies, including election denialism.

Reactions within conservative circles​

• Laura Loomer and others accused Kent of inconsistency, citing his prior statements that Iran had threatened Trump following the killing of Qasem Soleimani.
• Some allies labeled him disloyal or a leaker, with reports claiming he had been excluded from intelligence briefings before resigning.

Political reactions​

Although Democrats had previously opposed Kent’s nomination due to his ties and views, some of them, suddenly promoted his "theories" in their overall anti Trump war.

References​

• Eric Mack, Fox News (March 17, 2026): Trump bids goodbye to intel official who resigned over Iran [link]
• Bill Barrow, Associated Press (via KOAT): What to know about Joe Kent’s resignation [*]
• Andrew Bernard, JNS (March 17, 2026): US counterterror center head resigns over Iran war [*]
• Marc Rod, Jewish Insider (March 17, 2026): Democrats elevate Kent’s resignation letter [link
• Times of India (March 18, 2026): Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Kent controversy [link]
• X (Twitter) posts:
  • @JKash000 (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]
  • Laura Loomer (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]
  • Rep. Don Bacon (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]
  • Anti-Defamation League (March 17, 2026)[link (*)]
  • Tulsi Gabbard (March 17, 2026) [link (*)]

(From this)

###

Nicholas Rasmussen:

Well, the question of imminence when you're talking about threats, national security threats, is not a black-and-white matter, as you can imagine. And even in what Director Kent put on the record with his letter today, he didn't speak specifically to the nuclear threat or the threat to U.S. interests from terrorism or the threat from, for example, Iran's ballistic missile program.

So in a sense, we don't know exactly what he was alluding to with his comments. As I was saying a bit ago, the concept of imminence is not black and white. It can have a very temporal component to it. If the intelligence community, for example, were in possession of information that said or suggested that an attack on U.S. interests was going to happen at this place on that day in this manner, that would certainly constitute an imminent threat.

But you can have imminence without having all of those elements as well. If you feel like -- and I say feel -- if you feel like you don't have the ability to forecast and project when an attack might happen, that might create a sense of imminence, even if you don't have that specific intelligence giving you time and place.

What Joe Kent’s resignation says about U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism efforts

To discuss Joe Kent’s comments about the Iran war and what his resignation says about the intelligence community, Nick Schifrin spoke with Nick Rasmussen. He directed the National Counterterrorism Center under the Obama administration.

www.pbs.org

Anyone with any common sense at all knows Iran has been a threat to world peace for 45 years now.

 

[E. Pluribus]

Remove the antisemitism charge and what do you have? The truth.