The FBI is investigating whether Joe Kent, who resigned his position as director of the U.S. government's National Counterterrorism Center this week in protest of the Iran war, improperly shared classified information, a person familiar with the matter said Wednesday.
The investigation precedes Kent's resignation Tuesday from his role at the National Counterterrorism Center, according to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing FBI inquiry.
Kent disclosed his departure in a statement on X in which he cited concerns about the justification for military strikes in Iran. "I cannot in good conscience" back the war against Iran, Kent wrote.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative Republicans have largely supported the administration's Iran policy and criticized Kent's resignation as undermining national security. President Trump told reporters that he always thought Kent was "weak on security" and said that if someone in his administration did not believe Iran was a threat, "we don't want those people."
Other Trump administration officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, have sought to distance themselves from Kent and his assessment. Republicans have emphasized the importance of protecting classified information and argued that any unauthorized disclosure could endanger intelligence sources and methods.
Conservative commentators have noted that Kent's public statement criticizing Israel and its American lobby while resigning from a national security post raised questions about his judgment and potentially violated confidentiality obligations. The investigation, they argue, is a legitimate inquiry into potential mishandling of classified information rather than retaliation.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive Democrats and civil liberties advocates have raised concerns about the timing of the FBI investigation, noting it follows a pattern of investigations into Trump critics. Democrats have noted that the Justice Department has undertaken multiple investigations over the last year into political foes of President Donald Trump, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, with prosecutors repeatedly struggling to secure convictions.
Some progressive voices have defended Kent's decision to resign over policy disagreements, arguing that whistleblowers raising concerns about war justification should be protected rather than investigated. Kent's statement that Iran posed no imminent threat to the nation reflected a position shared by some House Democrats who questioned the administration's rationale for military action.
Progressive commentators have noted that if Kent leaked information to expose what he believed was an unjustified war, it could represent whistleblowing in the public interest, warranting protection rather than prosecution.
What the Numbers Show
The FBI investigation into Kent's conduct was first reported by Semafor. Additional details about what the investigation is examining were not immediately available.
Kent previously ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Republican candidate. The investigation precedes his resignation and was ongoing before he left the administration.
The Justice Department has undertaken multiple investigations over the last year into political figures, with prosecutors often struggling to secure charges amid rejections from judges or failing to secure indictments in the first place.
The Bottom Line
The FBI investigation into Joe Kent adds another chapter to the Justice Department's recent history of investigating political figures, though details remain limited about what specific classified information may have been improperly shared. Kent's resignation over policy disagreements with the Iran war marks a rare high-profile departure from the administration on those grounds. The investigation will likely examine whether his concerns about Iran policy extended to unauthorized disclosures of classified intelligence, while defenders argue whistleblowers raising good-faith concerns about war justification deserve protection. The case underscores the tension between executive branch loyalty and the obligation to protect classified information, particularly in the context of contentious foreign policy debates over Iran.