FBI probes leak tied to former NCTC head Joe Kent amid Iran tensions

The FBI is investigating suspected confidential-leak activity connected to Joe Kent, the former head of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). Kent resigned earlier this week, citing conscience grounds as his reason for stepping down from the post amid the Iran war confrontation.

The Hill, citing NewsNation, reported that the FBI probe was already underway before Kent’s resignation. The report adds context to a growing internal security affair surrounding a high-ranking official who had led the NCTC during a period of intense debate over U.S. policy toward Iran.

Kent, described as a close aide to the director of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), stepped down on March 17. He said he could not support the war in Iran on moral grounds. The account notes that, since the Jan. 28 start of the confrontation with Iran after U.S. and Israeli strikes, this resignation represented a notable moment within the Trump-era security apparatus.

In an appearance with conservative host Tucker Carlson, Kent asserted that Israel had driven the decision to attack and warned that the move would provoke a broader sequence of conflict, including potential Iranian retaliation.

White House spokesperson Caroline Leavitt dismissed Kent’s statements as insulting and ridiculous, according to the report. President Donald Trump also commented on Kent, saying he had previously believed Kent was a good person but weak on security, and that reading his remarks made him glad Kent had resigned.

The timeline centers on the broader Iran conflict that began with the late January strikes by the United States and Israel. The resulting security crisis has heightened scrutiny of U.S. intelligence sharing, civilian leadership, and the balance between security priorities and political considerations in foreign policy.

For U.S. readers, the episode highlights several stakes: the integrity of confidential information within the U.S. intelligence community, the dynamics of domestic debate over Iran policy, and how high-level personnel decisions feed into the credibility and execution of national security strategies. It also underscores how security-state disputes can shape public messaging and political response in a volatile regional landscape.