Former U.S. counterterrorism director under FBI inquiry amid Iran policy clash.

Former U.S. National Counterterrorism Center director Joe Kent, 45, has been the subject of FBI inquiries over alleged improper handling of confidential information, according to American media reports that cite anonymous sources. Semafor, the Associated Press, and The New York Times say Kent had already faced an investigation before he announced his resignation, which he attributed to a conflict with the Trump White House over Iran policy.

Kent had become a prominent voice within the Trump administration’s circle, including appearances on conservative programs. On Tucker Carlson’s show, he said his concerns about a potential Iran attack were not allowed to reach the president, and he asserted that Trump was being influenced by a narrow group of advisers to proceed with military action against Iran. The reported timing places the start of the Israel-U.S. operation against Iran on Feb. 28, prior to his statements.

According to Kent, there was no clear evidence of an imminent threat from Iran, and he contended that Israel helped push the administration toward a military response. He declined to identify who blocked dissenting views from reaching the president, and he suggested that information presented to justify action did not reflect official channels.

Kent also asserted that information presented about Iran’s threat may have been shaped by allies. He cited remarks attributed to U.S. lawmakers and officials, including statements by Sen. Marco Rubio and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, as part of the push to defend the military action. He claimed that some information offered by Israel could not be independently verified by U.S. government personnel.

The National Counterterrorism Center, the agency Kent led, analyzes and shares intelligence to identify and track terrorism threats. It operates under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a structure intended to unify intelligence analysis across agencies.

In public testimony during a Senate Intelligence Committee session, James Clapper-era terms are not used here; instead, the committee asked DNI leadership whether there was an “immediate threat” from Iran. The DNI head avoided characterizing the threat in those terms, saying only that the president ultimately decides what is “immediate” or otherwise.

Beyond the internal U.S. debate, the episode matters for American readers because it touches on how intelligence is used to justify foreign policy and military action. The case highlights tensions within the United States about Iran policy, the influence of allied partners in shaping decisions, and how classified information is communicated to political leaders and the public. It also underscores how political factions within the United States—such as supporters of former President Trump’s MAGA movement—navigate questions of war, ethics, and accountability in national security decisions.