Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had no idea that her own National Counterterrorism Center director was under FBI investigation for allegedly leaking classified information before he walked out the door. A senior intelligence official told Fox News Digital on Thursday that Gabbard "was not aware" of the probe into Joe Kent prior to his resignation on Tuesday.
Kent, who publicly broke with President Donald Trump over the war in Iran, wrote in his resignation letter that Tehran posed "no imminent threat" to the United States. He had already been cut out of planning meetings related to Operation Epic Fury, the current Iran mission, as well as the president's daily briefings, according to administration officials.
The FBI investigation into Kent had been underway for weeks before his departure, according to two sources briefed on the matter.
Kent's resignation didn't just create a vacancy. It created a spectacle. The man who was supposed to oversee the integration and analysis of intelligence related to terrorist threats instead used his exit to publicly contradict the commander-in-chief's assessment of Iran. That's not a policy disagreement aired through proper channels. That's a grenade tossed on the way out the door.
According to Fox News, Gabbard was pressed on Kent's claims during congressional hearings, where Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., read portions of his resignation letter aloud and asked whether Gabbard agreed with his statement. Gabbard gave a one-word answer:
"Yes."
When pressed further, Gabbard offered a notably measured response about the president's decision-making authority:
"He said a lot of things in that letter."
She added that the president "makes his own decisions based on the information that's available to him." That's a careful line to walk: acknowledging Kent's letter without endorsing the insubordination behind it, while affirming the president's prerogative to act on intelligence as he sees fit.
The more troubling question isn't what Kent wrote in his resignation letter. It's why the nation's top intelligence official wasn't informed that a senior figure in her own chain of command was being investigated by the FBI for leaking classified material.
FBI leak investigations are tightly held by design. That's standard practice and for good reason. But the practical result here is striking: Gabbard was fielding questions about Kent's public statements without knowing the full picture of his alleged conduct behind the scenes.
The accounts of what happened behind closed doors are tangled. One senior administration official said the White House asked Gabbard to fire Kent, and she did not do so. Another official said the White House had complained to Gabbard about Kent, describing him as a "known leaker." An official at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence pushed back, saying Gabbard would have fired Kent if the president had asked her to.
Three unnamed officials, three different versions. What's consistent across all of them is that Kent was a problem, people knew he was a problem, and the situation festered until he removed himself.
Washington has a long and ugly history of intelligence officials using their access as leverage on the way out. The playbook is familiar: accumulate credibility inside the national security apparatus, develop a public disagreement with the administration, then resign with a letter designed less for the president's desk than for the front page.
Kent's case adds a layer that most of these dramas don't have. He wasn't just a disgruntled official airing policy grievances. He was, according to the FBI, allegedly leaking classified information. If that allegation holds up, his resignation letter reads less like principled dissent and more like the final act of someone who already had one foot out of bounds.
The fact that he had already been excluded from Operation Epic Fury briefings and the president's daily intelligence briefings tells you everything about where the trust stood before the letter ever landed. Officials don't get walled off from core mission planning because of a personality clash. They get walled off because someone, somewhere, decided the risk of keeping them in the room outweighed the value.
The FBI investigation continues. No charges have been described publicly, and the probe's ultimate findings remain to be seen. But the political fallout is already in motion. Kent's resignation letter gave critics of the Iran mission a talking point, and the leak investigation, if it produces results, could reframe the entire episode from whistleblower narrative to something far less flattering.
For Gabbard, the episode underscores a challenge that every DNI faces but few talk about openly: the intelligence community is vast, compartmentalized, and populated by people who sometimes believe their judgment should override the elected officials they serve. Managing that reality requires not just authority but information. On Thursday, it became clear she didn't have all of it.
Kent is gone. The investigation isn't. And the next official who considers using a resignation letter as a press release now knows the FBI might already be watching.
