Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation Tuesday morning in a post on X, saying he opposed the administration’s military action in Iran. Within hours, the president’s loudest critics turned his departure into a victory lap.
The reaction tells you more about the people cheering than about the man who left. A familiar cast of Never Trumpers, liberal media figures, and Bulwark staffers seized on Kent’s exit as proof of cracks in the administration, the same cracks they have been predicting, and hoping for, since 2016.
Kent said he could not support the military action in good conscience and argued Iran posed no imminent threat. He claimed pressure from Israel started the war.
Those are serious claims. They deserve scrutiny, not a parade.
But scrutiny is not what the president’s opponents offered. They offered celebration, and a transparent attempt to use Kent’s resignation as a wedge inside the conservative coalition.
Tim Miller, Jeb Bush’s communications director in 2016 and now a Bulwark podcast host, praised Kent’s departure:
“Have talked a lot of shit about Joe Kent over the years (deserved) and can’t speak to all of his motivations here but I gotta say its pretty refreshing to see that someone in the administration has a red line on something.”
Miller spent years attacking Kent. Now Kent is useful, so Miller finds him “refreshing.” That is not principle. That is opportunism with a podcast mic.
Bill Kristol, the same Never Trumper who tried to recruit David French to run against the president in 2016, saw an opening to split the coalition:
“Interesting. How many other ambitious MAGA pols are seeing a path forward in opposing the war?”
Kristol’s question reveals the game. He does not care about Iran policy. He cares about fracturing the president’s base. He has been trying to do exactly that for a decade, joining a long line of institutional figures eager to undermine this administration.
Three Bulwark staffers weighed in. Andrew Egger, the outlet’s White House correspondent, used loaded language, calling Kent the “most groyper-adjacent member of the administration” who “jumps ship over Iran war.” Sam Stein, the Bulwark’s managing editor, seemed to celebrate the moment outright:
“wow. a top Tulsi deputy resigns over the war in Iran.”
ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl joined the chorus:
“Something we have rarely seen during the Trump era: a senior official resigning in protest, in this case, resigning to protest the war against Iran.”
Karl frames the resignation as historic and rare. The framing flatters the narrative that the administration is fracturing. One departure does not prove that.
Not everyone reached for champagne. Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) blasted Kent on his way out the door:
“Good riddance. Iran has murdered more than a thousand Americans. Their EFP land mines were the deadliest in Iraq. Anti-Semitism is an evil I detest, and we surely don’t want it in our government.”
Bacon’s response cuts to the core issue the celebration crowd ignores: Iran’s long, bloody record of killing Americans. That record does not vanish because a resignation makes for a convenient media moment.
David Reaboi, who worked to help Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) campaign against Trump in 2024, was even more blunt:
“Absolutely deranged nonsense. You know this guy’s brain is broken when he has to make up bullshit about the Iraq war. His wife writes for a pro-Hamas site, so you shouldn’t be shocked.”
Reaboi is no reflexive Trump loyalist. His criticism of Kent carries weight precisely because he has challenged the president before.
The speed and glee of the reaction tell the real story. The president’s opponents do not want a serious debate about Iran strategy. They want:
Kent’s claims about the justification for military action deserve honest examination. AP News reported that Kent stated Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation” and argued the war started “due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” Sen. Mark Warner was quoted saying he agreed there was “no credible evidence of an imminent threat.”
Those are policy arguments. They belong in congressional hearings and intelligence briefings, not in celebratory tweets from people who have opposed this president on every front since the day he came down the escalator.
Every time a figure inside the administration breaks ranks, the same machine fires up. Media outlets amplify the departure. Never Trumpers claim vindication. The Bulwark runs the story as confirmation of everything they have always believed.
Then the news cycle moves on, the coalition holds, and the critics wait for the next crack to exploit.
One resignation is not a revolt. And the people cheering loudest have spent years proving they care more about defeating this president than about getting policy right.
When your enemies celebrate your personnel move, it usually means you are doing something they fear. The question is never whether the opposition will cheer, it is whether the rest of us will mistake their cheering for wisdom.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.