A counter-terrorism official who resigned from Donald Trump’s administration over the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran says he expects political retaliation but would make the same choice again.
When conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly asked if he was worried about an existing FBI investigation into whether he leaked classified information, the official, Kent, expressed mixed feelings. He said he was “not concerned because I know I did nothing wrong.” However, referring to the Trump administration’s history of prosecuting the president’s perceived enemies, he added, “Of course, I am concerned because we’ve all seen the full weight of the FBI and the government come down on individuals who speak out.”
“That has me a little bit concerned,” he told Kelly on her Friday podcast. “But I know that the truth and the facts are on my side. The important issues to address are what’s at hand – why we’re at war and how we get out of the state that we’re in right now.”
A former U.S. Army Special Forces veteran, Kent stepped down as national counter-terrorism center director on Tuesday. Since then, he has appeared on several conservative media shows, including those hosted by Kelly and Tucker Carlson, who have been sympathetic to Trump but have also broken with him over the Iran war and other issues.
In interviews with Kelly, Carlson, and on the UnHerd podcast with Freddie Sayers, Kent stated he could no longer serve “in good conscience” due to the war with Iran, which the president initiated alongside Israel in late February without congressional approval.
In a widely publicized resignation letter, he argued that Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
Previously, Kent was an ideological supporter of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement. He defended the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack by Trump supporters, promoted debunked theories that the 2020 election won by Joe Biden was stolen, and interviewed the antisemitic far-right influencer Nick Fuentes. He also paid a member of the far-right Proud Boys to work on his unsuccessful 2022 congressional campaign.
Kent has been accused of promoting antisemitic stereotypes by blaming an “Israeli lobby” for the Iran conflict.
On her show, Kelly asked Kent if it was worth becoming a MAGA enemy now that he has joined a fringe group within Trump’s movement that is skeptical of the Iran war.
“Most certainly,” Kent replied. “I think I have a mission, and I think it is to do everything I can to stop this war.”
The White House dismissed Kent as “weak on security,” insisting Iran represents “a tremendous threat” and suggesting those who disagree lack judgment. Trump has said, “If somebody didn’t think it was a threat, we don’t want those people.”
During a recent House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, Kent’s former boss, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, strongly disagreed with his resignation letter. “He said a lot of things in that letter,” Gabbard said. “Ultimately, we have provided the president with the intelligence assessments, and the president is elected by the American people and makes his own decisions based on the information that’s available to him.”
In a Saturday interview with the right-leaning UnHerd, Kent reiterated his stance, saying that while Trump “is the guy who makes the decisions … the advice that [he] was getting was largely dominated by this ecosystem that I describe with Israeli officials.”
He criticized media outlets he claims repeat “the same talking points,” naming Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and the New York Post—all part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.Robert Kent criticized Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets, arguing they echoed Israeli officials by falsely equating Iran’s nuclear enrichment with having a nuclear weapon—a claim he called completely untrue. According to Kent, this narrative undermined negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.
He also noted that after the June 2025 conflict between Israel and Iran, followed by U.S. missile strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Israel re-engaged with U.S. leadership. Kent observed that at that point, robust policy debates diminished and a smaller circle of advisers surrounded President Trump. He attributed this shift to Israeli officials’ influence, amplified by pro-Israel media figures within Trump’s preferred news sources.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the former US counterterrorism chiefs resignation framed in a natural tone with direct answers
General Background Questions
Who is the former counterterrorism chief who resigned
This refers to Christopher Miller who served as the Acting Secretary of Defense from November 2020 to January 2021 Before that he was the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center
What exactly did he say he has no regrets about
He stated he has no regrets about his actions and decisions during his time in office particularly surrounding the events of January 6 2021 and the security posture at the US Capitol
Why did he resign
His role as Acting Secretary of Defense ended with the change in presidential administration in January 2021 His recent public statements are about reflecting on that period not a new resignation
About His Statements Fears
What potential retaliation is he fearing
He has expressed concern about potential legal political or even personal retaliation from various individuals or groups who may disagree with his testimony or actions related to the January 6 investigation
Is he afraid for his physical safety
While not specifying details fearing retaliation in this context often encompasses concerns about professional reputation legal challenges and can include worries about personal safety given the highly charged political environment
If hes afraid why does he say he has no regrets
He believes he acted according to his duty and principles at the time His stance is that doing what he believed was right is more important than the potential negative consequences he might face for it
Context Implications
What specific decisions is he most defending
He has been questioned about the Pentagons response time in deploying the National Guard to the Capitol on January 6 and the overall preparedness of security forces that day He defends the process and timing of those decisions
Is he cooperating with investigations into January 6th
Yes he has provided testimony to the House Select Committee that investigated the January 6 attack and has been interviewed by other officials
How does his view differ from other officials from that time
