Top intelligence official backs president’s authority following departure of counterterrorism chief who disputed threat assessment

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard publicly supported President Donald Trump’s assessment of Iran as an imminent threat, issuing a statement after the resignation of National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent exposed divisions within the administration over national security policy.

In a statement posted on X, Gabbard said Trump, “overwhelmingly elected by the American people,” carries the responsibility as commander in chief to determine “what is and is not an imminent threat” and to take action to safeguard the United States and its military personnel.

She said the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is tasked with coordinating intelligence and providing “the best information available” to inform presidential decisions. Gabbard added that, after reviewing intelligence assessments, Trump concluded that “the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat” and acted accordingly.

Her remarks followed Kent’s resignation from the National Counterterrorism Center, where he had challenged internal conclusions about the immediacy of the threat posed by Iran. His departure marked the most senior-level exit tied to disagreements over the administration’s approach to the conflict.

Trump addressed the resignation Tuesday, telling reporters it was “a good thing” and describing Kent as “very weak on security.” The president reiterated his position that “Iran was a threat,” while acknowledging that different nations may hold varying views on how to respond to Tehran.

Kent had argued against labeling Iran as an immediate danger, placing him at odds with senior officials who supported a more assertive posture. His exit comes as the administration continues to defend its actions and threat evaluations amid ongoing tensions in the region.

Gabbard’s statement reinforces alignment among top intelligence leadership with the president’s decision-making authority, even as the resignation underscores internal disagreement over how intelligence assessments should guide policy in the evolving conflict.

Original article