WASHINGTON — A top counterterrorism official’s resignation over the Iran war has put the spotlight on his boss and political ally, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, who built her political career as an outspoken critic of “regime change” wars.
Gabbard was in the hot seat Wednesday, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, a day after Joe Kent, the head of the National Center for Counterterrorism, announced he was stepping down because he could not in “good conscience” support the war and because “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.”
Kent was among the officials in the administration, including Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance, who view themselves as “restraint-minded” Republicans wary of more open-ended wars like those waged in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Presenting the intelligence agencies’ annual report to senators on worldwide threats, Gabbard said Iran’s “conventional military power projection capabilities have largely been destroyed, leaving limited options. Iran’s strategic position has been significantly degraded.”
Even if the regime stays in power, “the intelligence community assesses that internal tensions are likely to increase as Iran’s economy worsens,” Gabbard said. She said the regime would likely begin an effort to rebuild its arsenal.
Lawmakers were expected to press her on whether she agrees with the administration’s assertions that military action was necessary because of the nature of the threat presented by the regime in Tehran.
For Gabbard, who ran for president in 2020 as a Democrat, her response to the war could define her political career and whether she can maintain her image as a veteran determined to keep America out of imperial quagmires.
Gabbard has stayed mostly silent since the U.S.-Israeli aerial attack on Iran began Feb. 28. But hours after Kent resigned, she posted a statement that made no mention of her deputy’s departure and said it was up to President Donald Trump to decide whether intelligence assessments justified the need to go to war.
As commander in chief, Trump “is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country,” Gabbard wrote.
After having reviewed the intelligence, she wrote, “President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion.”
She did not indicate whether the spy agencies she oversees had found that Iran presented an urgent threat because of its nuclear ambitions, missile program or arming of proxy forces in the Middle East.
U.S. intelligence assessments indicate the regime is not on the verge of collapse, despite predictions by Trump when the war began, NBC News has reported.
Gabbard’s neutral language in her public message, in which she did not express her own interpretation of the intelligence reporting, was unusual for the country’s top-ranking intelligence official only weeks after Trump’s decision to enter into a major air war against Iran.
“We haven’t seen much of Gabbard since Trump attacked Iran, so this will be high stakes for her,” Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute think tank, said of Wednesday’s congressional hearing.
Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, endorsed Trump as a candidate in the 2024 campaign, saying he would prevent America from being dragged into new foreign wars and portraying his opponent, President Joe Biden, as a warmonger.
But although Trump campaigned as a peace candidate, he “has chosen to be a war president,” Logan said.
“People like Gabbard have a tough needle to thread: defend the administration without looking like a forelock-tugging flunky who’s thrown her principles into the wind,” he said.
Marjorie Taylor-Greene, the Republican former lawmaker from Georgia who turned from staunch supporter of Trump to fierce critic over his response to the Jeffrey Epstein case and his decisions to launch military operations against Venezuela and Iran, urged Gabbard and Vance — another outspoken critic of “forever wars” — to speak candidly after Kent resigned.
“People are paying attention, very close attention. Silence won’t cut it,” Greene posted on social media. “You were both on record repeatedly, publicly, and loudly against going to war with Iran.”
The White House rejected Kent’s criticisms in his resignation letter, in which he claimed Israeli officials and members of the U.S. news media had deceived Trump that the U.S. needed to initiate a war against Iran.
“As President Trump has clearly and explicitly stated, he had strong and compelling evidence that Iran was going to attack the United States first,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on social media.
The decision took into account that Iran sponsors terrorism, that it has killed Americans, that it had a ballistic missile program that served as a shield for its nuclear program and that it failed to take advantage of U.S. diplomatic overtures, Leavitt wrote.
Trump said Tuesday that he thought Kent was a nice guy, "but I always thought he was weak on security,” and that Kent’s statement reinforced that view.
“When I read his statement, I realized that it’s a good thing that he’s out,” Trump said.
Polls show Americans are divided over the war, and some Republican strategists worry that if it drags on, it could inflict serious damage on GOP candidates in the midterms in November.
A national NBC News poll conducted just as the strikes began found sharp partisan divides, with 77% of Republicans saying the U.S. should have struck Iran, while 15% disagreed.
Among those who identify with Trump’s Make America Great Again movement, the number was even higher, with 90% of self-identified MAGA-aligned Republicans backing the strikes. A large majority of Democrats, 89%, said the U.S. should not have struck Iran, along with 58% of independents.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has been a longtime skeptic of U.S. wars abroad, said that Kent was a welcome voice for “caution” and that “we’ll miss his presence.”
Daniel Davis, a retired Army officer who, like Kent, served in multiple combat tours, called Kent's resignation an act of “moral courage” and said the strikes must have weighed heavily on him and others who share his view.
“I wondered how both he and Tulsi could continue on with this job, knowing how they felt,” Davis said on his podcast "Deep Dive." “I just couldn’t imagine having to work under those conditions. And now we see that Joe was not able to do that in good conscience. He could not continue on.”
Davis is a fellow at the Defense Priorities think tank, which takes a skeptical view of foreign military intervention, and he was nominated to serve with Kent in the National Intelligence Director’s Office. But Gabbard withdrew his nomination in March over his critical views on Israel’s war in Gaza.
Gabbard ran afoul of Trump over Iran last year. In March, she told lawmakers that intelligence indicated that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that the regime had not revived a weapons project that was suspended in 2003.
Asked about the assessment in June, Trump said: “I don’t care what she said.”
