On the surface, Joe Kent, the director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, who resigned over policy differences with US President Donald Trump regarding the Iran war, would seem to be the perfect poster child for the anti-war opposition.
A Green Beret veteran resigning on principle – it is an image that carries weight.
Indeed, when The New York Times sent out a “Breaking News” email on Tuesday with the headline, “A top US counterterrorism official resigns, citing the Iran war,” it seemed to reinforce the impression that cracks were widening over the war within Trump’s own camp.
There is a familiar pattern here: a handful of dissenting voices are quickly recast as evidence of a broader political shift.
But that headline was – some might say predictably – incomplete if not misleading. A headline from The Forward provided a fuller picture: “Joe Kent, Trump official with white supremacist ties, resigns over Iran war and blames Israel.”
That detail about Kent’s white supremacist ties is not incidental, nor is it merely the framing of a left-wing Jewish newspaper. It is central to understanding both the man and the substance of his resignation.
Anti-war voices gain attention, but support for strikes remains high
Because Kent’s objection to the war is not rooted in a conventional strategic critique. Not all opposition to war is created equal. There is a difference between an argument about costs and risks and a narrative that attributes policy to a hidden – in this case, Jewish – cabal.
In his resignation letter, he argued that Israel, “its powerful American lobby,” and “influential members of the American media” manipulated the US president into waging the war; that Israel was responsible for pushing the US into the 2003 Iraq War that cost thousands of American lives; and that his wife, a military cryptologist killed by a suicide bomber in Syria in 2019, was a victim of a “war manufactured by Israel.”
US forces, it bears noting, were in Syria primarily to fight ISIS. But that is precisely the point: Kent’s argument is not merely critical; it is conspiratorial.
That context matters.
Yet in its coverage, The New York Times only partially conveyed it. The paper noted that Kent “had a penchant for conspiracy theories,” including suggesting that the FBI could have orchestrated the January 6 attack on the Capitol. But it did not mention his documented associations with white supremacist figures, including his flirtation with Nick Fuentes.
What is included – and what is left out – often determines not just how a story is read but what story is told.
It did, however, highlight his friendship with Tucker Carlson, who, after Kent’s resignation, called him “the bravest man I know” – praise that, in this context, raises as many questions as it answers.
The Times’ omission of Kent’s white supremacist ties is striking, inasmuch as when he was confirmed by the Senate on July 30, 2025, the paper wrote, “The Senate on Wednesday narrowly confirmed Joe Kent, President Trump’s contentious choice to be the nation’s top counterterrorism official, installing a pick who has embraced conspiracy theories and had links to extremist groups.”
When Kent was being confirmed, Democratic Sen. Mark Warner warned explicitly against elevating someone with that record, saying, “At a time when domestic violent extremism is one of the fastest-growing threats to the homeland, we are being asked to put someone in charge of counterterrorism who has aligned himself with political violence, promoted falsehoods that undermine our democracy, and tried to twist intelligence to serve a political agenda.”
The key phrase there is “promoted falsehoods that undermine our democracy.”
Yet on Tuesday, Warner struck a notably different tone. While reiterating that Kent should never have been confirmed, he nonetheless said, “On this point, he is right,” referring to Kent’s opposition to the war. The senator added that there was no credible evidence of an imminent Iranian threat that justified rushing the US into another Middle East conflict.
It raises an obvious question: When, exactly, does Kent go from being a purveyor of dangerous falsehoods to being a credible voice worth citing?
Those opposed to the war have seized on Kent’s resignation as evidence that Trump’s Make America Great Again base is turning against the conflict. But the available data suggest otherwise.
Polling indicates that MAGA voters’ support for the war remains overwhelming. An NBC poll about a week into the war found that roughly 90% of MAGA-aligned Republicans back the strikes, a significantly higher number than Republicans who don’t see themselves as part of MAGA. If there is a political signal here, it is not that Trump is out of step with his base, but that – on this issue, at least – he is aligned with it.
This is particularly telling considering that far-right media figures like Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and antisemitic podcaster Candice Owens get an overabundance of attention and have come out against the war. As in previous debates, the views of high-profile commentators often diverge from those of the voters who make up the movement’s backbone and from those of the elected Republican Party representatives in Washington.
Their prominence may amplify their dissent, but it does not necessarily reflect the sentiment of rank-and-file supporters.
If anything, the Kent episode underscores a different dynamic: not a broad-based erosion of support within MAGA but the emergence of a fringe critique rooted less in strategic debate and more in conspiratorial thinking.
And that is a very different kind of opposition.