By Jason Collins
The former director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center is a divisive figure in modern American politics. For many years, he was praised for his loyalty to the country’s security and his personal loss. Still, his recent resignation, announced in a viral social media post, has led critics to label him a traitor.
So, which is he: patriot or traitor? The reality is that the answer is not black-and-white. Kent’s rise and fall raise questions about what a modern patriot looks like in America. Is it someone who has faith in the institutions even when they don’t agree with the outcome, or is it someone willing to challenge power?
Military Service and Entry into Politics
Kent has spent two decades in the military and suffered a personal loss, resulting in a keen awareness of the true cost of war. He enlisted in the U.S. Army at 17 and earned his Green Beret as a Special Forces Weapons Sergeant in 2003. For over 20 years, Kent rose through the ranks to become a Warrant Officer and eventually retired in 2018 with six bronze stars.
In 2019, his first wife, Navy cryptologist Shannon Smith, was killed by a suicide bomber in Syria while she was assisting with the fight against ISIS. Since then, Kent has been very vocal about his anti-interventionist stance, which makes his resignation easier to understand. Back in 2021, following the withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan, Kent slammed Biden’s administration for a prolonged war “on the backs and dead bodies of U.S. soldiers.”
Kent’s entry into politics came shortly after his military retirement, when he became a CIA paramilitary officer. He then later served as a counterterrorism advisor to Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign and was considered one of Trump’s loyalists with aligned views. Over his time in politics, Kent has been linked with far-right groups such as the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. Like most political figures, he’s had his fair share of controversial moments, like the time he compared abortion to slavery and segregation.
Despite the controversy around his right-wing ties, Trump nominated Kent to be the top counter-terrorism official. But in March, Kent resigned over the current war in Iran. In a letter shared online, he wrote, “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. 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.” He also called out Trump, saying,
“I support the values and the foreign policies that you campaigned on in 2016, 2020, and 2024, which you enacted in your first term. Until June of 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation.”
The reactions to his resignation have been mixed.
The Case for “Patriot”
It’s easy to see why many view Kent as a patriot when he brings his experience from 11 combat deployments to his role.
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, had once described him as “the tip of the spear in some of the world’s most dangerous battlefields, “which has given him a deep, practical understanding of the enduring and evolving threat of Islamist terrorism.”
Even Trump had once praised Kent, saying he chose him to “eradicate all terrorism, from the jihadists around the World, to the cartels in our backyard.” But it appears that the Iran war is where Kent draws the line, and some supporters have praised Kent for his principled stand.
Media commentator Tucker Carlson praised Kent in a New York Times interview, saying, “Joe is the bravest man I know, and he can’t be dismissed as a nut,” he added. “He’s leaving a job that gave him access to the highest-level relevant intelligence. The neo-cons will try to destroy him for that.” Carlson himself has become what can only be described as pro-Iran in the current conflict, revealing how deep the divisions are within even core segments of Trump’s political power base.
Al Jazeera correspondent Mike Hanna noted that Kent’s resignation might impact Trump’s standing with MAGA supporters who still view Kent as a patriot.
“Kent’s criticism of the US-Israel war on Iran is very significant because he is not an average Trump-appointee bureaucrat figure,” Hanna said, and added, “He’s a veteran who has done several tours in special forces and has always been an avid supporter of Trump and the MAGA movement. A figure like this accusing Israel of influencing Trump to enter the war with false information is a very damning statement that could affect support for the president among parts of the right-wing community.”
Even podcaster and longtime supporter of Trump, Joe Rogan, expressed his doubts about the war, saying, “It just seems so insane based on what he ran on. I mean, this is why a lot of people feel betrayed.”
The Case for “Traitor”
On the other hand, many see his departure as disloyal to Trump. Figures like White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Senator Tom Cotton have criticized Kent. Leavitt called Kent’s claims “insulting and laughable.” Taylor Budowich, a Trump adviser and former deputy White House chief of staff, had called Kent a “crazed egomaniac” who “just wanted to make a splash before getting canned.”
Following his resignation, Kent is now under investigation for alleged leaks of classified information. Former deputy White House chief of staff Taylor Budowich claimed Kent was “often at the center of national security leaks.”
Predictably, Trump responded to Kent’s resignation, telling reporters, “I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security,” he said. “It’s a good thing that he’s out because he said Iran was not a threat.”
Others have called Kent out as anti-Semitic, following his letter that read, “Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran.”
Democrat Josh Gottheimer accused Kent of “scapegoating” Israel and engaging in a “tired antisemitic trope.”
The Complexity of Labels
Trying to fit Kent into the label of patriot or traitor is anything but simple. For a long time, in traditional American politics, dissent has been considered a form of patriotism or loyalty to the people, and today some see it that way. But there is an overwhelming number of political figures, often with the loudest voices, who view Kent’s actions as betrayal. But in the end, Kent may be less a traitor or patriot and more a reflection of a country struggling to define what those terms actually mean.
There is a saying: no one’s a traitor, until they are. And while people can debate if Kent’s actions rise to the level of treason, there is no questioning that he has displayed blatant disloyalty to President Trump. This paints a larger portrait of how fractured America is. Even as the military achieves unprecedented successes in Iran, President Trump faces monumental hurdles on the home front from Democrats who openly cheer for the Ayotollahs, and right-wing podcasters/influencers led by Carlson, who are opposed to the war. Even as 92% of his base supports the President, the war with Iran has exposed how long the shadows are and how sharp the daggers in the halls of the Washington bureaucracy.
