Top Trump counterterror adviser resigns over Iran war: ‘No imminent threat’
Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testifies during the House Homeland Security Committee hearing titled “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland,” in Cannon building on Wednesday, December 11, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration’s top counterterrorism official Joe Kent announced his resignation Tuesday over opposition to the Iran war, becoming the highest-profile administration official to step down publicly over the conflict.
In a resignation letter posted publicly on social media, Kent said he could not “in good conscience” support the war, which is now in its third week.
“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,” Kent, who served as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, wrote in his resignation letter.
The National Counterterrorism Center is housed within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. ABC News has reached out to ODNI for comment.
ODNI says Kent oversaw the U.S. counterterrorism and counternarcotics enterprise and, according to his biography, he served as the principal counterterrorism adviser to the president.
ABC News has reached out to the White House for comment.
Kent is a combat veteran who served more than 20 years in the U.S. Army and completed 11 combat deployments in the Middle East.
Kent also invoked a deeply personal loss in explaining his decision to step down: he is a Gold Star husband whose late wife, Navy Senior Chief Petty Officer Shannon Kent, was killed in action during a suicide bombing while serving in Syria in 2019.
In his resignation letter, Kent wrote, “As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives.”
The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., March 18, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court appears poised to allow President Trump to turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, a decision which would reverse a lower court ruling that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties.
A majority of the court’s conservative justices signaled during oral arguments in the case Tuesday that the administration should have broad leeway over border control and that asylum seekers who have not yet stepped foot on U.S. soil probably do not have a legal right to file a claim seeking protection.
“Do you think someone who comes to the front door of a house and knocks at the door has arrived ‘in’ the house?” Justice Samuel Alito asked. “The person may have arrived ‘at’ the house.”
Immigrant advocates insist the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says a noncitizen who “arrives in the U.S. … at a designated port of arrival” must be allowed to apply for asylum, includes those who have “reached the threshold” of America.
“If an immigration officer determines that an alien who is arriving in the United States has expressed a fear of future persecution, then the immigration officer shall refer them for a credible fear interview,” argued Kelsi Corkran, an attorney supporting asylum seekers.
From the start of his second term, Trump has effectively blocked the entry of all noncitizens at the southern border, including those seeking to apply for refuge from credible fears of violence and persecution.
“You can’t ‘arrive in’ the U.S. while you’re still standing in Mexico,” argued Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri. “It is entirely lawful for the executive branch to prevent aliens from reaching U.S. soil and claiming those protections.”
The dispute largely turns on competing interpretations of what it means to “arrive in” the country.
“How close do you have to be to the border?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing or the dispositive thing that we’re looking for where we say, ah, now that person we can say arrives in the United States?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that regardless of where the line is drawn, the law stipulates that the government can prevent people from filing an asylum claim if it wants to. “The government’s presumably going to stop you on the other side of that line and prevent you from getting to wherever the line is. Right?” he asked.
The court’s three liberal justices were critical of the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law.
“Imagine a polite asylum seeker who wants to do everything by the book,” posited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “He approaches the border but does not cross, precisely because the law says you are not supposed to enter the U.S. without authority. Why on earth would Congress have intended or meant for his asylum request to be discarded, not taken seriously, not entertained, but someone who manages to enter the U.S. unlawfully…and requests asylum gets their application entertained? “
“That doesn’t seem to me to make any sense,” Jackson added.
At the heart of the case is the so-called “turn back” policy from Trump’s first term that kept asylum seekers waiting in Mexico as a method of “metering” access at border crossings that faced overcrowding. Border officials contend it was a temporary policy, imposed only when conditions required.
While the administration voluntarily discontinued the practice in 2021 after a lower court deemed it unlawful, the government now wants the justices to approve the ability to reinstate the policy if necessary. Trump has invoked alternate legal authorities to support his current border crackdown.
Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, an immigrant rights group representing several asylum-seeker plaintiffs, said a ruling for the administration could have a major impact, even if not immediate.
“We have no doubt the administration is seeking a decision that will give them even more leeway to restrict the rights of people seeking asylum,” Crow said.
Tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived at the U.S. southern border during Trump’s first term were forced to remain in Mexico for weeks or months in sometimes harrowing conditions in hopes they might have a chance to be interviewed about their fears of persecution.
Nicole Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group and plaintiff in the case, says Congress had a more nuanced view when it drafted the law following the U.S. failure to accept Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.
“The right to seek asylum at the border is a legal right and a moral right,” Ramos said. “The stakes are not theoretical. They are measured in lives.”
One of those lives was Benito, a Mexican asylum seeker who declined to give his last name to protect his identity and spoke through a translator at an event hosted by Al Otro Lado.
“I was partially tortured, had a lot of lesions, and emotional harm, and traumas and I’m still healing from that,” he said of the violence he was trying to escape. “I knew I could apply for asylum in that moment, on the side of Mexico, and so I did everything correctly. I came close; I told the [U.S.] immigration agents that I needed to apply for asylum because I was scared and thought I would be killed.
“I had scars on my body, on my face, and my head,” he said, “but they said to me that they couldn’t help me, couldn’t accept me.”
The court is expected to issue a decision on the Trump administration’s bid to resurrect the “metering” and “turn back” policy by the end of June.
Roger Penske, chairman and chief executive officer of Penske Corp., second left, speaks during an executive order signing with US President Donald Trump, second right, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Jan. 30, 2026. Trump signed an executive order intended to launch an IndyCar race on the streets of Washington as part of a series of America250 celebrations. (Photographer: Francis Chung/Politico/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday to hold an IndyCar street race in Washington this summer, as part of his “America 250” push to commemorate the nation’s birthday.
Trump, joined in the Oval Office by auto racing legend Roger Penske, announced the Freedom 250 Grand Prix will be held Aug. 21 through Aug. 23.
“We’re celebrating greatness with American motor racing,” Trump said.
“And I said, pick our best site. It’s very important. Pick the best site. Don’t go for second or third because there are a lot of different routes. I said pick, even if it’s more difficult to get approved, pick the absolute best site,” the president continued.
The U.S. Department of the Interior and Transportation Department will be officially charged with designing a race route along the National Mall, home to iconic monuments, the U.S. Capitol and the White House. The race is free and open to the public and will be broadcast live on FOX, according to the Transportation Department.
“To think, 190 miles an hour down Pennsylvania Avenue, this is going to be wild,” said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.
But in order to hold the race, Trump could need congressional approval due to a ban on advertising on Capitol grounds.
Last week, during an interview with the New York Post, Trump said that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was opposed to his racing plans.
“We can’t get Schumer. Schumer is making it very difficult,” Trump told The Post. “What’s wrong with him? Everybody wants to. Schumer doesn’t because he doesn’t want to see advertising near the Capitol,” the president added. “The cars have ads. If you didn’t, they wouldn’t look as good, right? That’s the only reason.”
ABC News has asked Schumer’s office for a response to Trump’s order on Friday and whether he’d work to block the race from occurring.
Still, Trump and Penske touted the upcoming festivities.
“We’re excited. The areas for people to see most of the grounds will be free. So, it’s going to be an economic benefit to the area, to the city,” Penske said. “So, thank you, Mr. President, for allowing us to come into your city.”
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, told ABC affiliate WJLA she was “thrilled” to welcome the racing event.
“Soon-to-be the home of every major sports franchise, Washington, D.C. is the undisputed Sports Capital,” Bowser said. “But we don’t stop there and work to attract major events. That’s why I am thrilled to welcome the Freedom 250 to the Nation’s Capital this August. The race weekend will rev up the economic engine of DC by filling our hotels and restaurants and by showing visitors, residents and the sports world that there’s no better city, people and backdrop for major sports events. I invite all sports fans to come enjoy the Freedom 250 and all that Washington, DC has to offer.”
In the Oval Office executive order signing, Bud Denker, the president of the Penske Corporation, extended thanks to Bowser.
“She has been a great partner in this process as well too,” Denker said.
President Trump’s announced a number of events to mark the nation’s 250th birthday, including a UFC fight on the South Lawn and the construction of a “Triumphal Arch.”
A U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sign stands at the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, Dec. 11, 2014. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate, now facing an impasse in negotiations, did not cast votes on a government funding deal on Thursday, sending the government ever closer to a partial shutdown with a little more than 24 hours until funding runs out.
Senate Democrats announced earlier Thursday they had struck an agreement with the White House to move forward with a plan that would see the Department of Homeland Security funding bill separated from a package of five other bills. Programs funded by the five-bill package would be funded until the end of September. DHS would be funded for two additional weeks to allow lawmakers to negotiate on other provisions in the package.
The Senate must get unanimous agreement to move forward with this plan if it wants to hold votes before Friday night’s deadline. As it stood Thursday night, there seemed to be objections by senators on both sides of the aisle gumming up the works.
“Tomorrow’s another day, and hopefully people will be in a spirit to try and get this done tomorrow,” Majority Leader John Thune said as he was leaving the Capitol late Thursday.
If Senators can’t win over the objectors by Friday, they’ll force the government into a partial shutdown. The Senate will reconvene at 11 a.m. Friday to see if they can reach an agreement. Any agreement they do reach would still need to be approved by the House, so at least a brief partial shutdown is, at this stage, highly likely.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is the Senate’s most vocal objector to the deal. He stormed into Republican Leader John Thune’s office earlier tonight calling the agreement stuck between Democrats and the White House a “bad deal” and telling reporters he was objecting to its advancement.
Graham called the treatment of ICE officers “unconscionable” as he was asked about his objections to proceeding.
“From a Republican point of view, the cops need us right now. They are being demonized. They’re being spat upon. They can’t sleep at night,” Graham said. “Are they right to want to change some ICE procedures? Absolutely. But I’m not going to lead this debate for two weeks before I can explain to the American people what I think the problem is. The problem is, structurally, for four years, the country was ruined.”
Graham also seems to be opposed to the deal because it would strip a controversial provision, passed in a stopgap funding bill earlier this year, that allows senators to file lawsuits if their phone records are accessed without notice. Graham was one of seven Republican senators whose phone toll data were accessed by Special Counsel Jack Smith during his investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
“I am not going to ignore what happened,” Graham said. “If you were abused, your phone records were illegally seized, you should have your day in court.
It seems there may be other senators who have separate challenges with the funding bill plan as well, but it’s not yet clear who those senators are.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer placed blame on Republicans for the stall in votes tonight.
“Republicans need to get their act together,” he said as he left the Capitol.
But when pushed on whether any Democrats had outstanding objections to the bill that might stall things, Schumer didn’t give a clear answer.
Thune said there remains “snags on both sides” stopping the bill from advancing but wouldn’t give details about Democratic objections.
“They’ve got a couple issues on their side they’ve got to clear them up, we’ve got some things we’ve got to work on. But hopefully by sometime tomorrow we’ll be in a better spot,” Thune said.
It is likely that even if the Senate passes the bills, there will still be a short partial shutdown — the bills would need to go back to the House for consideration. It seems unlikely the House, which is in recess until Monday, could pass any of these bills before Friday night’s funding deadline.
Earlier Thursday, House Speaker Mike Johnson told ABC News’ Selina Wang that bringing the House back before Monday “may not be possible.”
“So, we have got some logistical challenges, but we’ll do it as quickly as we can and get everybody back,” Johnson said at the premiere of the “Melania” film. “And if there is a short-term shutdown, I think we’ll get it reopened quickly.”
Asked earlier Thursday if he was on board with the deal struck by Democrats in the Senate, Johnson said he had not yet seen details of the bill. But when asked if he supports Democrats’ demands to reign in federal agents — including prohibiting face masks and requiring body cameras — Johnson said “No.”
Democrats called to separate the DHS funding following the deaths of Renee Good, a mother of three who was fatally shot by an immigration enforcement officer in Minneapolis earlier this month, and became more urgent after the death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, who was killed in a shooting involving federal law enforcement over the weekend.
After Democratic urging, a critical mass of Republicans seemed prepared Thursday afternoon to support an agreement.
Earlier Thursday, Senate Democrats voted unanimously to block the package of six funding bills, with it failing to advance by a vote of 45-55. It would have needed at least 60 votes to proceed. Multiple Republicans also cast votes against the package.
Coming into the negotiations, Senate Democrats laid out a list of additional demands including: ending roving patrols, ensuring federal agents are held to the same use of force policies that apply to state and local law enforcement, preventing agents from wearing masks and requiring body cameras.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump struck an optimistic tone about averting a shutdown.
“Hopefully we won’t have a shutdown and we’re working on that right now. I think we’re getting close,” Trump said during his Cabinet meeting. “The Democrats, I don’t believe want to see it either, so we’ll work in a very bipartisan way.”
