President Trump still has "full confidence" in Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Wednesday morning, putting to rest speculation about Gabbard's standing after a turbulent week that saw a top counterterrorism official resign and fresh scrutiny over national security leaks.
Leavitt delivered the message on Fox News' "America's Newsroom" when host Dana Perino asked directly whether Trump stood behind his DNI chief. Leavitt's answer was two words:
"He does, yes."
The confirmation came as Gabbard was testifying before Congress Wednesday morning, and as the administration moved aggressively to identify and remove officials suspected of leaking classified information.
The week's turbulence centered on Joe Kent, the now former National Counterterrorism Center Director, who submitted his resignation earlier this week in protest of President Trump's strikes on Iran, according to The Daily Mail reports. Kent claimed that "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation."
Trump addressed the resignation Tuesday during an Oval Office press conference, and his reaction was notably unbothered:
"When I read his statement, I realized that it's a good thing that he's out because he said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat – every country realized what a threat Iran was."
He followed with a line that left little room for interpretation:
"When somebody is working with us that says they didn't think Iran is a threat – we don't want those people."
Former Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich was considerably less diplomatic. Writing on X Tuesday, Budowich torched Kent's departure as self-serving theatrics:
"Kent is a crazed egomaniac who was often at the center of national security leaks."
Whether Kent jumped or was pushed matters less than the picture these comments paint. The administration isn't mourning his departure. It's framing it as addition by subtraction.
More significant than any single resignation is what the White House signaled about the broader problem of national security leaks. Leavitt confirmed that federal investigations are actively underway to root out leakers within the administration.
"Anyone who has been suspected of leaking or is proven to be a leaker will not be welcome in this administration."
She added weight to the warning:
"I know that for a fact because I've heard the President say it myself."
Leavitt described the investigations in blunt terms, saying there are active probes and that "people will be held accountable." She called the leaking "unacceptable" and said it "will not be tolerated."
This is worth paying attention to. Every administration deals with leaks. What distinguishes this moment is the willingness to name the problem publicly, tie it to specific individuals, and treat it as a terminable offense rather than a Washington inevitability. Too many administrations have treated leaks like weather: unpleasant but unavoidable. This White House is treating them like sabotage.
Gabbard, for her part, posted on X defending the administration's posture on Iran and the president's authority. Her framing placed the decision squarely where it belongs, with the commander in chief:
"As our Commander in Chief, he 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."
That statement matters because it draws a clear line between intelligence and policy. The DNI's job is to present the intelligence. The president's job is to act on it. Kent apparently believed those roles should be reversed, that his threat assessment should override the president's judgment on military action. That is not how civilian control of national security works.
Washington loves a palace intrigue narrative. Cable news will spend the week asking whether Gabbard is "embattled" and whether Kent's resignation signals disarray. That framing misses what actually happened.
An official who disagreed with the president's Iran policy is gone. The administration publicly accused him of being at the center of national security leaks. Federal investigations into those leaks are underway. The DNI retains the president's confidence. The press secretary went on national television and said, clearly, that leakers will be found and removed.
That isn't chaos. That's a cleanup.
The larger question is how deep the leak problem runs and whether the investigations produce real accountability. Washington has a long, bipartisan tradition of leaking classified information to shape media narratives, and an equally long tradition of nobody facing consequences for it. If this administration follows through on Leavitt's promises, it will have done something genuinely rare.
The people who handle the nation's secrets should be the last ones spilling them. The administration seems to agree.
