Joseph Kent, who served as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center under the broader Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in the United States (US), has resigned with immediate effect, citing deep concerns over the US’s involvement in Iran. The DNI structure sits at the apex of the US intelligence system, responsible for co-ordinating strategy, assessing threats, and advising the president on national security risks. As head of the counterterrorism centre, Kent occupied a critical role in shaping how threats are defined and how responses are calibrated.

In his resignation letter, Kent argued that he “cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” stating that Tehran posed no imminent threat to the US and that the conflict had been driven by external pressure rather than clear national interest. He warned that the war risked repeating the strategic errors of Iraq, suggesting that misinformation and political pressure had again drawn the US into a costly and unnecessary conflict. His departure, he implied, was a refusal to lend institutional credibility to a war he believes undermines American security rather than strengthening it.

Some analysts, however, have flagged Kent’s resignation as an illustration of a growing current in American politics often described as the “woke right,” and the risks it may pose to foreign policy coherence. While his arguments are framed in moral and strategic terms, critics suggest that the underlying logic reflects a broader shift away from traditional conservative internationalism toward a more inward-looking and reactive posture.

The “woke right” is a loose but increasingly discussed tendency on the political right that mirrors some of the emotional and grievance-driven instincts of progressive activism, while redirecting them toward nationalist ends. It places greater emphasis on identity, perceived cultural threats, and distrust of institutions, often framing policy debates in stark moral terms rather than pragmatic cost-benefit analysis. In doing so, it departs from the older right’s focus on markets, alliances, and global engagement, and instead adopts a more confrontational and sceptical tone toward both domestic and international actors.

That shift helps explain its isolationist leanings. When politics is understood primarily as a struggle to defend the nation against external influence, global engagement can appear less like an asset and more like a vulnerability. Trade, alliances, and military commitments are recast as avenues through which sovereignty is compromised or national priorities are diluted. The result is a growing preference for disengagement, protectionism, and a retreat from leadership abroad.