President Trump still has "complete confidence" in Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Wednesday morning on Fox News's "America's Newsroom."

The statement came after former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent resigned earlier this week in protest of Trump's strikes on Iran, a move that briefly fueled speculation about Gabbard's standing in the administration.

When Fox News host Dana Perino asked directly whether the President maintained full confidence in Gabbard, Leavitt was unequivocal. "He does, yes."

That settles the question. The rest of the story is about what happens to the people who tried to make it one.

Kent's Exit and the Leak Problem

As reported by the Daily Mail, Kent announced his resignation on Tuesday, claiming that "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation" and framing his departure as a principled stand against U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict. The administration sees it differently.

Former Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich torched Kent's self-portrayal on X, calling him "a crazed egomaniac who was often at the center of national security leaks." Budowich didn't stop there:

"He spent all of his time working to subvert the chain of command and undermine the President of the United States."

"This isn't some principled resignation—he just wanted to make a splash before getting canned."

Trump himself addressed Kent's departure during an Oval Office press conference on Tuesday, striking a tone that started generous and ended definitive:

"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."

"When somebody is working with us that says they didn't think Iran is a threat – we don't want those people."

The President noted that had the U.S. not struck Iran with Israel at the end of last month, the result would have been a "nuclear holocaust." That framing leaves zero room for Kent's position that no imminent threat existed.

Federal Investigations Into Leakers

Leavitt also revealed that the Kent situation connects to a broader problem the administration is actively confronting: unauthorized disclosures of national security information. She confirmed that federal investigations are now underway to root out leakers.

"Anyone who has been suspected of leaking or is proven to be a leaker will not be welcome in this administration."

"I know that for a fact because I've heard the President say it myself."

When pressed further, Leavitt added that "there are investigations underway into leakers in this administration and people will be held accountable for that." She called the behavior "unacceptable" and said it "will not be tolerated."

The message is clear: resignations dressed up as moral stands will be examined for what they actually are. If Kent was at the center of national security leaks, as Budowich alleged, then his departure isn't a loss. It's a correction.

Gabbard Holds Her Ground

While the Kent drama played out in the press, Gabbard herself was on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, March 18, 2026, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee. She had already addressed the situation on X, explaining that her team's role was to present intelligence to the President and that the Commander in Chief ultimately determines whether a credible threat warrants action.

Her formal statement reinforced that chain of command without ambiguity:

"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's the correct answer, and it's also the constitutional one. The DNI provides intelligence. The President makes the call. A counterterrorism director who publicly disputes the President's threat assessment after the fact isn't exercising judgment. He's freelancing.

The Real Story

Washington loves a personnel drama. The question "Will Trump fire Gabbard?" generates clicks, cable segments, and breathless social media threads. But the underlying dynamics here matter more than the palace intrigue.

An administration official disagreed with the President's threat assessment on Iran. Rather than making his case internally or resigning quietly, he staged a public exit designed to generate maximum friction. The administration's response was swift and coordinated: Gabbard deferred to the constitutional chain of command, Budowich exposed Kent's alleged role in leaks, and the White House confirmed both Gabbard's standing and the existence of active investigations.

There's a pattern in Washington that predates this administration by decades. Officials who can't win the internal argument take it public, dress it up as conscience, and hope the media treats their insubordination as heroism. The playbook worked during previous administrations because those White Houses were slow to respond and terrified of bad press.

This White House is not.

Kent is out. Investigations are underway. Gabbard is testifying before the Senate. And the President's confidence in his DNI remains intact. The machinery of government keeps turning. The people who tried to jam the gears are the ones looking for new jobs.