Incomplete Kirk Assassination Investigation Alleged by Ex-Intel Official

Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, discussed with Megyn Kelly his belief that there is much more to investigate about Charlie Kirk's September 2025 assassination, citing additional leads that needed to be pursued but "simply was not done" after Tyler Robinson's arrest. Kent suggested there were certain leads he and his team wanted to pursue in the Kirk investigation but were blocked from doing so.

Key Points

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout
Megyn KellyRIGHT

Incomplete Kirk Assassination Investigation Alleged by Ex-Intel Official

Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, discussed with Megyn Kelly his belief that there is much more to investigate about Charlie Kirk's September 2025 assassination, citing additional leads that needed to be pursued but "simply was not done" after Tyler Robinson's arrest. Kent suggested there were certain leads he and his team wanted to pursue in the Kirk investigation but were blocked from doing so.

Mar 21, 2026
▶ Watch on YouTube
Key Points
Kent claims federal agencies blocked him and his team from continuing to investigate possible leads tied to Kirk's killing, despite unsolved questions.
The NCTC's role "was to look to see if there's any foreign involvement" in the case.
Kent highlighted gaps in the investigation, including "multiple people predicted Charlie's death at [Utah Valley University] that day," which he called "one of the biggest gaps that remains."
While Kent said he doesn't doubt prosecutors have a "slam dunk case" against Robinson, he believes there are also other non-foreign angles to the case—chiefly, who knew what and when—that need to be explored.
Kent blamed government bureaucracy, saying "all of our requests, our ability to investigate was cut off" through what he called a "never ending coordination process or requests that go unanswered."
Perspective

Kent's resignation over Iran war policy alongside his comments about the Kirk investigation represent a critical perspective on Trump administration decision-making and intelligence agency operations. The commentary frames institutional oversight and investigative procedures as obstructive rather than protective.