In a development that caught much of Washington by surprise, Kash Patel was quietly removed from his position as acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in February 2025. Despite the high-profile nature of the post and Patel’s controversial background, his removal was not publicly announced until weeks later. The move raises critical questions about the leadership of federal law enforcement agencies under the current administration.
The Unusual Dual Role
Kash Patel, previously known for his service as a national security aide during the Trump administration, had been appointed as the FBI Director in early 2025. Almost immediately, he was also handed the role of acting director of the ATF — a rare and contentious consolidation of leadership over two powerful federal agencies.
This dual appointment was highly unusual and controversial, not only due to the sheer scope of the responsibilities but also due to Patel’s polarizing history. Patel had long been a lightning rod for political debate, and his sudden rise to two top law enforcement roles at once sparked immediate concern among lawmakers, advocacy groups, and career officials within the agencies.
Absentee Leadership
Despite the significance of the ATF role, sources inside the agency began to express concerns that Patel was effectively ghosting the job. He was rarely seen at ATF headquarters and had little to no interaction with senior leadership there. Reports suggested that his involvement with the ATF was superficial at best.
Multiple sources indicated that ATF staff were left without clear direction during his brief tenure, leading to confusion and a sense of instability within the agency. As one anonymous official stated, “We didn’t know who was really in charge. It felt like we were on autopilot.”
Quiet Removal and Sudden Replacement
In late February 2025, without a formal announcement, Patel was removed from the acting director role at the ATF. The silence surrounding his removal only added to the mystery. The administration offered no press release or public explanation, and the news did not surface until investigative reports brought it to light in early April.
He was replaced by Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, an unprecedented choice that raised even more eyebrows. Driscoll, who continues to serve as Army Secretary, is now also functioning as the acting director of the ATF — a first in the 50-year history of the agency.
Who Is Daniel Driscoll?
Daniel Driscoll is a relatively young figure in federal leadership, only 38 years old. Prior to his appointment as Army Secretary, his experience included a brief military stint as a first lieutenant and a role as a close adviser to Vice President JD Vance.
Driscoll’s dual role at the Pentagon and the ATF is highly unorthodox, raising questions about the boundaries between military and civilian law enforcement. Critics have pointed out the potential conflict of interest and the strain such a dual role might place on an already demanding job.
Despite the concerns, administration insiders insist that Driscoll’s leadership is a stabilizing force. However, many in the legal and law enforcement communities remain skeptical, wondering if the decision was based more on loyalty than qualifications.
Political Implications
The quiet reshuffling of leadership at the ATF has major political implications. The lack of transparency and the unconventional appointments have fueled debates about the administration’s approach to law enforcement and government oversight.
Gun control advocacy groups, who view the ATF as a critical agency in addressing gun violence, have expressed concern that the leadership shuffle will hamper ongoing enforcement initiatives. Meanwhile, some conservative groups have applauded the shakeup, viewing it as a move to reorient the agency away from what they see as overreach.
The Patel episode has also reignited discussions about the use of acting appointments as a way to sidestep Senate confirmation. Because Patel never underwent Senate vetting for the ATF role, his removal could be seen as part of a larger pattern of ephemeral, unchecked appointments.
The Future of the ATF
As Driscoll assumes control of the ATF, many are watching closely to see how he balances his responsibilities and whether he can provide the stability the agency needs. The ATF has long struggled with leadership turnover; it has had more than a dozen acting or interim directors over the past 20 years.
Driscoll’s appointment may temporarily stabilize the agency, but without a permanent, Senate-confirmed director, questions about long-term direction and legitimacy remain. Moreover, how he chooses to steer the ATF — especially on contentious issues like gun regulation, explosives enforcement, and illegal firearm trafficking — will determine whether this surprise appointment proves effective or problematic.
Conclusion
The quiet removal of Kash Patel from the ATF and the appointment of Daniel Driscoll have opened a new chapter of uncertainty in federal law enforcement leadership. With Patel’s brief and largely inactive tenure behind them, agency staff and policy observers now turn their attention to Driscoll’s performance. As both Army Secretary and ATF acting director, his actions over the coming months will not only affect the agencies he leads but could also reshape the public’s trust in law enforcement oversight at the federal level.