Trump’s ATF shakeup: Why Kash Patel was suddenly replaced by a Pentagon official

Kash Patel‘s short-lived tenure as acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has ended abruptly, U.S. officials confirmed, marking yet another high-profile leadership shuffle during President Donald Trump’s second term. While Patel retains his position as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), his departure from ATF leadership has raised eyebrows across Washington and sparked concern within federal law enforcement circles.

The U.S. Department of Justice did not issue a formal public announcement about the removal. However, senior officials confirmed that Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll had assumed the role of acting ATF director — making him the first individual in recent memory to concurrently serve in a top Pentagon post and lead a federal law enforcement agency. The Justice Department said Patel’s removal was not tied to performance issues, though it offered no insight into the rationale behind the move.

Patel had only been installed at the ATF on February 24, 2025, three days after he was sworn in as FBI director. The dual appointment was seen as highly irregular, with legal and administrative experts noting that it blurred the lines of oversight across two distinct and operationally demanding agencies. Despite the unusual dual role, Patel’s removal came with no public explanation, adding to the air of unpredictability that has come to characterize recent shifts in the Trump administration.

How did the dual leadership role affect the ATF’s operations?

Patel’s brief time at the ATF was marked by limited visibility and engagement. According to current and former agency officials, he made only one formal visit to the ATF’s Washington headquarters — on the day he was sworn in — where he reportedly instructed staff to focus their efforts on violent gang apprehensions. After that, his physical absence from agency premises fueled concerns about a leadership vacuum.

Officials close to the ATF indicated that Patel had no further direct interaction with the agency’s operational units. This lack of involvement has been cited by multiple insiders as contributing to internal instability, with some suggesting that it undermined the agency’s morale and effectiveness during a time of increased political scrutiny and regulatory flux.

Further complicating the agency’s standing, the Trump administration has floated the possibility of merging the ATF with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in a bid to reduce costs and streamline operations. While no formal proposal has yet been unveiled, the potential merger has created uncertainty about the ATF’s long-term structure, funding, and mission.

Who is Daniel Driscoll, and why was he selected to lead the ATF?

Daniel Driscoll, the current U.S. Army Secretary, now also serves as acting ATF director. His appointment was confirmed by three individuals familiar with internal Justice Department discussions, though the timeline of the decision remains unclear. Driscoll was reportedly traveling in the Middle East at the time the news broke and has not yet issued a public statement on his dual responsibilities.

Driscoll’s background in military leadership offers a contrasting approach to the traditionally civilian-led ATF. Though his qualifications as a senior government administrator are not in question, the decision to entrust a military official with a civilian firearms regulatory body has raised concerns among policy analysts and law enforcement veterans. They worry that such a move could further politicize an already embattled agency.

Nevertheless, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents the gun industry, welcomed Driscoll’s appointment. The organization said the decision underscored the administration’s commitment to “bringing reform to ATF” and reinforcing protections for Second Amendment rights.

What does this mean for U.S. gun policy and regulatory enforcement?

The leadership change comes during a time of intensified debate over firearms policy in the United States. Attorney General Pam Bondi, a prominent Trump ally, recently launched a new Justice Department task force focused on Second Amendment enforcement. The ATF will play a central role in this initiative, alongside other Justice Department divisions such as the Civil Rights Division.

Just days before Patel’s removal, the ATF repealed the Biden-era “zero tolerance” policy, which had called for license revocation of gun dealers found to have willfully committed serious violations like failing to run background checks. The decision to roll back this policy has been celebrated by gun rights advocates and criticized by gun control supporters, who warn that it could increase the risk of weapons falling into the wrong hands.

The policy shift was communicated in a formal press release issued earlier in the week. Intriguingly, the release still included a quote attributed to Patel in his capacity as acting director — even as internal decisions about his departure were likely underway. The timing of the announcement and the silence surrounding Patel’s removal further underscores the chaotic handling of agency affairs.

How are current and former officials reacting to the ATF’s leadership turmoil?

The rapid rotation of leaders at the ATF — an agency central to investigating firearms trafficking, bombings, and arson — has left many within law enforcement concerned about the stability and effectiveness of federal firearms regulation. Multiple former senior officials expressed dismay at what they describe as an erosion of the agency’s standing and autonomy.

Peter Forcelli, a former assistant director at the ATF with a long career investigating gang crimes, said he was deeply troubled by the agency’s current trajectory. He described the leadership disruption as “heartbreaking” and criticized the administration’s approach to federal law enforcement management as disrespectful to the ATF’s mission.

Insiders noted that Patel’s appointment had caught many by surprise. Reports indicated that even senior ATF officials were unaware of Trump’s plan to install Patel until the moment of his swearing-in. A viral social media post from White House counterterrorism adviser Sebastian Gorka, featuring a photo of Patel with the caption “Meet the new Director of the ATF. Yes. Seriously,” was quickly deleted — but not before drawing widespread media attention.

What are the broader implications for federal law enforcement?

Patel’s removal and Driscoll’s appointment must be seen in the broader context of President Trump’s second-term strategy, which has included sweeping changes across multiple federal departments. The administration has enacted abrupt personnel shifts, reversed long-standing policy positions, and pushed for institutional restructuring in the name of cost efficiency and ideological alignment.

Wednesday’s leadership change also came on the heels of a high-profile policy pivot: the White House temporarily eased tariffs on numerous countries less than 24 hours after introducing a slate of new trade restrictions, underscoring the administration’s erratic policy rhythm.

In the Justice Department, discussions about consolidating the ATF with the DEA appear to reflect a broader ambition to centralize law enforcement power under fewer bureaucratic umbrellas. While such a move could theoretically reduce administrative overhead, critics argue it risks diminishing specialized enforcement capacity, especially in areas like gun tracing and explosives regulation where the ATF has developed decades of expertise.

In the meantime, the ATF remains at the centre of a charged national conversation about gun rights, public safety, and executive power. Whether Driscoll can provide the continuity and clarity the agency needs — while simultaneously fulfilling his duties as Army Secretary — remains an open question.