Kash Patel
Patel was removed from the role in late February, shortly after his appointment, though no public statement was issued at the time. AFP

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Kash Patel is no longer serving as the acting head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and has been replaced by Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, U.S. Justice Department confirmed on Wednesday.

Authorities have not disclosed the reason behind Patel's replacement. Driscoll has now assumed the role of acting director of the ATF while continuing to serve as Army Secretary, a Justice Department official confirmed, Associated Press reported.

Sources familiar with the situation indicated that Patel's removal occurred in late February, shortly after he was appointed to the role. However, no public statement was issued at the time. As of Wednesday afternoon, the ATF website continued to display Patel's name and photograph, listing him as the acting director.

In March, Patel shared a message on social media addressed to ATF employees titled "special message from the acting director," while senior leaders at the agency were only officially informed of the leadership change on Wednesday.

Patel took on the position at the ATF on Feb. 24, just three days after he was officially sworn in as director of the FBI—a dual leadership arrangement that was seen as highly unconventional, Justice Department official said, Reuters reported.

A Justice Department spokesperson verified Patel's departure but emphasized that it was unrelated to his job performance.

White House spokesman Harrison Fields described Patel's short stint as ATF director as a temporary appointment while awaiting Senate confirmation processes.

"Dozens of similar re-designations have occurred across the federal government," White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in an email. "Director Patel is now excelling in his role at the FBI and delivering outstanding results."

ATF Officials Caught Off Guard

At the time of Patel's appointment, five current and former ATF officials noted that no one within the agency had been informed of the decision to install him. Patel's designation to lead both the FBI and ATF was viewed as highly irregular.

On the day he assumed leadership, Patel spent roughly an hour at the ATF's main offices, encouraging personnel to prioritize the arrest of violent gang members. According to four officials, he had not returned to ATF headquarters since then.

Dual Responsibilities For Driscoll

A Pentagon source confirmed that Driscoll will continue his duties as Army Secretary while managing the ATF.

The dual role places a military official at the helm of a domestic law enforcement body—an arrangement that departs from the longstanding U.S. policy of keeping military and policing roles separate. While troops are not permitted to perform law enforcement within the U.S., they often assist agencies like Customs and Border Protection through intelligence and logistical support.

As Secretary of the Army, 38-year-old Driscoll leads the largest branch of the U.S. military, overseeing approximately 452,000 soldiers, including thousands stationed globally. He is also in charge of managing dozens of major weapons, aircraft, and equipment programs valued in the billions, and is responsible for an Army budget exceeding $187 billion.

Agencies Merger Under Review

Justice Department officials are currently exploring a potential consolidation of the ATF and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as part of cost-cutting measures. Though the two agencies frequently collaborate—along with the FBI—their leadership structures and operational mandates remain distinct.

The ATF is responsible for investigating violent crimes, illegal gun trafficking, arson, and bombings. It also provides key forensic and intelligence support in gun-related criminal cases. In contrast, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) enforces drug laws and targets narcotics trafficking networks.

The abrupt leadership change and absence of clear direction have alarmed current and former law enforcement figures. They warn that the agency's reduced effectiveness could compromise public safety and expose it to potential funding reductions—further impacting its ability to tackle violent crimes involving firearms.