In February 2026 a clash between aviation regulators and the Pentagon over the field use of a high-energy laser system near El Paso International Airport led the Federal Aviation Administration to abruptly suspend local airspace for 10 days. The dispute centered on U.S. efforts to shoot down drones tied to Mexican cartel smuggling operations and whether proper interagency clearances and safety reviews were obtained. FAA administrator Bryan Bedford, alarmed by what officials described as “a grave risk of fatalities,” ordered the temporary closure after Customs and Border Protection, working with military personnel, deployed the weapon. The episode has exposed deep procedural friction inside the administration and revived concerns about aviation safety after a fatal Army helicopter collision earlier in the year.
Key Takeaways
- The FAA closed airspace near El Paso International Airport for 10 days after an unauthorized or unexpected use of a high-energy laser system, officials said.
- The weapon was used against drones alleged to be employed by Mexican cartels to ferry narcotics across the southern border.
- Pentagon officials described the system as “necessary” for countering smuggling, while FAA voices warned of a “grave risk of fatalities.”
- Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg was briefed on plans last spring; two anonymous sources recalled tension about procedural requirements.
- Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell publicly denied claims that Mr. Feinberg asserted unilateral authority, calling that account “a total fabrication.”
- Public scrutiny intensified after an Army helicopter collided with a passenger jet near Ronald Reagan National Airport earlier in the year, killing 67 people.
- The dispute raises questions about interagency coordination, legal authority over airspace safety, and safeguards for civilian flights near border operations.
Background
U.S. agencies have increasingly turned to kinetic and directed-energy tools to stop small, unmanned aircraft used by transnational criminal organizations. Those drones have become a favored means for moving drugs and other contraband across the U.S.-Mexico border, prompting experiments with high-energy lasers designed to disable them at range. Federal law and long-standing policy require close coordination between the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation and the FAA before any weapon that could affect civilian airspace is used near populated flight corridors.
Tension between defense imperatives and aviation safety intensified after an Army helicopter collided with a commercial airliner above the Washington, D.C., area earlier in 2026, killing 67 people and subjecting the military’s safety practices to intense review. That accident heightened FAA sensitivity to any military or law-enforcement activity that might endanger civil aviation. At the same time, officials at Customs and Border Protection and the Pentagon argued that new tools are urgently needed to counter rapid, evolving smuggling tactics that have strained border enforcement.
Main Event
According to multiple people familiar with internal discussions, Pentagon staff briefed Deputy Secretary Steve Feinberg in the spring about deploying a high-energy laser capability to neutralize cartel-operated drones. Staff advised that legal and regulatory steps would require coordination with the FAA and Transportation Department and could slow or even prevent field testing close to civilian flight paths. Two sources who requested anonymity said Mr. Feinberg believed the Pentagon retained authority to proceed; the Pentagon’s public spokesman denied that characterization.
This month, Customs and Border Protection—operating alongside military personnel—used the laser system near El Paso International Airport. The deployment prompted alarm at the FAA, which said the weapon posed an unacceptable risk to nearby civilian aircraft. Late on a Tuesday night FAA administrator Bryan Bedford, surprised by the deployment and concerned about public safety, ordered the brief suspension of regional airspace for 10 days to mitigate perceived hazards and to assess safety controls.
Local officials and travelers said they were caught off guard by the decision, which had immediate operational consequences for commercial flights and general aviation in the El Paso region. The Pentagon characterized the capability as necessary to stop interdiction flights, while FAA officials demanded clearer protocols and advance notice for any use of directed-energy systems near civilian air routes.
Analysis & Implications
The episode spotlights a governance gap when defense tools intersect with civilian domains. Directed-energy weapons operate at ranges and with effects that can be difficult to isolate; without strict procedural checks, their deployment near airports introduces new classes of risk for passenger aircraft and air traffic management. FAA authority to restrict operations is intended to protect the flying public, yet national-security actors sometimes press for quicker operational timelines to address immediate threats.
Legally, agencies must reconcile statutes that grant the FAA responsibility for air safety with defense exceptions and classified mission needs. If the Pentagon or DHS act without adequate FAA input, they could face administrative or congressional inquiries and potential litigation from airlines or local stakeholders. Congress may demand clearer delineation of approval pathways or mandate formal memoranda of understanding for any joint uses that affect civilian airspace.
Operationally, the incident may slow or reshape counter-drone experimentation near busy airports. Manufacturers and field operators will likely need to demonstrate precise safety cases and redundant safeguards before gaining FAA concurrence. For communities like El Paso, repeated disruptions risk economic and reputational costs, particularly if commercial carriers alter service patterns to avoid intermittent closures.
Comparison & Data
| Event | Date | Fatalities | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Army helicopter–passenger jet collision (Washington area) | Early 2026 | 67 | Heightened military safety scrutiny |
| El Paso laser deployment | February 2026 | 0 reported | FAA ordered 10-day airspace closure |
The table highlights the contrast between the earlier fatal collision, which intensified skepticism about military flight safety, and the El Paso incident, which produced no reported casualties but triggered precautionary airspace controls. Regulators are more likely to err on the side of conservative restrictions after high-profile accidents, increasing the threshold for approving novel counter-drone measures near civilian corridors.
Reactions & Quotes
“a grave risk of fatalities”
Federal Aviation Administration (characterization cited by FAA officials)
“a total fabrication”
Sean Parnell, Pentagon spokesman
“necessary”
U.S. Department of Defense (description of the weapon’s role)
Those terse statements capture the gulf between safety-focused regulators and defense supporters. FAA leaders framed the move as an immediate public-safety concern; the Pentagon and allied agencies emphasized operational necessity for counter-smuggling missions.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Deputy Secretary Steve Feinberg explicitly asserted unilateral authority for the Pentagon to deploy the system despite FAA objections remains disputed and is based on anonymous accounts.
- The precise technical parameters of the laser deployment—range, power output, and safety interlocks—have not been publicly released and remain unverified.
- It is not yet confirmed whether formal, written approvals or waivers were sought from the Department of Transportation or FAA prior to the field use.
Bottom Line
The El Paso airspace closure exposed a fraught, unresolved tension between urgent counter-smuggling imperatives and the FAA’s mandate to safeguard civilian aviation. Even where no casualties occurred, the perceived risk from deploying high-energy directed-energy tools near busy flight corridors prompted an unprecedented regulatory response that will likely shape future operations.
Expect increased scrutiny from Congress and the public, demands for clearer interagency rules, and possible legal tests over authority and oversight. For local communities and carriers, the episode underscores the operational and economic consequences when security experiments intersect with commercial aviation.