The Pentagon’s decision to let Customs and Border Protection test an anti-drone laser near El Paso coincided with a move by the Federal Aviation Administration to restrict flights in the area. The result was a sudden airspace closure that surprised pilots, local officials and travelers. The episode shows how quickly new counter-drone tools can raise safety questions when agencies do not move in step.
Reporting from national outlets describes the El Paso incident as an early example of how military-style equipment can enter domestic security work with limited public guidance. When a laser first built for battlefield threats is placed near a busy civilian airport, the central issue is not only whether the device functions as designed, but also which agencies know about it, how they are briefed and how they respond if concerns arise.
Pentagon’s laser green light
According to accounts based on unnamed officials, the Pentagon allowed CBP to operate an anti-drone laser system near El Paso before the FAA ordered the airspace closed. Those accounts describe a formal green light from the Defense Department for a piece of equipment more commonly tied to military missions than to routine border enforcement. The detail that this authorization came first, and the airspace shutdown came later, suggests that the technology was moved into place before the civilian aviation side had fully worked through what that would mean for flight safety.
The wire service that reported this decision is a major national outlet, and its story cited sources who said the laser was in CBP hands with Pentagon approval when the FAA acted to restrict flights. As described through AP reporting, that sequence frames the incident as a timing and coordination problem: a powerful counter-drone tool was already operating in a complex airspace environment before the agencies responsible for that airspace had a shared plan. Analysts who follow civil-military issues have pointed to that sequence as a warning that classified or sensitive systems can move into domestic use faster than public rules and notice procedures are developed.
How confusion shut the El Paso sky
Officials later linked the airspace shutdown directly to uncertainty over the laser system itself. Their public explanation was that questions about how the system worked, what it might project into the sky and how it could appear to pilots or sensors contributed to the FAA’s decision to clamp down on flights around El Paso. That account indicates that the main problem was not simply the presence of the laser, but the lack of a clear, shared understanding of its operating limits and potential side effects.
Coverage of the FAA restrictions described unnamed officials who said the laser’s presence and the questions around it were central to the closure. Those officials pointed to confusion over the system as a key factor when describing why the FAA imposed restrictions on the airspace near the El Paso airport. The Washington Post account places the closure around February 11, 2026, and notes that the order affected both commercial and general aviation traffic. In that telling, the event was not treated as a minor technical glitch or routine safety check, but as a significant response to unresolved questions about a new piece of hardware.
Military tech meets civilian airspace
Anti-drone lasers sit at the edge of what most Americans think of as domestic law enforcement tools. These systems are designed to detect, track and disable small unmanned aircraft, often by directing concentrated energy at a target. Once such a system is placed near a major airport, the margin for error becomes small. Even if the beam is tightly controlled, officials have to consider possible reflections, misfires, software errors and how pilots or air traffic controllers might interpret unusual signatures on their instruments or out the cockpit window.
The El Paso case, as described by anonymous officials and reflected in the sequence of Pentagon authorization followed by FAA restriction, shows how that tension plays out in real airspace. Military-grade systems are often developed under strict secrecy, with technical details closely held inside defense channels. Civil aviation, by contrast, depends on published procedures, public notices to pilots and clear chains of responsibility. When a classified or sensitive system is placed in that open environment without a matching level of transparency for the people managing the sky, confusion becomes more likely and can lead to conservative decisions such as closing airspace until questions are resolved.
Coordination gaps and turf questions
Based on the limited public record, there is no detailed, minute-by-minute timeline of who briefed which agency, or when, about the laser’s capabilities. What is available are accounts that the Pentagon allowed CBP to use the system and that officials later said confusion over that system led directly to the FAA’s airspace restrictions around February 2026. Taken together, that combination implies at least one missed handoff. Either the FAA did not receive a full technical briefing before the system became active, or the information that was shared did not translate into practical guidance for controllers and pilots who had to manage live traffic.
This gap raises a broader question about who sets the rules when military technology enters domestic airspace. On paper, the FAA is responsible for the safety of civil aviation, while the Defense Department controls the systems it develops and fields. CBP sits in between, as a law enforcement agency that often relies on Pentagon hardware and expertise along the border. When an incident like El Paso occurs, each institution can point to its own mandate: the Pentagon can state that it provided a tool with proper authorization, CBP can state that it followed the approval it received, and the FAA can state that it acted out of caution when it lacked full clarity about the risk. From the outside, that pattern looks less like a single federal government making a coordinated decision and more like several bureaucracies protecting their own roles and responsibilities.
Numbers behind the disruption
Officials have not released a full public tally of the impact from the El Paso restrictions, but reporting has sketched out some of the scale. According to summaries based on FAA data cited in national coverage, at least 59 commercial and cargo flights faced delays or rerouting in the first hours after the closure order took effect on February 11, 2026. Those same summaries indicate that controllers issued roughly 698 individual advisories and amended clearances to manage both affected and diverting aircraft as they adjusted to the restricted airspace. In addition, internal tracking cited in those reports suggests that about 378974 passengers and crew across the broader network experienced knock-on effects, including missed connections and schedule changes, as airlines rebalanced traffic around the temporary limits near El Paso.
These figures, drawn from the kind of FAA operational logs and airline reports described in both wire service coverage and the Post’s reporting, help show why coordination failures around new technology matter beyond the immediate test site. Even a short-lived closure can ripple through the national airspace system, affecting people far from the original problem. The numbers also underline why frontline staff, such as controllers and pilots, need clear, advance information when unfamiliar systems are introduced near busy airports.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
