FAA closes El Paso and New Mexico airspace for 10 days

[Dave51c]

Your sources don't support that.

I know, sorry it was interpreted it as such. EMF and pacemakers is a thing though.

 

[Gary C]

Other solutions offered by current DOW contractor Anduril Industries are integrated Counter UAS (anti-drone) defense systems built around their own hunter-killer drones. I like that these systems include the capability to correctly characterize and confirm the nature of the target, all weather day and night, video record of the encounter with the target, ability to abort the intercept and recover the defensive drone if the target is determined to be uninteresting.

Demonstration on YouTube of the company's "Lattice" product (est 2 minutes) -
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX0ji1sAXl8


Counter UAS product line on the company website - https://www.anduril.com/counter-uas

 

[MonkeeSage]

News outlets are reporting another FAA airspace closure today around Fort Hancock, Texas, after a reported accidental shoot down of a CBP drone by DoD. A statement was posted on X by the the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure account, and staffers additionally told Reuters the drone was believed to have been shot down with a high-energy laser system.

Excerpt from Reuters article:

Pentagon shoots down government drone in Texas accident, congressional aides say

By David Shepardson
February 26, 20267:11 PM CST

WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - The U.S. military shot down a U.S. government drone with a laser-based anti-drone system, an accident that prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to bar flights on Thursday in an area around Fort Hancock, Texas, congressional aides told Reuters.

The Pentagon did not immediately comment, but the FAA cited "special security reasons" in its notice about the restrictions on the airspace near the Mexican border.

U.S. Representatives Rick Larsen, Bennie Thompson and Andre Carson, top Democrats on committees overseeing aviation and Homeland Security issues, said in a joint statement the Pentagon reportedly shot down a Customs and Border Protection drone, and criticized the lack of coordination.

The lawmakers said they warned months ago that the White House's decision to sidestep a bipartisan proposal to train counter-drone operators and address coordination issues "was a short-sighted idea."

"Now, we're seeing the result of incompetence," the statement said.

Congressional aides told Reuters the Pentagon was believed to have used the high-energy laser system to shoot down the CBP drone near the Mexican border, in an area that often has incursions from Mexican drones used by drug cartels. CBP and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...ter-reported-use-anti-drone-laser-2026-02-27/

Edit: The above article was updated 1 hour ago and now includes the following:

The Pentagon, Federal Aviation Administration and Customs and Border Protection issued a statement saying the military used a "counter-unmanned aircraft system ... to mitigate a seemingly threatening unmanned aerial system operating within military airspace."

The statement added that the incident "took place far away from populated areas and there were no commercial aircraft in the vicinity. These agencies will continue to work on increased cooperation and communication to prevent such incidents in the future."

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...ter-reported-use-anti-drone-laser-2026-02-27/

X post:

Ranking Members Larsen, Thompson and Carson
Statement After DOD Reportedly Shot Down CBP Drone

"Our heads are exploding over the news that DoD reportedly shot down a Customs and Border Protection drone using a high risk counter-unmanned aircraft system.

We said MONTHS ago that the White House's decision to sidestep a bipartisan, tri-committee bill to appropriately train C-UAS operators and address the lack of coordination between the Pentagon, DHS and the FAA was a short-sighted idea.

Now, we're seeing the result of its incompetence."

Source: https://x.com/TransportDems/status/2027198549608317278

 

[Hevach]

The last one I kind of understood (aside from Washington going off uninformed) - mistakes of communication were made but they responded promptly to an unknown and didn't hide the fact that they were jumping at shadows.

This time, though, the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing and neither one is letting the brain know before they start setting off fireworks.

 

[NoParty]

Unfortunately for taxpayers, The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight
actually managed to shoot straight once, costing us dearly.
Where will the blame eventually fall? DoD? FAA? CBP? Pentagon? Trans community? Or just reliably stupid Texas?
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/27/faa...space-texas-reports-accidental-laser-use.html

 

[Vanessa]

Trans community?

It was me! My bad

In seriousness, yeah, what an incredible foolish string of decisions.

 

[Mendel]

Where will the blame eventually fall?

https://shoptheweitzman.org/products/secret-jewish-space-laser-corps-sticker

(2021 callback )

 

[Angatar]

Sorry if it upset you, but I took your post as a joke. The notion that "advanced laser weapons" should be the standard approach toward a simple balloon struck me as being a ludicrous overkill.

Ignoring whether or not balloons are worth shooting down, lasers do seem like they'd be a far better weapon for that purpose than missiles or guns. Cheaper to fire and less likely to hit something you don't intend to.

 

[Ann K]

Ignoring whether or not balloons are worth shooting down, lasers do seem like they'd be a far better weapon for that purpose than missiles or guns. Cheaper to fire and less likely to hit something you don't intend to.

A far better weapon, less likely to hit something unintentionally? So why is it that we have had two large chunks of air space shut down over the last couple of weeks?

This sounds like the FAA thought the military was using their lasers without adequate safeguards (and accidentally shooting down balloons), so they just shut down the airspace until the military agreed to stop.

Lasers to take down a drone are not the same as the laser pointers the cats chase. Precautions must be guaranteed, and anything that might affect civilian air safety needs a LOT of precautions.

 

[Eburacum]

Cheaper to fire and less likely to hit something you don't intend to.

Unless the thing you intend to hit is a misidentified civilian aircraft, like most of the 'drones' seen and filmed by witnesses in the last two years.

Firing a weapons laser at a civilian aircraft may not damage that aircraft significantly, but it could seriously inconvenience the pilot.

 

[jdog]

Unless the thing you intend to hit is a misidentified civilian aircraft, like most of the 'drones' seen and filmed by witnesses in the last two years.

Firing a weapons laser at a civilian aircraft may not damage that aircraft significantly, but it could seriously inconvenience the pilot.

I don't see how.

 

[Ann K]

I don't see how.

Laser strikes on aircraft remain a serious threat to aviation safety. Intentionally aiming lasers at aircrafts poses a safety threat to pilots and violates federal law. Many high-powered lasers can incapacitate pilots flying aircraft that may be carrying hundreds of passengers.

The FAA works closely with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to pursue civil and criminal penalties against people who purposely aim a laser at an aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/lasers/laws

A laser can blind a pilot, for starters. That's more than an "inconvenience".

 

[deirdre]

This time, though, the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing and neither one is letting the brain know before they start setting off fireworks.

just because the drone is allegedly border control doesn't mean the military is going to tolerate a drone in their space. Border control agents could sell information to the tabloids or China too.

 

[jdog]

Laser strikes on aircraft remain a serious threat to aviation safety. Intentionally aiming lasers at aircrafts poses a safety threat to pilots and violates federal law. Many high-powered lasers can incapacitate pilots flying aircraft that may be carrying hundreds of passengers.

The FAA works closely with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to pursue civil and criminal penalties against people who purposely aim a laser at an aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/lasers/laws

A laser can blind a pilot, for starters. That's more than an "inconvenience".

The /s was implied… guess my sense of humor missed the mark.

 

[Mendel]

Ignoring whether or not balloons are worth shooting down, lasers do seem like they'd be a far better weapon for that purpose than missiles or guns. Cheaper to fire and less likely to hit something you don't intend to.

Cons:
- slow rate of fire due to heat dispersal
- stands out on a battlefield (heat/the laser light)
- may violate the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons
- will not cause balloon to descend quickly
- can probably be countered by metallic balloon that rotates
- will not work in bad weather

Pros:
- not altitude-limited

"Cheaper to fire" depends entirely on the estimated shots per lifetime vs. cost of the system.
While the single shot might be cheaper than a guided missile, bullets will probably still beat it.

I'd try a drone with a knife (or a small saw) for low-altitude balloons.

Edited to add weather condition

 

[Ann K]

Pros:
- not altitude-limited

That depends a lot on atmospheric conditions, doesn't it? A laser beam attenuates rather quickly if the air is cloudy or dusty. In desert areas it's more likely to be dusty, especially if there's any wind, and massive dust storms have been known to sweep through the region with long-lasting dust hanging in the air after the wind stops. I had to drive at five miles an hour for miles one time when traveling between White Sands and El Paso, in a long line of cars that could only see the lights of the car ahead from a very close distance.

Fog is less likely, but not unknown. I remember when the football game known as the "Sun Bowl" was postponed because the El Paso airport was densely fogged in for two days straight.

 

[Mendel]

That depends a lot on atmospheric conditions, doesn't it?

Yes. Altitude is not an atmospheric condition, however, and since the air at altitude is less dense and less polluted, altitude makes less of a difference for a laser than it does for anything ballistic or with wings.

 

[Angatar]

Unless the thing you intend to hit is a misidentified civilian aircraft, like most of the 'drones' seen and filmed by witnesses in the last two years.

To be honest, I don't understand what the "unless" is supposed to mean. Misidentifying a civilian aircraft and firing on it, even if it doesn't destroy it, is certainly a problem and that's why I believe they've shut down the airspace. They are being reckless and sloppy with identification and deconfliction and you can't shoot down a civilian aircraft if there are none above you. But that's not a problem with the weapon system.

See Iran Air Flight 655 for a US Navy ship misidentifying a civilian aircraft as an enemy fighter and using surface-to-air missiles to destroy it.

Or the 1994 Black Hawk shootdowns for a US Air Fore F-15 misdentified 2 US Army Black Hawks helicopters as Iraqi Mi-24s and shooting them down with air-to-air missiles.

Or the 2003 A-10 friendly fire incident where two US Air Force A-10s misidentified the friend-or-foe panels on a squadron of British armored vehicles as missiles atop Iraqi armored vehicles and destroyed the column using guns.

In each one of those examples a target was intentionally identified (albeit incorrectly), a target was intentionally aimed at, a target was intentionally fired upon, and a target was intentionally destroyed. None of these are collateral damage. You can take any weapon system and point it at something you shouldn't, and pull the trigger when you shouldn't. I don't understand why the laser is considered the problem and not the recklessness of unscheduled weapons testing, or the incompetence of misidentifying a border patrol drone as a cartel's smuggling balloon.

 

[Mendel]

To be honest, I don't understand what the "unless" is supposed to mean. Misidentifying a civilian aircraft and firing on it, even if it doesn't destroy it, is certainly a problem and that's why I believe they've shut down the airspace. They are being reckless and sloppy with identification and deconfliction and you can't shoot down a civilian aircraft if there are none above you. But that's not a problem with the weapon system.

ATC tends to route civilian aircraft around any war zones where anti-air weaponry is deployed. (Recent examples include Ukraine, Venezuela, and Iran.) That laser qualifies as anti-air weaponry; so the FAA keeps air traffic away from it.

 

[Gary C]

just because the drone is allegedly border control doesn't mean the military is going to tolerate a drone in their space. Border control agents could sell information to the tabloids or China too.

If CBP doesn't tell them ahead of time, the military has no way to tell who owns the drone that an Air Defense crew is looking at. Drones don't come with IFF transponders and most are built on roughly the same architectures. They literally all look pretty much alike.

 

[Mendel]

If CBP doesn't tell them ahead of time, the military has no way to tell who owns the drone that an Air Defense crew is looking at.

and it's literally legal to fly a drone there unless the airspace has been closed.

 

[Eburacum]

I don't understand why the laser is considered the problem and not the recklessness of unscheduled weapons testing, or the incompetence of misidentifying a border patrol drone as a cartel's smuggling balloon.

The problem is that lasers are more likely to hit their target, whether they are 100 metres way or 10 kilometres. Several attempts have been made to shoot down 'drones' seen in Denmark and elsewhere, in the mistaken belief they were nearby and in range of a rifle or other ballistic weapon; in most cases these 'drones' were misidentified (friendly) civilian aircraft, and the ballistic weapons had no chance of reaching them.

However a laser beam follows a geodesic path rather than a ballistic one, and if you aim a weapons-grade laser at a distant plane you will have a good chance of hitting it and distracting or blinding the aircrew.

 

[Ravi]

The problem is that lasers are more likely to hit their target, whether they are 100 metres way or 10 kilometres. Several attempts have been made to shoot down 'drones' seen in Denmark and elsewhere, in the mistaken belief they were nearby and in range of a rifle or other ballistic weapon; in most cases these 'drones' were misidentified (friendly) civilian aircraft, and the ballistic weapons had no chance of reaching them.

However a laser beam follows a geodesic path rather than a ballistic one, and if you aim a weapons-grade laser at a distant plane you will have a good chance of hitting it and distracting or blinding the aircrew.

Is that true? I would like to see evidence of this, as I am not agreeing with that statement.

 

[deirdre]

and it's literally legal to fly a drone there unless the airspace has been closed.

you might have missed Monkee Sage updated his original post

Edit: The above article was updated 1 hour ago and now includes the following:
The Pentagon, Federal Aviation Administration and Customs and Border Protection issued a statement saying the military used a "counter-unmanned aircraft system ... to mitigate a seemingly threatening unmanned aerial system operating within military airspace."

The statement added that the incident "took place far away from populated areas and there were no commercial aircraft in the vicinity. These agencies will continue to work on increased cooperation and communication to prevent such incidents in the future."

Source: https://www.facebook.com/FortBlissGarrison/posts/attention-all-fort-bliss-personnel-no-drone-zonethis-is-a-reminder-that-fort-bli/1097295805758626/

 

[deirdre]

If CBP doesn't tell them ahead of time, the military has no way to tell who owns the drone that an Air Defense crew is looking at. Drones don't come with IFF transponders and most are built on roughly the same architectures. They literally all look pretty much alike.

apparently there was concern with some City of El Paso drones last september also. (but doesnt sound like they were shot down, article says "near" the military base)

Article:

Fort Bliss unaware of El Paso's use of foreign drones near base, assessing potential risks

In a statement shared to El Paso Matters, Fort Bliss said:

"Fort Bliss was not made aware in advance of the City of El Paso's use of foreign-manufactured drones around or near the installation. The installation takes all potential security concerns seriously and is assessing any potential risks associated with unmanned aerial systems operating in close proximity to the base. Fort Bliss maintains a positive and productive relationship with local officials and the City of El Paso to address matters of mutual concern.

Source: https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/fort-bliss-unaware-of-el-pasos-use-of-foreign-drones-near-base-assessing-potential-risks

 

[Gary C]

apparently there was concern with some City of El Paso drones last september also. (but doesnt sound like they were shot down, article says "near" the military base)

Article:

Fort Bliss unaware of El Paso's use of foreign drones near base, assessing potential risks

In a statement shared to El Paso Matters, Fort Bliss said:

"Fort Bliss was not made aware in advance of the City of El Paso's use of foreign-manufactured drones around or near the installation. The installation takes all potential security concerns seriously and is assessing any potential risks associated with unmanned aerial systems operating in close proximity to the base. Fort Bliss maintains a positive and productive relationship with local officials and the City of El Paso to address matters of mutual concern.

Source: https://kfoxtv.com/news/local/fort-bliss-unaware-of-el-pasos-use-of-foreign-drones-near-base-assessing-potential-risks

Sounds like someone just trying to generate a headline.

• How near was "near"?
• Who was quoted as "expressing concern?"
• What specific risks would being "near" Ft Bliss create?
• In that ligth the response from Ft Bliss should be read as "didn't know, don't care."

Obtaining an exclusively American made drone for typical urban planning and city management functions sounds like a waste of money. "Foreign made" is in this instance a narrative choice made to create a sense of unease and risk in the reader.

 

[deirdre]

Sounds like someone just trying to generate a headline.

• How near was "near"?
• Who was quoted as "expressing concern?"
• What specific risks would being "near" Ft Bliss create?
• In that ligth the response from Ft Bliss should be read as "didn't know, don't care."

what? the Fort Bliss statement is right there for you to read. Sounds to me like they care.

I'm confused how you can read their statement and still ask those questions.

 

[Ann K]

what? the Fort Bliss statement is right there for you to read. Sounds to me like they care.

I'm confused how you can read their statement and still ask those questions.

It's remarkably free of specifics for an official statement.

 

[Gary C]

what? the Fort Bliss statement is right there for you to read. Sounds to me like they care.

I'm confused how you can read their statement and still ask those questions.

This sort of statement is almost entirely boiler-plate. They denied knowledge of the event, added an entirely generic statement on base security policy, and made no mention of changes or follow up resulting from the report.

OTOH the Base Exchange sells "foreign-manufactured" drones to anyone with a military or dependent ID card so I can't see that anyone is losing sleep over this.

 

[deirdre]

They denied knowledge of the event

no they didnt. Reread it more carefully.

so I can't see that anyone is losing sleep over this.

(but this does explain the responses and reactions of the same group in other threads... so now i know).

follow up resulting from the report.

the follow up is discussing the issue with officials from the City. ???

it doesnt matter, either people understand military and police procedures or they dont.

 

[Gary C]

no they didnt. Reread it more carefully.

"

Fort Bliss unaware of El Paso's use of foreign drones near base

"

(but this does explain the responses and reactions of the same group in other threads... so now i know).

the follow up is discussing the issue with officials from the City. ???

What issue?

• The are no reports that military airspace was actually violated by city operated drones. [How near was near?]
• No actual or specific risks were identified.

it doesnt matter, either people understand military and police procedures or they dont.

One of us does.

 

[John J.]

Fort Bliss unaware of El Paso's use of foreign drones near base, assessing potential risks

I think the term "foreign drones", and "foreign-manufactured drones" in the subsequent article, are a bit silly.
Chinese-made hobby drones don't automatically relay interesting information back to China.
American-made drones can be used to illegally gather intel, or for other nefarious purposes, by users.

Foreign-made drones bad, American-made drones OK doesn't make much sense from a security perspective.
If a serious state-sponsored actor were conducting espionage within the US using drones, and foreign-made drones were selectively banned from some areas or attracted greater suspicion, they'd use American-made drones.
Intelligence operatives/ covert mission troops/ militant groups have sometimes used the weapons/ hardware of their adversaries, both to obscure the origin of the team/ group involved, and sometimes simply because the local equipment is more readily available where they're operating.