In the end, it was all very embarrassing, but in the beginning it provoked real alarm. The drone debacle that led to the sudden but temporary closure of the airport in El Paso, Texas on February 11 suddenly raised an important question: just who gets to shoot down drones operated by bad guys flying over American domestic airspace? There seems to be no shortage of volunteers with the New York Police Department asking to be among the first in line of non-military organizations to conduct terminal anti-drone operations.
Judging by its quick response in El Paso, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) isn’t keen on the idea as it worries about aircraft safety. Also resurfacing are memories of lasers aimed at pilot’s eyes in the past and the recent collision in Washington, D.C. involving a U.S. Army helicopter.
As pieced together by numerous news organizations ranging from the New York Times to NBC News, the confusing sequence of events goes something like this:
–First, the Pentagon decides to let the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency borrow a laser weapon from its Fort Bliss base adjacent to the airport to shoot down cartel drones allegedly flying into U.S. airspace from Mexico. The loaner is for a 10-day period and the extent of CBP training is unclear.
–The CBP goes all Star Wars in its eagerness to fire a laser weapon and does so without informing the FAA. Apparently familiar with CBP marksmanship and judging it to be about as good as an Imperial Stormtrooper’s, the FAA suddenly shuts down the El Paso airport for what it initially says will be a 10-day period that seems to correspond to the length of time the laser weapon will be in CBP hands.
–Turning faces redder is that an alleged cartel drone targeted by CBP turns out to be a wayward party balloon. FAA officials reopened the airport within a few hours after this unprecedented air traffic interruption that caused chaos but which left the FAA on the moral high ground.
While the El Paso incident is an embarrassing bungling of interagency communication, it speaks to a larger concern about how to counter the use of inexpensive drones for nefarious purposes. The cartels allegedly use drones to monitor the border for human trafficking purposes and have used drones to carry out attacks on rivals. While anti-drone takedowns are under the purview of federal law enforcement agencies, questions now arise as to whether the widespread use of cheap drones means that anti-drone operations need to be widened to include local law enforcement. The New York Police Department (NYPD) is seeking permission from the Trump Administration to shoot down drones. NYPD says it already has spent millions of dollars in training and equipment to limit drone threats but wants to take the next step in eliminating “the one threat that keeps me up at night,” NYPD commissioner Jessica Tisch told the New York Times.
According to Reuters, the counter-drone laser weapon deployed near the El Paso airport was a 20-kilowatt LOCUST direct-energy weapon developed by Virginia-based AeroVironment Inc. The LOCUST’s 20 kilowatt rating is reportedly at the lower end of the power spectrum for laser weapons and the weapon is designed for small drone incursions. AeroVironment delivered its first two LOCUST systems to the U.S. Army in December 2025. The Pentagon reports more than 1,000 drone sightings on the U.S-Mexico border every month.
The appeal of a laser weapon as an anti-drone device lies in its low cost per round fired. Anti-drone systems that rely on missiles cost much more than the inexpensive drones they target, making them an economically unattractive solution. Cost per round fired also is a major consideration as swarms of target drones are encountered. This may prove to be a significant vulnerability as LOCUST can only deal with one drone at a time and needs to linger on the target until it burns a hole through it. More powerful laser weapons may be better able to deal with swarms. An Australian company called Electro Optic Systems (EOS) says its 150-kilowatt “Apollo” beam can tackle 50 drones per minute but an increase in power translates to bigger size as Apollo is about the size of 20-foot ISO container.
In any event, laser weapon development is now on the fast and furious track. Ukraine, for example, this week said it has developed a truck-mounted laser called Sunray that emits no visible light during operation, making it virtually invisible to the enemy. On the horizon: a Star Wars-inspired prototype 15-kilowatt laser rifle such as the Helma-LP developed by the French company Cilas for special forces use that’s about the size of an assault rifle, has a 500-meter range and is powered by batteries carried in a backpack.
Compared to missiles, laser weapons have a relatively short range, albeit still measured in miles. This means safety is a major concern. A missed laser shot at a targeted drone could hit hikers on a nearby hill, for example. The LOCUST lasers are mounted on light tactical vehicles for quick deployment by helicopter.
Other anti-drone alternatives include weapons that use microwaves, various GPS and navigation jammers and even drone-hunting drones. And while any of these anti-drone systems may be appropriate for the battlefield, which ones are appropriate for domestic use, especially by local law enforcement and where collateral damage is likely, remains an open question.
