The closure of airspace on the U.S.-Mexico border was not an isolated event, but the result of several factors. The debate on how to balance border defense with the protection of civilian airspace in a strategic and high-traffic region is still open
The temporary closure of airspace over El Paso, Texas, set off alarms in civil aviation and revealed tensions between the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Below, we share some of the keys to understanding what happened and what implications it has on the border between Mexico and the United States, according to information released by the U.S. newspaper The New York Times.
The keys behind the closure of airspace on the border between Mexico and the United States
- What triggered the closure of the airspace?
The trigger was the use of a high-energy military laser to neutralize what authorities believed was a drone in the vicinity of Fort Bliss, near El Paso International Airport.
It was later determined that the object was a metallic balloon. However, the deployment of the weapon without formal authorization from the FAA triggered immediate regulatory alerts.
- Why did the FAA intervene?
The FAA is the authority responsible for airspace security in the United States. According to internal emails cited by The New York Times, the agency warned that using the laser system without flight restrictions posed a “serious” risk of death or permanent injury to passengers.
Faced with the possibility of a new use of the laser without coordination, the FAA ordered the closure of airspace below 18,000 feet for 10 days. The measure was reversed hours later.
- What is the anti-drone laser, and why is it controversial?
It is a military technology designed to shoot down drones allegedly used by cartels to cross drugs across the southern border.
The Pentagon maintained that the system posed no danger to civilian aircraft. However, the FAA requested technical data and independent tests before authorizing its regular operation. These requests, according to official sources, were not fully met.
The case raises a central debate: can a military technology operate in civil airspace without full validation from the aeronautical regulator?
- Was there a lack of inter-institutional coordination?
The controversy centers on whether the Department of Defense complied with legal coordination requirements.
Pentagon officials argued that the FAA was notified. The agency, on the other hand, considered the process insufficient and decided to act to protect commercial aviation.
Emails reviewed by The New York Times show that the FAA formally notified officials from the Department of Defense and the National Security Council of its intention to close the airspace.
- Why is this case especially sensitive?
The incident occurred in a context of high sensitivity in terms of air safety, after a previous accident near Ronald Reagan National Airport that put military and civilian protocols under scrutiny.
Any operation that involves potential risks for commercial aircraft is evaluated more rigorously after that background.
- What implications does it have for the Mexico-US border?
The use of anti-drone lasers is part of a broader border security strategy and combating drug trafficking.
However, the closure of airspace evidenced tensions between national defense and civilian regulation, especially in an area with intense commercial and military air traffic.
The episode also raises questions about the oversight of new military technologies on U.S. soil.
- What happened after the lockdown?
After pressure from the White House, the shutdown order was revoked. The lasers were later temporarily withdrawn from operation, according to sources cited by The New York Times.
Although a formal conflict has not been publicly acknowledged, the case exposed an internal dispute over legal competencies, institutional coordination, and air safety.
Source: La Silla Rota
