Temporary shutdown exposes growing tension between counter-drone tools, federal authority, and civilian airspace oversight
The sudden closure of civilian airspace over El Paso earlier this week did more than disrupt flights. It exposed a deeper challenge facing U.S. regulators and security agencies: how to deploy powerful counter-UAS systems near commercial airports without creating new aviation risks.
The Federal Aviation Administration issued a temporary flight restriction that halted operations at El Paso International Airport. The restriction was lifted within hours. Reporting from Reuters and the Associated Press indicated the shutdown followed activity involving a directed-energy counter-drone system operating near the airport.
While federal officials cited security concerns tied to drone activity near the border, the episode quickly evolved into a broader debate about coordination, authority, and aviation safety.
Counter-UAS Tools Meet the National Airspace System
Counter-UAS technology has advanced rapidly in recent years. Systems now include radio frequency disruption tools, advanced tracking platforms, and high-energy laser systems designed to disable hostile drones.
Those capabilities may be effective in military environments. Civilian airspace presents different constraints.
Airports operate within tightly managed airspace. Pilots, air traffic controllers, and airport operators depend on predictable flight paths and strict safety margins. The introduction of directed-energy systems near an active airport raises safety questions. These include line-of-sight exposure risks, potential interference concerns, and coordination challenges with air traffic operations.
According to reporting from Reuters and PBS, disagreement between defense officials and the FAA over the use of a laser-based counter-UAS system contributed to the decision to close the airspace. The FAA’s primary responsibility is aviation safety. When uncertainty exists, regulators tend to act conservatively.
El Paso became a real-world test of what happens when emerging counter-drone technology intersects with the National Airspace System.
Counter-UAS Is Now Treated as Critical Infrastructure Technology
The incident occurred at a time when counter-UAS capability is expanding nationwide.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency recently launched a $250 million Counter-UAS Grant Program that funds detection, identification, tracking, and mitigation capabilities for eligible state and local agencies. The program supports technology acquisition, training, and coordination planning. FEMA describes the initiative as part of broader homeland security preparedness.
At the same time, Congress has moved to formalize and expand domestic counter-drone authority through the SAFER SKIES Act, included in the FY26 National Defense Authorization Act. The legislation extends counter-UAS authorities and establishes more structured frameworks for certification and oversight.
These developments signal that counter-UAS is no longer experimental. It is becoming embedded in public safety and infrastructure protection planning.
El Paso shows how that expansion can collide with the realities of shared airspace.
Who Has Authority to Act?
At the center of the El Paso story is a complex authority question.
Many agencies can detect drones. Far fewer can legally disrupt or neutralize them.
Under federal law, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice hold defined counter-UAS mitigation authority only in very specific circumstances. The Department of Defense has its own authorities, which differ depending on domestic or overseas operations.
The FAA does not typically conduct drone mitigation. However, it retains authority over airspace safety and flight operations.
That division creates a seam. If a mitigation system operates near an airport, the FAA must ensure it does not endanger civil aviation. If safety concerns arise, the agency can restrict airspace access.
Government Accountability Office reports have noted that airport counter-UAS response requires close coordination between federal security agencies and aviation regulators. El Paso suggests those coordination mechanisms remain under stress as technologies evolve.
Implications for Commercial Drone Operations
For commercial operators, the El Paso episode carries broader implications.
The U.S. is simultaneously expanding counter-UAS capabilities and working to integrate more drones into routine airspace operations. The FAA continues to move toward broader beyond visual line of sight integration and advanced air mobility frameworks.
Airspace predictability is critical for scaling those operations.
If counter-UAS systems are deployed more widely through FEMA grants and expanded federal authority, clear coordination protocols will become essential. Operators need confidence that airspace restrictions will be transparent, targeted, and safety-driven.
The issue is not whether counter-UAS capability is necessary. Border security agencies and critical infrastructure operators face real drone threats. Criminal groups have used unmanned systems for smuggling and surveillance along the U.S.–Mexico border.
The question is how those threats are addressed without disrupting commercial aviation or creating uncertainty for legitimate drone operators.
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
TWITTER:@spaldingbarker
Subscribe to DroneLife here.
