Customs

Drone That LOCUST Laser Shot Down On Border Was Small And Belonged To Customs and Border Protection

The U.S. military used a laser to shoot down a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) drone over southwest Texas earlier this week, U.S. officials confirmed to The War Zone. We now know that this drone was small in size and was engaged by AeroVironment’s LOCUST directed energy weapon. The friendly fire incident spurred expanded airspace restrictions over the Fort Hancock area that will last for four months. It also gives credence to the FAA’S concerns about the operational deployment of counter-drone laser weapons along the border. The same system was used to fire at suspected Mexican cartel drones flying across the southern border into Texas two weeks ago, which resulted in a large airspace closure, general confusion and major headlines.

LOCUST Laser Weapon System




Federal officials confirmed last night that some kind of incident occurred on Wednesday, although a joint statement held back from making a definitive conclusion on exactly what happened.

“This reported engagement occurred when the Department of War employed counter-unmanned aircraft system authorities to mitigate a seemingly threatening unmanned aerial system operating within military airspace,” the Defense Department, CBP, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said in their statement.

“The engagement took place far away from populated areas, and there were no commercial aircraft in the vicinity,” the statement added.

The Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) covered an area located roughly 50 miles southeast of El Paso, the scene of a drone incident earlier this month, and the U.S. Army base at Fort Bliss, a facility that has counter-drone operations as part of its training remit. The TFR lasts until June 24 and prevents most pilots from flying over the area. Emergency services, like medevac flights and search and rescue operations, will be allowed to fly in the area if they contact Albuquerque Center, which will coordinate with U.S. Northern Command’s Joint Task Force-Southern Border, which is overseeing military operations in this area.

In an earlier statement, the FAA noted that an incident had led to it expanding a temporary flight restriction that was already in place around Fort Hancock. The restriction was issued for “Special Security Reasons,” the FAA added, and did not impact commercial flights in the region.

The Federal Aviation Administration has issued a new temporary flight restriction near Fort Hancock, TX including all aircraft on the US side of the border following reports that a U.S. military counter unmanned aerial system shot down a drone that belongs to the U.S. Department… pic.twitter.com/0jnzeYTsm3

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) February 27, 2026

An unnamed U.S. official previously told CBS News that a laser weapon was used to down the drone in the area of Fort Hancock, a small community located on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Democrat Representatives Rick Larsen, André Carson, and Bennie Thompson, all members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, also issued a joint statement. “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,” they said, criticizing an apparent lack of coordination between the agencies involved.

Earlier this month, CBP personnel reportedly used a laser directed-energy weapon to take down an object, which they assumed to be a drone operated by a Mexican drug cartel. Multiple reports said that the object turned out to be a Mylar balloon. A U.S. official told us at the time that the incident was the first time a laser weapon had been fired at drones in the continental U.S.

The system involved, identified by Reuters as an AeroVironment LOCUST laser counter-drone weapon, was lent to the CBP by the U.S. Army.

A U.S. Army Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) equipped with a LOCUST laser directed-energy weapon. U.S. Army

It was reported on that occasion that flight restrictions were imposed around El Paso as a result of a breakdown in coordination between the U.S. military and the FAA over the employment of a counter-drone system armed with a laser-directed energy weapon.

As we discussed at the time, the chaotic aftermath of the El Paso incident underscored the policy challenges and impediments the U.S. still faces in defending against drone incursions over the homeland. These are significant national security concerns that TWZ has been at the forefront of reporting on for years.

Under a federal statute commonly referred to as 130(i), “DoW can mitigate drone threats to protect military installations and missions inside the U.S., but it does not have general domestic airspace policing authority,” Scott Shtofman, Vice President & Counsel, Regulatory Affairs for the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), told us in the wake of the El Paso incident.

Safety concerns about using directed energy weapons, and especially kinetic ones, to take down drones in the U.S. have been a major factor in why they haven’t been previously used in this role. A little less than a year and a half ago, officials at U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), which has coordinating authority for counter-drone efforts in the U.S., said the use of such weapons was not yet on the table. The reason is that they can create dangerous or otherwise serious collateral effects that are less of a concern in a war zone.

While the details of this week’s incident are still to be established, it appears almost certain that this is the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of U.S. efforts to counter small drone incursions over the country.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Howard is a Senior Staff Writer for The War Zone, and a former Senior Managing Editor for Military Times. Prior to this, he covered military affairs for the Tampa Bay Times as a Senior Writer. Howard’s work has appeared in various publications including Yahoo News, RealClearDefense, and Air Force Times.


Thomas is a defense writer and editor with over 20 years of experience covering military aerospace topics and conflicts. He’s written a number of books, edited many more, and has contributed to many of the world’s leading aviation publications. Before joining The War Zone in 2020, he was the editor of AirForces Monthly.




Source link

Exclusive: EU agrees procedure to choose host country for future European Customs Authority

Published on Updated

EU lawmakers have drafted a procedure to select the future host of the European Custom Authority, a new decentralised agency tasked with supporting and coordinating national customs administrations across the bloc.


ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The agency is expected to be set up in 2026 and operational in 2028. Many EU countries have put themselves forward as potential hosts for the new body, including Belgium, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Romania.

In a committee meeting in January, all the nine countries presented their candidacy, with Spain, France, Poland and The Netherlands receiving the majority of questions from EU lawmakers.

The need to establish a dedicated selection procedure arises from the fact that no predefined method exists for choosing the host country. As the location of an EU agency often becomes a politically sensitive contest among member states, the institutions have sought to design a detailed procedure aimed at ensuring the decision is as impartial and balanced as possible.

And with the business of customs management and trade surging in importance since US President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on countries worldwide, the debate over which country will host the future European Customs Authority has become particularly tense.

According to a draft procedure seen by Euronews, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union will each independently select two preferred candidates. The two institutions will then meet in a joint session to reveal their selections. If at least one candidate appears on both shortlists, that overlapping candidate will be automatically declared the winner.

If there is no overlap, two or four candidates will move to three rounds of votes, all with different rules.

In the first round, a candidate who obtains a majority in both institutions will be elected immediately. But if no candidate achieves a majority in either body, additional scenarios will apply to determine who advances to the second round.

Specifically, if two candidates are tied with neither securing a majority, both will move forward to the second round. In a scenario with four candidates, the two receiving the fewest votes will be eliminated. However, if there is a very close result between the second- and third-placed candidates, three candidates may advance to the second round instead.

In the second round, a joint vote of the two institutions will take place. A candidate must obtain a three-quarters majority to be elected; if no candidate reaches this threshold, the process will move to the third round.

If three candidates remain, the one receiving the fewest votes will be eliminated. However, in the event of a very close result between the second- and third-placed candidates, all three may proceed to the third round.

In the third and final round, the same joint voting procedure will apply, but the required threshold is lowered to a two-thirds majority. This vote may be repeated up to three times. And if no candidate secures the required majority after these attempts, the threshold will be reduced to a simple majority.

Source link