The unexpected airspace closure over El Paso, Texas, on February 11 attracted attention, but perhaps not for the reasons one might assume.
For many years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been reluctant to take decisive action against unauthorized drones, whether those were mysterious swarms hovering over sensitive military bases or the more brazen incursions made by Mexican drug cartels. The FAA’s main concern? That military responses—like electronic jamming or even shooting drones down—could jeopardize civilian aircraft.
This inaction persisted, even as the threat level rose.
The February 11 incident represented a turning point. Mexican cartels are becoming increasingly advanced in their use of drones. Data from the Department of Homeland Security indicates that cartel drones completed over 60,000 flights along the border during the latter half of 2024—an average of about 330 flights per day. And these aren’t just toys.
The cartels deploy drones primarily for three reasons: to gather intelligence on border patrol and military movements, to intimidate U.S. military aircraft by creating a sort of no-fly zone, and to transport significant payloads. Some cartel operatives have even traveled to Ukraine to learn modern drone tactics, applying their knowledge in Mexico’s gang wars. They use precision explosives to target rival groups.
On that day in El Paso, the Army confirmed that cartel drones had intruded into U.S. airspace near El Paso International Airport, which prompted an urgent response. Without prior notice to local authorities or the White House, FAA Administrator Brian Bedford closed the airspace for ten days. This reaction, whether driven by FAA leadership or career bureaucrats, reflected a shaky adherence to policy that produced questionable outcomes.
In a swift move, defense forces neutralized the drones, including at least one related to the cartel. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy stated that the FAA and the Department of War acted quickly and assured the public that the threat had been handled, imposing no risk to commercial flights.
After a brief closure, local leaders voiced concerns about the economic impact on El Paso, home to around 700,000 residents. Fortunately, operations were soon normalized after officials confirmed the threat had passed.
This incident occurred amid increased pressures from the Trump administration on Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and her party. With U.S. policies largely neutralizing other regional threats, Sheinbaum faces mounting pressure to curb the cartel activities or face serious repercussions.
Yet, the cartels are focused on profit, and they’ll likely resist stepping back. What if the U.S. retaliates? Mexico has an extensive network of consulates in the U.S., which at times have fueled political agitation within immigrant communities. This could exacerbate domestic tensions, amid existing unrest in cities like Minneapolis.
The situation is complicated further by external players. Countries like China and Iran have interests that intersect with the chaos on Mexico’s southern border—through drug precursors or other means.
The actions taken in El Paso are a welcome, albeit overdue, response, aligning with former President Trump’s push for military action against cartels last summer. However, a single operation isn’t enough to resolve this deeply rooted issue. The U.S. needs to sustain this momentum by empowering border enforcement and military forces with robust counter-drone capabilities while ensuring Mexico is held responsible.
America’s security and sovereignty depend on it.
