The United States Department of Defense’s (Pentagon) authorization for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to test a weapon system based on directed-energy technology for use in operations along the Mexico border has once again brought to the forefront Washington’s tendency to rely on military technologies in immigration management. The Trump administration’s decision to prioritize the fight against irregular migration as a national security issue has not only expanded the range of tools used in border control but has also sparked debate over the balance between security measures and the protection of basic rights. The potential use of the technology, known as the Active Denial System (ADS), is significant not only in terms of the technical capabilities of border security but also regarding the transfer of military technologies to civil law enforcement, the limits of the use of force, and U.S.-Mexico relations.
The authorization given by the Pentagon covers testing of the ADS system, which uses high-frequency electromagnetic waves to induce intense heat and a burning sensation in people. In accordance with a memorandum signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in September 2026, the system is expected to be assigned to the Department of Homeland Security for a period of seven months. Operating at a frequency of approximately 95 gigahertz, the technology aims to influence water molecules on the skin’s surface, causing exposed individuals to move away from the area. Although the system is classified as a non-lethal weapon, it carries risks of burn and other injuries depending on exposure conditions. Furthermore, the current authorization does not imply that the weapon will actually be used at the border; rather, it allows for preparations for testing and potential operational use.[i]
This attempt is linked to the Trump administration’s increasing emphasis on security-oriented practices in its migration policy. The U.S.-Mexico border has long been addressed in the context of irregular migration, drug trafficking, and transnational organized crime. However, the growing portrayal of migration flows as a national security threat makes it possible to evaluate them through the lens of securitization. In the literature on international relations, securitization refers to the process by which a particular issue is defined as a threat requiring special security measures beyond ordinary political and administrative processes. In this framework, the evaluation of the use of technology developed for military purposes in migration control points to a more intensive association of border management with security institutions and tools.
The emergence of the ADS system is also noteworthy in terms of the transfer of military technologies to civil security areas. Originally developed to enable military personnel to disperse crowds and to provide an alternative to the use of lethal force in conflict situations, the system’s evaluation for border operations necessitates a reexamination of the relationship between military and civil security functions. While this process may offer new opportunities in terms of enhancing technological capabilities in border management, it can also raise issues regarding legal authority, oversight, and accountability when applying military equipment to law enforcement activities. Consequently, the fact that the system is defined as a non-lethal technology does not imply that its use is legally permissible under all circumstances or risk-free from a public health perspective.
The U.S. government’s interest in this technology is not new. During Trump’s first presidential term, particularly in 2018, the use of the ADS system to prevent irregular border crossings was considered, but it was not implemented due to concerns about its legal and humanitarian consequences. Likewise, during the mass protests that followed the 2020 death of George Floyd following a police intervention, the use of the system for controlling crowds was also mentioned. These examples demonstrate that the technology is not limited to border security but is part of a broader discussion on public order and security policy.
The sharing of authority between the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security also constitutes the institutional dimension of this development. The fact that the authorization document specifies that Department of Defense personnel will not use the system indicates that responsibility for testing and potential operational activities has been delegated to the Department of Homeland Security. The determination of tactics, techniques, and procedures regarding the system’s use is also delegated to the same agency. Therefore, while military technology is provided by the Department of Defense, operational decisions are expected to be made by civilian security agencies. However, this arrangement does not eliminate the government’s legal obligations regarding the use of force. In particular, the conditions under which the technology will be used, how decisions will be monitored, and how liability will be determined in the event of injuries are critical issues.[ii]
The potential use of the ADS system also raises various questions in terms of human rights and the principle of proportionality. The necessity and proportionality of the use of force in security interventions targeting migrants must be assessed by taking into account the concrete danger posed by the individuals involved and the alternative measures available. The infliction of intense pain through electromagnetic waves may pose additional risks, particularly for children, pregnant women, and people with health issues. An intervention that causes crowds to disperse suddenly may also result in injuries stemming from stampedes, falls, or uncontrolled movements. Therefore, the fact that this technology is classified as a non-lethal weapon does not negate the need for a separate human rights assessment of its use.
Another aspect of this development is the debate over sovereignty and jurisdiction along the U.S.-Mexico border. Previously, when the use of the ADS system against individuals attempting to cross the border was raised, the possibility of directing electromagnetic waves toward Mexican territory raised legal concerns. Such an application relates not only to the United States’ domestic security authorities but also to the sovereign rights of the neighboring state. The use of security technologies that could have cross-border effects must be examined separately in terms of the authorities of states over their own territories and their obligations under international law. However, there is no confirmed information that the current test authorization approves any such application on Mexican territory.
Debates over the necessity of the system highlight the relationship between effectiveness and proportionality in border security. Despite the decline in irregular border crossings into the U.S., the evaluation of new weapons technology has led to differing views on the effectiveness of current security capabilities. While border security agencies view new technologies as tools that can enhance operational effectiveness, the security gains expected from the use of this technology must be weighed against potential humanitarian and legal costs. In particular, identifying which specific shortcomings of current border control methods the ADS system can address will be decisive in assessing the necessity of the technology.
This development also shows the technological dimension of the importance the U.S. places on the principle of deterrence in immigration management. While traditional border security practices are carried out through physical barriers, patrols, surveillance systems, and administrative controls, directed-energy technologies aim to prevent the movement of individuals by directly causing physical discomfort. Therefore, this is not just a matter of testing a new security tool, but rather a broader policy debate regarding the types of intervention methods that can be used in border control. The impact of this approach on future border security practices will depend on the test results, legal assessments, and decisions regarding its operational use.
As a result, the Pentagon’s authorization to test the ADS system shows that the Trump administration is moving toward expanding its options for utilizing military technology in the fight against irregular migration. However, authorization for testing is distinct from the actual deployment of the system and its use against migrants. The significance of this initiative lies not only in the operational capabilities the technology could provide but also in the questions it raises regarding the division of authority between military and civilian security agencies, the proportionality of the use of force in border security, the protection of human rights, and Mexico’s sovereign rights. Therefore, discussions regarding the ADS system center not only on technological effectiveness but also on the legal boundaries of security policies and the legitimacy of the tools the state may use in managing migration.
[i] Vidal Liy, Macarena. “El Pentágono autoriza a la Seguridad Nacional probar un arma no letal para su posible uso en la frontera.” El País, https://elpais.com/us/2026-10-21/el-pentagono-autoriza-a-la-seguridad-nacional-probar-un-arma-no-letal-para-su-posible-uso-en-la-frontera.html, (Date Accessed: 25.10.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
