On the menu today: The argument that President Trump is a dictator can get overwrought; so far he hasn’t defied any Supreme Court decisions, but he did recently say in an interview with Larry Kudlow that he raised tariffs on goods from Switzerland because he was annoyed by a phone call from “the prime minister of Switzerland.” (Switzerland has a president, not a prime minister. Already we’re seeing the consequences of ending the annual publication of the CIA World Factbook.)
Still, one of the marks of a dictatorial regime is the habit of making arbitrary decisions and not explaining or justifying those decisions to the public. What we just saw in El Paso, Texas, is not necessarily dictatorial, but it does reflect a sprawling federal government that announces big and consequential decisions out of the blue, doesn’t give much of an explanation for those decisions, and then reverses that decision, with vague explanations that don’t make much sense. A post on X is not a press conference with the opportunity to ask questions.
Perhaps this morning, the sentient Denver International Airport is chuckling that, by comparison, it doesn’t seem so strange and mysterious now. Read on.
What Happened Down in Texas?
I fear that a lot of people in important roles in our government either are incompetent or are in circumstances that somehow bring out their previously suppressed inner incompetence.
At 11:30 p.m. local time Tuesday, the Federal Aviation Administration halted all flights to and from El Paso International Airport for ten days for “special security reasons.” The FAA issued a NOTAM, or Notice to Airmen, indicating that the airspace in a ten-mile radius around the airport, up to almost 18,000 feet in altitude, was off-limits.
About 100 flights a day take off and land at El Paso’s airport. Had this been enacted, it would have been the biggest shutdown of flights in the U.S. since 9/11.
Now, if you’re going to do something like this and you’re not going to give the public any real explanation of why, you’re going to set off deep levels of concern.
Then, at 8:54 a.m. Eastern Wednesday, the FAA abruptly announced, “The temporary closure of airspace over El Paso has been lifted. There is no threat to commercial aviation. All flights will resume as normal.”
Less than an hour later, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy posted on X, “The FAA and [Department of War] acted swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion. The threat has been neutralized, and there is no danger to commercial travel in the region. The restrictions have been lifted and normal flights are resuming.”
Now, Mexican drug cartels have been using drones in the airspace over the U.S.-Mexico border for years, so this is a seemingly plausible explanation. Back in July, Steven Willoughby, a drone specialist at the Department of Homeland Security, told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “In the last six months of 2024, over 27,000 drones were detected within 500 meters of the southern border, most of which were flying above 400 feet — the maximum flight altitude allowed for drones in both the United States and Mexico — or flying between the hours of 8pm and 4am, when the cover of darkness can obscure illicit activity.”
But a ten-day shutdown of all airspace over El Paso would suggest a much bigger and longer-lasting drone incursion than anything we’ve seen before.
Even worse, apparently no one in the local or state government was given any heads up about this closure or the “special security reasons.”
El Paso Mayor Renard Johnson was livid. In a press conference Wednesday, he fumed:
We are the sixth largest city in the state of Texas. We are the twenty-second largest city in the United States. Hospitals, military operations, and emergency services in critical infrastructures that depend on coordinated and reliable air space operations. Decisions made without notice or coordination puts lives at risk and create unnecessary danger and confusion.
The mayor said that a flight carrying surgical equipment coming in from Dallas was among those that were canceled that morning.
Then CBS News, along with other news organizations, reported that the airspace closure was not because of cartel drones but because of planned testing of new technology: “The Pentagon had undertaken extensive planning on the use of military technology near Fort Bliss, a military base that abuts the El Paso International Airport, to practice taking down drones. Two sources identified the technology as a high-energy laser.”
If this is because the military wanted to test anti-drone lasers, couldn’t the Pentagon have found a testing site that wasn’t directly adjacent to a major civilian airport? What, was Area 51 booked this week? The U.S. Air Force Test Center boasts three major installations and 35 locations across the country. Among the listed focus areas are “manned/unmanned teaming and implementation of autonomy.”
But then the New York Times offered an account suggesting that the closure was triggered by two separate agencies of the federal government proving completely incapable of coordinating their actions or communications:
Federal Aviation Administration officials were forced to close El Paso’s airspace late Tuesday after the Defense Department decided to use new anti-drone technology without giving aviation officials ample time to assess the risks to commercial airlines, according to four people briefed on the situation.
The military has been developing high-energy laser technology to intercept and destroy drones, which the Trump administration has said are used by Mexican cartels to track Border Patrol agents and smuggle drugs into the United States. According to the people briefed on the situation, El Paso’s airspace was shut down when the Defense Department, operating out of Fort Bliss, a nearby Army base, decided to mobilize that new technology over the F.A.A.’s objections.
According to two of the people briefed on the situation, military officials deployed that technology earlier this week against what they thought was a cartel drone, but which turned out to be a party balloon. That operation was carried out without proper coordination with the F.A.A., the people said.
Let me get this straight: The U.S. military has developed an anti-drone laser — which sounds pretty cool — and we used it against a party balloon? Are we preparing a preemptive strike against the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade?
Mind you, that’s the Times’ reporting. The Washington Post, where I write a column, reported that the recent decisions were driven by the Department of Homeland Security:
The administration said that the Pentagon and the FAA had determined there is no ongoing danger to commercial aviation after lifting the restrictions. It is believed that the laser system was launched by Customs and Border Protection personnel at something innocuous, probably a Mylar balloon, said two U.S. officials, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
The Pentagon temporarily transferred the laser system to counter drones flown by Mexican drug cartels across the U.S. border, according to two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. Defense and FAA officials were to meet Feb. 20 to discuss safety issues around the weapon’s deployment, but the Pentagon and DHS wanted to move forward more quickly, prompting the FAA to put the flight restrictions in place. That date prompted the 10-day airspace restrictions, one official said.
Use of the laser system was temporarily transferred to the Department of Homeland Security with approval from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, three officials said.
Remember, the Department of Homeland Security was created after the 9/11 attacks to prevent terrorists and other enemies of the U.S. from doing things like . . . creating a threat to commercial airliners and shutting down air travel.
If a potential ten-day closure of a decent-sized U.S. airport was because of cartel drone incursions, that’s deeply disturbing and warrants further explanation to the public. If the announced and rescinded closure was not caused by cartel drone incursions, then cabinet officials should not lie to the public and say that it was.
And everyone involved needs a refresher on communicating clear information to the public in a timely manner.
ADDENDA: Yesterday I talked about the president’s policy toward Iran with Hugh Hewitt.
Yesterday on the Three Martini Lunch podcast, I noted that the California “jock tax” is so unfair and punitive that the National Football League should not hold another Super Bowl in California until it is rescinded. (The 2027 Super Bowl is scheduled to be played in SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.) What’s more, I think every NFL team based in California, or previously based in a California city like Oakland or Los Angeles, should be forced to forfeit their first-round draft pick this year.
Earlier in the week, Greg and I had cringed over Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden being unable to answer which branch of government his position falls under during a hearing in the state house. “After the committee listed the three branches, McFadden said his position would fall under the judicial branch. The committee corrected him, saying the sheriff is part of the executive branch.”
A listener contended that the answer was more complicated than it seemed, as under the North Carolina state constitution, the office of county sheriffs is established under article seven, separate from the articles that establish the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
My gut instinct had been to say, “If you’re law enforcement, you’re in the executive branch,” but then I thought about institutions like the U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Supreme Court police, and wondered whether those would be considered part of the branches where they work/protect. (The U.S. Capitol Police answers to a board appointed by Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court police answer to the court, not the president or attorney general.)
I notice the old Obama White House webpage stated, “All state governments are modeled after the federal government and consist of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial.” I also saw a Nevada State Supreme Court decision that contended the university system was a fourth branch of government, but I’m not so sure I’m persuaded by that designation, either.
On the North Carolina state legislature website, it is written, “The executive branch of government enforces laws made by the legislature.” Now, I think unless there’s some other good reason — i.e., working mostly in a court building or in the legislature — a person involved in law enforcement is, thus, part of the executive branch. They certainly aren’t part of the legislative branch, because they’re not “making the laws,” and I don’t think the duties of sheriff fall under any traditional understanding or definition of the judicial branch.
Certainly, nothing in the North Carolina constitution’s Article 7 states that sheriffs are a separate fourth branch of the government.
Of course, McFadden didn’t mention any of this in his answer.