Military Heat Ray Weapon Tested for Southern Border
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
CNN first reported on October 21, 2026, that U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memorandum authorizing a temporary seven-month loan, beginning in September 2026, of one Active Denial System — a military non-lethal millimeter-wave device that projects an invisible beam causing an intense burning sensation on the skin — to the Department of Homeland Security for potential operations at the U.S.-Mexico border. The Guardian and the Daily Caller credited CNN as the origin of the story; the first on-record source was a DHS public affairs official, who told the Daily Caller that day that Customs and Border Protection is “continually evaluating new technology, especially technology that can save lives while simultaneously enhancing national security effectiveness,” while the Pentagon referred questions to DHS. The memo, obtained by CNN, assigns DHS sole responsibility for the system’s “employment, use and development of tactics, techniques and procedures” and states that no Defense Department personnel shall operate it; DHS may request further use after seven months. Pentagon officials have compared the sensation to opening a hot oven, lasting 10 to 15 minutes, from a 95-gigahertz beam that penetrates about 1/64th of an inch into the skin.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 2 articles
2 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report, credited to CNN. Most articles credit CNN rather than reporting it themselves.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Pete Hegseth, Customs and Border Protection and DHS public affairs official
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: memo, memorandum
- Credits another outlet 2 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: CNN
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 21, 20:58 UTC by Daily Caller, crediting CNN, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Daily Caller (memorandum).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage is the only side that reports the first Trump administration already asked for this system to stop migrants. Right-leaning coverage leaves that earlier request out, so a reader sees a new border test rather than a repeat bid for a tool that was never fielded. That earlier bid is in the Guardian and absent from the Daily Caller, and without it the memo looks like a first look at a novel option.
Right-leaning coverage bills the device a "Sci-Fi Heat Ray" in its headline. Left-leaning coverage keeps the nickname in quotes and notes the beam uses millimeter waves, not infrared.
Neither side says who would stand in the beam or what result would justify keeping the system when the loan ends.
Bottom line
You can read the Daily Caller on this loan and never learn that officials already sought the same system to stop migrants in 2018.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Officials sought to use the Active Denial System in 2018 to stop migrants from crossing the border
- The first Trump administration sought the system in 2020 to control protests in Washington after the killing of George Floyd
- The beam can reach just over half a mile
- In 2012 the Marine Corps announced the system was compliant with international legal obligations of the US
- The system produces a 95 gigahertz beam
The Left View
The Guardian frames the authorization as permission to test a military-grade “heat ray” whose border purpose remains unspecified, stressing an “intolerable sensation and reflexive movement” and that it is “unclear what the DHS plans to use the Active Denial System for exactly.” It notes the system was taken to Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago and returned unused, and that CBP had considered it for high-crossing areas or crowd dispersal but never deployed it. The paper also ties the memo to earlier Trump-administration bids to use it in 2018 to stop migrants from crossing and in 2020 to control Washington protests after the killing of George Floyd, and records a 2012 Marine Corps claim that the system was “compliant with international legal obligations” and that officials felt “comfortable” it was safe.
The Right View
The Daily Caller frames the loan as a “sci-fi” nonlethal heat ray that “could soon be headed” to the southern border, citing a range of just over half a mile and an “instinctive and irresistible urge to run from the effect.” It embeds the test in a Trump administration that has “highly prioritized border security,” pointing to 500 additional troops sent to the Rio Grande Valley after cartel members shot at Coast Guard personnel and to related military laser use against cartel drones. The outlet treats CBP’s life-saving and national-security rationale as the operational justification and notes the system was contemplated as crowd control in high-crossing areas but “ultimately declined,” and was not used in Afghanistan during combat operations.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that a pain-inducing military crowd-control weapon the armed forces never used in Afghanistan is being transferred to DHS with unspecified tactics and a record of Trump-era attempts to turn it on migrants and on George Floyd protesters — a combination The Guardian treats as alarming given the “intolerable” effect and unclear mission. The right’s strongest argument is that the same nonlethal beam, producing only temporary oven-like heat and an urge to flee, is being evaluated as technology that can “save lives while simultaneously enhancing national security effectiveness” on a border the Daily Caller portrays as under cartel fire. The central unresolved tension is whether this loan is a limited test of a safer alternative to lethal force or the handover of an unfielded directed-energy crowd-control system to a civilian agency whose operational purpose has not been stated.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.