Staff Reports
The Pentagon has quietly approved a temporary loan of a military “heat ray” — the Active Denial System (ADS) — to the Department of Homeland Security for testing at the southern border. This is not science fiction. It’s a real weapon that causes an intense burning sensation on the skin, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed off on a short-term transfer that puts DHS and Customs and Border Protection in charge of using it. That raises more questions than answers about safety, law and simple common sense at the border.
What the Pentagon Approved and Who’s Responsible
The memo obtained by reporters authorized a temporary seven‑month loan of one Active Denial System to DHS. The paperwork specifically says Department of Defense personnel will not operate the device — DHS will. Customs and Border Protection told reporters it is “continually evaluating new technologies, especially those that enhance operational effectiveness and strengthen mission capabilities.” In plain English: the Pentagon handed DHS a controversial tool and said, “Your problem now.”
How the Active Denial System (ADS) Works
ADS is a directed‑energy device that fires a millimeter‑wave beam, at roughly 95 GHz, that is absorbed in the outermost fraction of a millimeter of skin. People describe the sensation as an intense burning or like opening a hot oven — it creates an instinctive urge to move away. The system was developed and tested in the 2000s and briefly deployed overseas for experimentation, but it has never been used operationally on civilians in the U.S. The technical papers and GAO reports show the effects are reversible when used as designed, but “reversible” is cold comfort if someone gets pushed toward cliffs, rivers or into other hazards because they were fleeing pain.
Why Conservatives Should Be Wary of Militarizing the Border
Look, every conservative wants secure borders. But there’s a big difference between effective law enforcement and turning border security into a sci‑fi rodeo. Militarized tools like ADS raise legal and ethical flags: using a military crowd‑control device on civilians is uncharted territory. Advocacy groups rightly called it “a massive escalation in the tactics of cruelty and abuse,” and even from a law-and-order perspective we should ask whether this makes us safer or simply invites lawsuits, bad publicity and more peril for migrants and agents alike. Before we start beaming people with a device that feels like a hot oven, try the basics: manpower, better surveillance, and clear legal rules.
Oversight, Safety, and Legal Questions
What Congress and DHS Must Demand
If DHS and the Pentagon want public trust, they need to stop treating this like a stealth project. Release the memo and any legal or medical reviews that justified the loan. Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin should explain where tests will happen, who will operate ADS, what safety protocols and medical monitoring are in place, and whether state and local officials will be warned. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth should explain the Pentagon’s legal rationale. Congress must hold hearings and call independent biomedical and legal experts to testify. We can be pro‑border and pro‑civil liberties at the same time — and anyone who says otherwise is selling cheap theatrics, not sound policy.
