The El Paso flight restriction that briefly grounded aircraft at El Paso International Airport was lifted Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026, after federal officials said a drone incident had been addressed and there was no longer a threat to commercial aviation.
The Federal Aviation Administration had earlier issued a temporary flight restriction that would have halted commercial, cargo and general aviation operations in the area for up to 10 days, citing “special security reasons,” according to Reuters and the Associated Press.
The FAA did not publicly detail the security concern when the restriction was issued. A U.S. official later told multiple outlets, including Reuters and AP, that drones linked to Mexican cartels had breached U.S. airspace and that the Pentagon took steps to disable them. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the threat had been neutralized and normal flight operations could resume, AP reported.
The abrupt order and quick reversal created confusion for airlines and travelers in a border region where air travel supports business, tourism and cross-border commerce.
What the FAA ordered and why flights stopped
The El Paso flight restriction was issued through an FAA notice to pilots that temporarily closed airspace around El Paso International Airport and the neighboring community of Santa Teresa, N.M. Reuters reported the restriction barred operations below 18,000 feet and was expected to disrupt passenger and cargo travel across the region.
Multiple outlets reported that the notice used unusually strong language for a domestic airspace restriction. The Guardian and NBC reported the FAA order warned that aircraft violating the restriction could be intercepted and that the U.S. government “may use deadly force” if an aircraft was determined to pose an imminent security threat.
The FAA later announced the closure had been lifted and said there was no threat to commercial aviation, according to AP and Reuters.
Airlines had little time to respond. Reuters reported carriers were not given advance notice, and the sudden change led to delays and cancellations as dispatchers and crews worked to re-route aircraft or hold flights.
The cartel drone claim and the federal response
After the FAA lifted the restriction, a U.S. official told Reuters and AP that the shutdown was tied to drones allegedly operated by Mexican cartels that crossed into U.S. airspace near El Paso. Officials did not disclose how many drones were involved or what countermeasures were used, according to Reuters and AP.
In one administration account cited by several outlets, the entity taking action was described as the “Department of War,” while other reporting referred to the Defense Department or the Pentagon. Reuters reported the Pentagon deployed counter-drone measures and that officials later determined there was no threat to commercial travel.
The limited public detail has left several key points unresolved, including the drones’ flight path, whether they were detected near the airport’s approach corridors, and whether the incident involved smuggling, surveillance, or another purpose. Reuters reported the FAA cited “special security reasons” in its initial notice without elaboration.
Why the 10-day timeline drew attention
A temporary flight restriction is not unusual by itself, but the size and duration of the El Paso order stood out. The initial plan would have closed airspace for roughly 10 days, a disruption that aviation analysts described as extraordinary for a major U.S. metro area, according to AP and multiple local reports.
The Guardian reported the restricted area covered a radius of roughly 10 nautical miles and extended up to 18,000 feet. Axios also described the restriction as unusually broad, noting limited exceptions compared with typical security-related restrictions.
The strong language in the notice added to the reaction. Aviation safety procedures generally prioritize deconfliction and compliance through air traffic control and interception protocols. By including references to interception, detention and the potential use of deadly force, the notice signaled a national security posture rather than a routine safety closure, as described by outlets that reviewed the order.
