More than two dozen suspected directed energy incidents have reportedly occurred inside the United States, including cases involving government personnel who were studying the same type of technology believed capable of causing such injuries.
Investigative journalist Catherine Herridge reported that national security contacts described multiple suspected incidents in 2021 involving U.S. government employees investigating directed energy weapon technology and efforts to reverse-engineer a device. She also reported a notable cluster of cases at an off-site government intelligence and research facility in Northern Virginia.
That detail alone deserves attention.
According to Herridge, one former Space Force officer, identified as Chris, said he experienced five suspected attacks at his home outside Washington, D.C. Herridge said she reviewed military medical records documenting multiple medical conditions, including a traumatic brain injury associated with his service.
Chris told Herridge, “I believe it’s Russia,” and said he believed the objective was to disrupt American military and intelligence personnel and prevent them from carrying out their missions.
That is his assessment, not an established finding by the U.S. government. So far, publicly available intelligence assessments have not identified Russia, or another foreign government, as responsible for the broader collection of incidents.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in its January 2025 assessment that most intelligence agencies continued to judge it “very unlikely” that a foreign adversary was responsible for reported anomalous health incidents, commonly associated with the term Havana Syndrome.
But even that assessment was not unanimous.
One intelligence component assessed there was roughly an even chance that a foreign actor had used a novel weapon against a small, undetermined subset of personnel. Another component gave roughly even odds that a foreign actor had developed such a capability, although it still considered actual deployment unlikely. Both judgments were made with low confidence.
In other words, Washington’s official answer remains considerably more complicated than either “case closed” or “foreign attack proven.”
WATCH: Former Deputy National Security Advisor Charlie Kupperman joins @C__Herridge to explain how long our government has known about directed energy attacks on U.S. soil – even around the White House – and why resulting injuries haven't been acknowledged. pic.twitter.com/FgmjKYXsLY
— Katie Pavlich Tonight (@KatiePavlichNN) September 5, 2026
The intelligence community has repeatedly acknowledged that personnel reporting these incidents experienced genuine symptoms and medical problems. Its dispute has been over the cause. Earlier assessments concluded that many cases could potentially be explained by medical conditions, environmental factors or other conventional causes, while leaving some cases unresolved.
Herridge’s new reporting potentially adds another layer because of where some of the incidents allegedly occurred and what some of the affected personnel were working on.
If government employees researching directed energy technology were simultaneously reporting unexplained injuries they believed resulted from directed energy exposure, investigators have an obvious reason to examine those circumstances carefully.
Dr. James Giordano of Georgetown University has also emphasized the importance of rapid medical evaluation following suspected exposure, explaining that an initial injury can trigger additional physiological effects that may worsen symptoms over time.
The biggest unanswered question remains attribution.
There is still no publicly established evidence proving that Russia, another foreign government or any particular directed energy device caused these reported injuries. But there are also personnel who say they suffered serious medical consequences and have spent years seeking clearer explanations.
Those two realities can exist at the same time.
The government does not need to speculate publicly about evidence it does not have. It should, however, provide as much information as national security permits about what has been investigated, what has been eliminated, which cases remain unresolved and what protections are currently available to personnel working in sensitive areas.
People serving in military and intelligence roles should not have to choose between protecting classified information and getting understandable answers about injuries they believe occurred because of their government service.
Leave a Comment