Senior U.S. defense officials have identified directed energy as a technology that could have a significant impact on U.S. national security in the years to come. As the Department of Defense (DOD)—which is “using a secondary Department of War designation” under Executive Order 14347 dated September 5, 2025—continues to invest in directed-energy (DE) weapons, Congress may consider implications for defense authorizations, appropriations, and oversight. Overview DOD defines DE weapons as those using concentrated electromagnetic energy, rather than kinetic energy, to “incapacitate, damage, disable, or destroy enemy equipment, facilities, and/or personnel.” DE weapons include high-energy lasers (HEL) and high-powered microwave (HPM) weapons; other DE weapons, such as particle beam weapons, are outside the scope of this In Focus. HELs might be used by ground forces in short-range air defense (SHORAD), counter-unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS), or counter-rocket, artillery, and mortar (C-RAM) missions. The weapons might be used to “dazzle” (i.e., temporarily disable) or damage satellites and sensors. This could in turn interfere with intelligence-gathering operations; military communications; and positioning, navigation, and timing systems used for weapons targeting. In addition, HELs could theoretically provide options for boost-phase missile intercept, given their speed-of-light travel time; however, experts disagree on the affordability, technological feasibility, and utility of this application. In general, HELs might offer lower costs per shot and—assuming access to a sufficient power supply—deeper magazines compared with traditional munitions. (Although a number of different types of HELs exist, many of the United States’ current programs are solid state lasers, which are fueled by electrical power. As a result, the cost per shot is equivalent to the cost of the electrical power required to fire the shot.) This could in turn produce a favorable cost-exchange ratio for the defender, whose marginal costs would be significantly lower than those of the aggressor. Similarly, HPM weapons could provide a nonkinetic means of disabling adversary electronics and communications systems. These weapons could potentially generate effects over wider areas than HELs, which emit a narrower beam of energy. As a result, some analysts have noted that HPM weapons might provide more effective area defense against missile salvos and swarms of drones. HPM weapons have also been considered for use as nonlethal “heat ray” systems for crowd control. A number of countries are investing in directed-energy weapons programs. This In Focus discusses a selection of unclassified DE weapons programs in three leading military powers: the United States, China, and Russia. United States DOD requested approximately $789.7 million for unclassified DE programs in FY2025—down from its $962.4 million request and $1.1 billion appropriation in FY2024; DOD has not provided a topline for its FY2026 DE budget request. The department is not known to have any DE programs of record. (For additional information about specific U.S. DE weapons programs, see CRS Report R44175, Navy Shipboard Lasers: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke, and CRS Report R45098, U.S. Army Weapons-Related Directed Energy (DE) Programs: Background and Potential Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.) DOD directed energy programs are coordinated by the Principal Director for Directed Energy within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD[R&E]). The Principal Director for Directed Energy is additionally responsible for development and oversight of the Directed Energy Roadmap. According to the most recent publicly available version of the DE roadmap (dated May 17, 2024), the department plans to increase power levels of DE weapons from around 150 kilowatts (kW—a unit of power), as is currently feasible, to 500 kW—with reduced size and weight—in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe, and to increase power to megawatt (MW) levels at some point thereafter. For reference, although there is no consensus regarding the precise power level that would be needed to neutralize different target sets, some analysts believe that lasers of around 100 kW could engage unmanned aircraft systems, small boats, rockets, artillery, and mortars, whereas lasers of around 300 kW could additionally engage cruise missiles flying in certain profiles (i.e., flying across—rather than at—the laser). Lasers of 1 MW could potentially neutralize ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons. DOD also manages the High Energy Laser Scaling Initiative (HELSI), which former Principal Director for Directed Energy Dr. Jim Trebes notes is “to demonstrate laser output power scaling while maintaining or improving beam quality and efficiency.” HELSI is intended to strengthen the defense industrial base for potential future directed-energy weapons by providing near-term prototyping opportunities for industry partners. Dr. Trebes additionally notes that OUSD(R&E) has completed a DOD-wide Laser Lethality Analysis Process Review to identify future needs for the Department and best practices for DE development and use. According to OUSD(R&E), DOD is also testing a Directed Energy Lethality Database that is to serve as a searchable repository for the department’s DE analyses. China According to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, China has been developing DE weapons since at least the 1980s and has made steady progress in developing HPM and increasingly powerful HELs. China has reportedly developed a 30-kilowatt road-mobile HEL, LW-30, designed to engage uncrewed aircraft systems and precision-guided weapons. Reports indicate that China is also developing an airborne HEL pod. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, China is pursuing DE weapons “to disrupt, degrade, or damage satellites and their sensors and possibly already has a limited capability to employ laser systems against satellite sensors. China [has likely fielded] a ground-based laser weapon that can counter low-orbit space-based sensors ... and by the mid-to-late 2020s, it may field higher power systems that extend the threat to the structures of non-optical satellites.” Russia Russia has been conducting DE weapons research since the 1960s, with a particular emphasis on HELs. Russia has reportedly deployed the Peresvet ground-based HEL with several mobile intercontinental ballistic missile units. Although little is publicly known about Peresvet, including its power level, some analysts assert it is to dazzle satellites and provide point defense against uncrewed aircraft systems. Russia’s deputy defense minister Alexei Krivoruchko has stated that efforts are underway to increase Peresvet’s power level and to deploy it on military aircraft. Reports suggest that Russia may also be developing HPMs as well as additional HELs capable of performing anti-satellite missions. Technological Maturity Directed-energy weapons programs continue to face questions about their technological maturity, including the ability to improve beam quality and control to militarily useful levels and the ability to meet size, weight, and power (SWaP) and cooling requirements for integration into current platforms. Some DE systems are small enough to fit on military vehicles, but many require larger and/or fixed platforms that could potentially limit deployment options and operational utility. In what ways, if any, are DOD technology maturation efforts reducing the SWaP and cooling requirements of DE systems? Weapons Characteristics Although HELs may offer a lower cost per shot than traditional weapons such as missiles, they are also subject to a number of limitations. For example, atmospheric conditions (e.g., rain, fog, obscurants) and SWaP and cooling requirements can limit the range and beam quality of HELs, in turn reducing their effectiveness. Traditional weapons, in contrast, are not affected by these factors. How, if at all, might HEL limitations be mitigated by technological developments, concepts of operation, or other methods? What impact might a failure to mitigate these limitations have on future military operations? Mission Utility Given the strengths and weaknesses of DE weapons, DOD is continuing to examine their role within the military. DOD is additionally conducting multiple utility studies to analyze potential concepts of operation for DE weapons and to assess the scenarios in which they might be militarily useful. How might Congress draw upon the conclusions of these analyses as it conducts oversight of DE weapons programs? What is the appropriate balance between DE weapons and traditional munitions within the military’s portfolio of capabilities? Defense Industrial Base Some analysts have expressed concerns that, in the past, DOD did not provide stable funding for DE weapons programs or sufficient opportunities for the DE workforce. According to OUSD(R&E), HELSI is intended to address these concerns by providing industry with assured prototyping opportunities. In what ways, if any, has HELSI strengthened the defense industrial base for DE weapons? What, if any, challenges does the base continue to face and how might they be mitigated? Intelligence Requirements Some analysts have questioned whether DOD has sufficient knowledge of adversary DE weapons systems and materials to develop its weapons requirements. DOD is currently attempting to further define its DE collection requirements for the intelligence community (IC) through the Directed Energy Lethality Intelligence initiative. To what extent, if at all, is this initiative improving connectivity between DOD’s DE community and the IC? What collection requirements, if any, remain? Coordination within DOD Pursuant to Section 219 of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 114-328), OUSD(R&E)’s Principal Director for Directed Energy is tasked with coordinating DE efforts across DOD and with developing DOD’s Directed Energy Roadmap, which is to guide development efforts. To what extent are the military departments and defense agencies adhering to this roadmap? What, if any, additional authorities or structural changes would be required to ensure proper coordination throughout DOD? Related CRS Products CRS Report R46925, Department of Defense Directed Energy Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by Kelley M. Sayler. This report was originally co-authored by John Hoehn. Kelley M. Sayler, Specialist in Advanced Technology and Global Security Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11882 · VERSION 13 · UPDATED