Venezuela’s defence minister has accused the United States of using the country as a “weapons laboratory” during the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on January 3.
Vladimir Padrino Lopez said last week that the US had used Venezuela as a testing ground for “advanced military technologies” that rely on artificial intelligence and weaponry never used before, according to the Venezuelan newspaper El Universal.
On Sunday, US President Donald Trump told the New York Post that US forces had indeed used a weapon he referred to as “the discombobulator”.
“I’m not allowed to talk about it,” he said, adding that the weapon “made equipment not work” during the operation.
Details of the US military mission to abduct Maduro have not been made public, but the US has been known to use weapons to disorient soldiers and guards or disable equipment and infrastructure in the past.
Here is what we know:
What has the Venezuelan defence minister said?
On January 16, Padrino Lopez said 47 Venezuelan soldiers had been killed during the US attack on Caracas. Thirty-two Cuban soldiers, some of them providing protection to Maduro, were also killed.
Then last week, he made the “weapons laboratory” accusations and was quoted by El Universal as saying: “The president of the United States admitted that they had used weapons that had never been used on battlefields, weapons that no one in the world possessed. They used that technology against the Venezuelan people on January 3, 2026.”
He appeared to be referring to an interview Trump gave to the US news channel NewsNation in which he said a “sonic weapon” had been used.
What has Trump said about US ‘secret weapons’?
Days after Maduro’s abduction, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reposted comments that appeared to have been posted on X by a Venezuelan security guard. He wrote that the US had “launched something” during the operation that “was like a very intense sound wave”.
“Suddenly, I felt like my head was exploding from the inside,” the security guard wrote. “We all started bleeding from the nose. Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, unable to move.”
Al Jazeera has not been able to verify this account.
In his NewsNation interview last week, Trump said the “sonic weapon” was used against Maduro’s Cuban bodyguards in what he described as a heavily fortified area.
“Nobody else has it. And we have weapons no one knows about,” Trump said. “And I say it’s probably best not to talk about them, but we have some incredible weapons. That was an incredible attack. Don’t forget that house was in the middle of a fortress and military base.”
Then, on Sunday, Trump was quoted by the New York Post as saying the US had used a weapon designed to disable defensive equipment.
“The discombobulator,” he said. “I’m not allowed to talk about it.”
What ‘sonic’ or other disabling weapons has the US been known to use in the past?
The best known “sonic” systems used by the US are directional acoustic hailing and warning devices, especially the long-range acoustic device (LRAD), Brussels-based military and political analyst Elijah Magnier told Al Jazeera.
“These are not traditional weapons. Instead, they are powerful, focused sound projectors used for things like stopping ships, securing bases, protecting convoys, managing checkpoints and sometimes crowd control,” he said.
The main purpose of these devices is to control behaviour by sending voice commands over long distances at a high volume. They can cause discomfort and are designed to force people to either comply with the commands or to leave an area.
“LRADs have been deployed on ships for piracy deterrence, in port security and by law enforcement agencies,” Magnier explained. “At high output settings, these devices can cause pain, vertigo, nausea or hearing damage, which makes their use sensitive and subject to scrutiny.”
LRADs are not designed to disable electronics or communication networks, however.
Another weapon used to disorient people is the active denial system (ADS), which is often wrongly called a “sonic” weapon but does not use sound.
“Instead, it uses millimetre-wave energy to create a strong heating feeling on the skin, making people move away,” Magnier said. “ADS was sent to Afghanistan in 2010 but was pulled back without being used in combat. Like LRAD, ADS is meant to affect people, not machines.”
How do these devices work?
The LRAD system can focus sound into a narrow wave. At a low setting, it enables voices to be heard clearly over long distances. At a higher setting, however, it can be physically debilitating.
“These effects are only physical and mental,” Magnier said. “Unlike electromagnetic tools, LRAD cannot turn off missiles, radars, computers or communication systems.
The rapid heating ADS causes to the outer layer of the skin triggers intense discomfort and compels people to move away. “It is a nonlethal area-denial tool intended for crowd control and perimeter defence,” Magnier said.
“Neither of these systems can realistically disable air defence systems, communication networks or military equipment,” he said. “If equipment stops working, it is much more likely due to electromagnetic, cyber or power denial methods.”
What does the US use to disable systems and equipment?
Magnier said the US military is known to use several types of “nonkinetic” and “pre-kinetic” tools. These include:
Electronic warfare (EW), which can jam radar systems, block communications, trick GPS and fool sensors. “These actions help control the electromagnetic spectrum,” he said. “EW makes it harder for opponents to understand what’s happening and coordinate their defences before or during attacks.”
Cyber-physical operations, which involve sabotaging networks and industrial control systems. “The best known example is the Stuxnet campaign, which targeted Iranian nuclear centrifuge controllers and caused physical damage by changing their software” in 2009, Magnier said.
Counterelectronics, directed-energy weapons, which are mainly high-power microwave systems that are built to disable electronics by flooding their circuits with microwave pulses. “The main US project for this is CHAMP (Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project), which was created to disable electronics without physical force,” Magnier said.
Graphite or carbon-fibre munitions that can short-circuit electrical grids and cause widespread power failures without destroying all the equipment.
“These tools are a key part of the US military’s approach to gaining an ‘information advantage’ and controlling different areas of conflict,” Magnier said.
How do these systems work, and when have they been deployed?
Electronic warfare changes or blocks the electromagnetic environment. It can disorient radar systems by making them “see” noise or fake targets. It can also cause radios to stop working and disrupt GPS and sensor systems.
“The aim is to blind, confuse and throw off the enemy to create an opportunity for action,” Magnier said.
In the Stuxnet cybercampaign in 2009, a computer worm was installed on a computer at an Iranian nuclear facility to cause mechanical damage by taking over industrial control systems. “This operation is widely believed to have been carried out by US and Israeli intelligence against Iran’s nuclear programme,” Magnier said.
High-power microwave systems can also disable electronics by flooding their circuits with microwave energy, making them stop working without any visible damage to them. “Public tests in the early 2010s showed these systems could selectively disable electronic targets,” Magnier said.
Graphite or carbon-fibre munitions spread tiny conductive fibres that can short-circuit parts of electrical grids. “These weapons have been linked to major power outages in Iraq in 1991, Serbia in 1999 and Iraq again in 2003,” Magnier said.
“The basic strategy stays the same: first, take down power, communications, sensors and coordination, then start physical attacks.”
Has the US tested new weapons in other countries?
“Yes, and this is not just something the United States does. Modern wars often become the first real-world test for new technologies once they are ready to be used,” Magnier said.
The 1991 Gulf War was the first time stealth aircraft, precision-guided bombs and electronic warfare were used on a large scale.
The cyberattack on Iran in 2009 was the first time a cyber-physical weapon was used at a strategic level.
The GBU-43/B MOAB, called “the mother of all bombs”, was first used in combat by the US in Afghanistan in 2017. It is a nonnuclear explosive used in precision strikes against fortified underground targets such as tunnels that delivers an enormous blast wave.
“It is important to know that testing usually does not mean secret device trials,” Magnier said. “Instead, it means using new tools in real situations and improving them based on what happens and the feedback received.”
All major countries test new systems in secret as well, especially in areas like electronic warfare, cyber-operations, space targeting, signals intelligence and special operations, he explained.
“The main difference is not how secret the tools are but how widely they are used, where they are based and how willing countries are to use them.”
Some examples, such as the Stuxnet attack, involve several countries working together.
“The US uses Israel for several testing grounds of different types of weapons and other warfare equipment of all kinds, mainly against the Palestinians, in Lebanon and Iran,” Magnier said.
The US has also accused other countries of using “sonic weapons” against its own personnel. In 2017, it demanded an investigation into a suspected sonic attack that left several of its diplomats in need of medical treatment and forced them to leave Havana.
Then-US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the US mission in the Cuban capital had been subjected to “health attacks” that left some staff with hearing loss.
Canada’s government also said at least one Canadian diplomat in Cuba had been treated for hearing loss.
What does Trump mean by a ‘discombobulator’?
There is no verified definition of a specific “discombobulator”.
“These terms are not technical and seem to be used as political labels for existing tools,” Magnier said.
“The most reasonable view is that this term refers to a group of known nonkinetic tools, not a new device.”
These could be:
Cyber-disruption targeting command networks
Targeted kinetic strikes against antennae, relays and sensor nodes and localised power denial
To observers on the ground, this would appear as systems suddenly “not working”, Magnier said. A sonic device, however, is highly unlikely to have been responsible for affecting equipment in this way, he added.
“Reports say Venezuela’s Russian-made air defence systems failed, which could mean they were not well integrated or ready. This can happen because of electronic warfare, node suppression, cyberattacks or weak operations without needing any science fiction explanation. We have seen this happening in Syria for Russian weapons prior to Israel’s attacks.”
A sonic weapon could have affected soldiers and guards. If people had physical symptoms during the raid in Caracas, that does not indicate a new “sonic weapon” was being used.
“These effects could come from blast pressure, flash-bang devices or other common disorientation tools,” Magnier said. “There is no public evidence for a new type of weapon.”
