New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Pentagon Reportedly Testing Radio Wave Device Linked to ‘Havana Syndrome’

This reported machine may be linked to “Havana syndrome,” a debated condition characterized by a strange panoply of symptoms that were experienced by U.S. officials stationed in Cuba

The Pentagon, heaquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense, is seen from the air on February 8, 2025, in Washington, DC.

J. David Ake/Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Ten years ago U.S. officials stationed in Cuba started reporting a strange collection of symptoms, from ringing ears and dizziness to crushing headaches and memory loss. The symptoms, collectively dubbed “Havana syndrome” and more formally known as anomalous health incidents (AHIs), suggested a neurological issue. But what, exactly, the root cause was has remained a matter of intense debate among both medical and military experts.

Now, according to CNN, the U.S. Department of Defense has reportedly been testing a machine that is believed to produce pulsed radio waves and may be linked to Havana syndrome. The DOD and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A device that could produce powerful pulsed radio waves is among the many speculated but unproven causes of Havana syndrome, which also include possible exposure to neurotoxins and mass psychogenic illness (collective anxiety).


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Medical experts continue to debate even the specific neurological consequences of Havana syndrome: researchers at the National Institutes of Health and their colleagues performed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans on 81 federal workers and their family members who said that they had heard a noise and felt pressure in their head and then developed headaches and other cognitive symptoms. The results, published in 2024 in JAMA, showed no differences between the brains of these individuals and those of a control group. Other studies have also found inconclusive results.

“It is possible that individuals with an [anomalous health incident] may be experiencing the results of an event that led to their symptoms, but the injury did not produce the long-term neuroimaging changes that are typically observed after severe trauma or stroke. We hope these results will alleviate concerns about AHI being associated with severe neurodegenerative changes in the brain,” said Carlo Pierpaoli, lead author of the NIH study, in a statement at the time.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe