For years, Havana Syndrome occupied an uneasy space: unmistakably real to those who experienced it, yet persistently minimized in official explanations. The symptoms were consistent—vertigo, tinnitus, cognitive disruption, a sensation of pressure—but the language used to describe them never quite settled. No confirmed cause. No acknowledged mechanism. Eventually, a phrase took hold that sounded conclusive while explaining very little: very unlikely.

Which is why the recent reporting deserves attention.

Late in the Biden administration, the Department of Homeland Security purchased a device capable of producing pulsed radio-frequency energy—the same category of technology long discussed in relation to Havana Syndrome. The device reportedly included Russian-manufactured components and was transferred to the Pentagon, where it underwent more than a year of testing.

That single fact reframes the conversation.

Governments don’t test devices casually. They test them because something observed in the real world warrants replication, measurement, or understanding. Public language may hedge, but internal behavior tends to be more honest. If a phenomenon were purely imagined, or conclusively ruled out, there would be little reason to acquire a device designed to reproduce its effects.

Havana Syndrome—now formally labeled Anomalous Health Incidents—first surfaced among U.S. personnel in Havana in 2016. From there, reports appeared elsewhere: Europe, Asia, even Washington. The geography widened. The symptom profile remained steady. What never fully materialized was clarity.

The intelligence community’s assessments reflect that ambiguity. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that it was “very unlikely” a foreign actor used a novel weapon to harm U.S. personnel. At the same time, dissenting assessments acknowledged the possibility that such a capability could exist and could plausibly produce the reported effects.

That distinction matters. Intelligence conclusions are not verdicts; they are probability judgments made with incomplete information. “Very unlikely” is not the same as “impossible.” Nor does it erase the obligation to investigate.

More recent reporting has again raised the question of foreign capability, particularly from Russia—not as an accusation, but as a recognition of known research interests and strategic doctrines that favor deniability and indirect pressure. Technologies that leave few fingerprints fit comfortably within that framework.

What’s notable is not how much remains unknown, but how much is implied by quiet action. Testing a pulsed-energy device suggests concern about mechanisms, not metaphors. It suggests that, behind closed doors, officials are still trying to understand something they are not yet ready—or able—to name publicly.

Havana, then, becomes less a place than a symbol. A marker for moments when reality resists tidy explanation, and when the gap between what is said and what is studied grows wide.

That space—between certainty and silence—is where this story continues to live

FAQ

What is Havana Syndrome?
Havana Syndrome refers to a collection of unexplained neurological symptoms reported by diplomats and government personnel, officially termed Anomalous Health Incidents.

Was a weapon linked to Havana Syndrome tested?
Yes. Reporting indicates the U.S. government tested a pulsed radio-frequency device similar to technologies long suspected in Havana Syndrome cases.

Does testing mean the cause is confirmed?
No. Testing indicates concern and investigation, not definitive attribution.

Why is pulsed energy significant?
Pulsed radio-frequency energy can plausibly produce neurological effects without obvious physical damage, making attribution difficult.

About the Author

About the Author:
Miles Spencer is a multi-exit founder, investor, and author of A Line in the Sand and Havana Famiglia. His work explores power, memory, and the spaces where official narratives break down. Through his Miles to Go blog, he writes at the intersection of geopolitics, culture, and lived experience.