Has the US federal government proposed any geoengineering regulations?

1. What people are claiming — and what the record actually shows

The central claim examined is whether the US federal government has proposed geoengineering regulations. The factual record shows no unified federal regulatory proposal governing geoengineering as a whole; rather, activity consists of agency reviews, research programs, and congressional direction to study impacts. The Environmental Protection Agency has publicly indicated it is reviewing its authorities with respect to potential solar geoengineering activities and has regulated aspects of carbon‑dioxide‑removal methods in narrow instances, but it has not issued broad, dedicated geoengineering regulations ^{[1] [2]}. In parallel, federal research bodies such as NOAA have funded or conducted research into solar geoengineering impacts, again without accompanying sweeping regulatory proposals ^[1]. This distinction—agency preparedness and study versus formal rulemaking—is the key factual point.

2. Federal agencies are preparing but not promulgating sweeping rules

Multiple federal agencies are taking preparatory steps that could translate into future regulation. The EPA has publicly reviewed its potential authorities and applied existing statutes in targeted ways for certain carbon removal approaches; NOAA has expanded research into solar geoengineering risks and monitoring needs; and federal actors have been directed by Congress and OSTP to devise research plans and governance approaches. These moves reflect administrative readiness, not finalized regulatory actions, and signal that agencies may use existing statutes rather than a single new geoengineering statute to address specific activities ^{[1] [2]}. The GAO’s earlier review emphasized the lack of a coordinated strategy and recommended higher‑level federal coordination, reinforcing that current agency efforts remain fragmented and exploratory ^[2].

3. State-level bans and legislative momentum are forcing the issue

While the federal government has refrained from formal regulation, states have actively pursued restrictions. Dozens of state bills addressing solar radiation modification and weather modification have been introduced in recent legislative sessions, with Tennessee among the first to adopt a ban; in 2025 a notable wave of state activity—reporting dozens of state measures—reflects political pressure for local safeguards ^{[3] [4]}. This state dynamism creates a patchwork of rules that could collide with federal prerogatives and research activities, complicating any future federal policy. The contrast between state bans and federal study efforts highlights a governance tension: states acting to prohibit deployment while federal agencies assess science, monitoring, and authority.

4. Analysts and watchdogs call for a coordinated federal strategy — and point out gaps

Independent analyses and watchdog recommendations converge on one conclusion: governance is incomplete. The GAO urged the Office of Science and Technology Policy to coordinate federal research and governance planning to avoid inconsistent application of laws and to inform potential regulatory action ^[2]. Policy analysts also urge preparedness and a roadmap for security, ethical, and environmental oversight, warning that ad hoc agency actions will leave gaps amid growing state-level restrictions and international interest ^[5]. The prevailing prescription is not immediate prohibition nor laissez-faire, but coordinated federal leadership to define which statutes apply, what new rules (if any) are needed, and how to engage states and international partners.

5. Where this is likely to go next and what to watch

Expect continued federal research funding and interagency coordination activities in the near term, alongside targeted regulatory moves under existing laws rather than a single omnibus geoengineering statute. Key signals to monitor include formal EPA rulemaking announcements, OSTP or White House strategic guidance, GAO follow-ups, and any congressional bills proposing an explicit regulatory framework; simultaneously, the expanding patchwork of state laws will shape practical limits on deployments and could pressure federal action ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Watch for dates and texts of agency notices or proposed rules, as those will mark the transition from authority reviews and research to concrete regulatory proposals.