Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which US states have introduced bills about atmospheric spraying or geoengineering and when?
Executive Summary
Several U.S. states have introduced or passed legislation addressing atmospheric spraying, geoengineering, or so‑called “chemtrails” between 2014 and mid‑2025; the most consistently documented actions include measures in Tennessee (enacted 2024), Florida (bills in 2024–2025), Alabama (introduced 2025), and earlier legislative interest in Rhode Island [1], while broader reporting suggests as many as 22 states considered related bills in 2025. These state efforts vary from criminal bans on unauthorized atmospheric releases to administrative reporting and hotlines, and they sit alongside emerging federal activity on weather‑modification and geoengineering governance, reflecting a mix of public concern, political signaling, and differing policy objectives across jurisdictions [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Which states moved first and what did they do?
Tennessee is the clearest early case: the Tennessee legislature passed a ban on intentionally releasing chemicals into the atmosphere for geoengineering, with the Senate approving the measure on March 21, 2024, and enforcement slated for July 1, 2024, if all enactment steps completed. That law represents the first documented state adoption cited in reporting and legislative summaries and set a precedent that other states referenced when drafting their own proposals. Rhode Island’s earliest noted step arrived much earlier, with a geoengineering‑limitation bill introduced in 2014 that ultimately died, signaling long‑standing but intermittent legislative interest. These actions demonstrate that state responses have ranged from exploratory bills to enacted prohibitions, with Tennessee’s 2024 action serving as a watershed moment that other states followed [4] [2].
2. Who else introduced bills in 2024–2025 and how do their texts differ?
Florida’s legislative activity stands out in late 2024 and into early 2025: state Senator Ileana Garcia filed legislation criminalizing “unauthorized geoengineering or weather modification”, with one version — SB 56 — banning the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals to affect temperature, weather, climate, or sunlight intensity and creating a hotline for public reports; violations were framed as third‑degree felonies. Alabama introduced a bill in February 2025 seeking to ban weather‑modification activities and the measure was held in committee as of reporting. These bills differ in scope and enforcement: Florida’s proposal combined criminal penalties and reporting infrastructure, Alabama’s appeared more prohibitionist and procedural, and several other states filed variants with differing degrees of specificity and legal framing, illustrating substantial heterogeneity in statutory language and enforcement mechanisms [3] [2].
3. How widespread is the movement — are dozens of states involved?
Some reporting aggregates suggest a broad wave of activity: one analysis reported 22 states considered bills to ban geoengineering in 2025, with varying outcomes, including passage in some chambers and rejection in others. However, the more conservative sourcing identifies four explicitly documented states with introduced or enacted measures (Rhode Island, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama) and notes others filing similar bills without always providing legislative outcomes. The discrepancy reflects differences in reporting thresholds: some trackers count any introduced bill draft or committee filing across a state legislature, while other sources report only enacted laws or well‑advanced measures, which accounts for variance in the stated national total [5] [2].
4. What are the motivations, scientific context, and contested claims behind these bills?
Lawmakers cite public concern about aerial spraying and perceived risks; proponents frame bills as protecting public health and state sovereignty over airspace, while critics warn that bans could impede legitimate weather‑modification research and emergency cloud‑seeding projects. Scientific authorities emphasize that large‑scale geoengineering remains an active field of study with significant uncertainties and governance challenges, and federal research initiatives and governance discussions — including congressional proposals like the Clear Skies Act — parallel state action, underscoring tension between local policy responses to public fears and the need for nuanced, evidence‑based governance of atmospheric science [2] [7] [6].
5. What are the political dynamics, reporting gaps, and next‑step implications?
State-level measures frequently intersect with political messaging about regulation, public safety, and mistrust of federal or private actors in the sky; some bills may be motivated more by constituent concerns and political signaling than by imminent scientific threats. Reporting gaps persist: some trackers list many states as “considering” bans without consistent documentation of bill texts, committee actions, or final outcomes, and federal developments in 2025 add complexity by potentially pre‑empting or shaping state choices. Policymakers, researchers, and the public should therefore treat state tallies with caution, verify specific bill texts and enactment dates, and monitor federal legislative and administrative steps that could centralize governance of geoengineering research and weather modification [3] [5] [6].