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.
Has Congress introduced any geoengineering bills recently?
Executive Summary
Congress has not introduced or passed a new federal bill solely dedicated to authorizing or banning geoengineering (also called solar radiation modification) in the most recent legislative sessions; instead, Congress in FY2022 directed federal agencies to plan and research SRM, which produced an OSTP five‑year research plan in 2023 and continued agency funding for related studies through appropriations [1] [2]. At the same time, state legislatures have been active, with multiple states introducing and some passing bans or limits on geoengineering and weather modification in 2024–2025, reflecting a patchwork of subnational responses even as Congress focuses on research directives rather than standalone geoengineering statutes [3] [4]. This analysis extracts the key claims, summarizes federal versus state action, and highlights the governance and political context surrounding recent activity.
1. What advocates and critics claim — a contested agenda that shaped congressional direction
Advocates for research argue that Congressional language in FY2022 and subsequent appropriations reflects a mandate to better understand SRM risks and governance, not to greenlight large‑scale deployment, and that OSTP’s 2023 plan and NOAA research funding are designed to fill scientific gaps identified by lawmakers [1] [2]. Critics contend that any federal research funding or OSTP endorsement creates a political path toward normalization of geoengineering and that Congress should instead prohibit experiments or deployment; these concerns drove state lawmakers to introduce bans and restrictions, indicating a political backlash at subnational levels [3] [4]. The record shows Congress has been responsive to both camps by directing research and governance planning rather than adopting a definitive legislative posture for deployment or prohibition [1] [5].
2. The federal record — research directives, not new geoengineering bills in 2024–2025
Examination of the congressional and executive documents shows no newly introduced federal bill in 2024–2025 that solely establishes a national ban or authorization for geoengineering; instead, FY2022 appropriations included directives to OSTP to produce a five‑year federal research plan and an initial governance framework, culminating in the June 2023 OSTP report that outlined research priorities and governance recommendations [1] [2]. Federal agencies like NOAA subsequently received funding to study components related to solar geoengineering, such as the Earth’s radiation budget, under broader science and climate appropriations, which means Congress has acted through funding guidance rather than discrete standalone legislation on geoengineering [2]. Past individual bills like Rep. Jerry McNerney’s 2019 proposal are part of the legislative history but were not revived as national statutes in the recent sessions [6] [7].
3. State action filled the vacuum — bans, restrictions, and disparate approaches across the U.S.
While Congress focused on research direction, state legislatures intensified activity in 2024–2025, with at least a dozen states introducing prohibitions on solar radiation modification in 2024 and multiple states, including Tennessee, passing bills to ban geoengineering or weather modification activities [3] [4]. Advocacy groups and skeptical lawmakers used the absence of a clear federal ban to press for state-level prohibitions, producing a patchwork landscape where activities may be constrained in some jurisdictions but remain possible under federal research programs or in states without bans [3] [4]. This divergence has raised governance questions about interstate coordination, federal preemption, and how outdoor experiments would proceed when states and the federal government have differing rules [1].
4. Where oversight and governance are evolving — OSTP guidance and congressional oversight
Congress’s approach has trended toward oversight and planning: the FY2022 directive to OSTP produced a federal research plan and early governance framework in 2023, and appropriations language and agency budgets have continued to support controlled research rather than operational deployment [1] [2]. This indicates Congress prefers to retain oversight through appropriations and policy directives instead of enacting a single statute authorizing or outlawing SRM. The OSTP report itself recommended governance steps and conditions for outdoor experiments, reflecting an attempt to balance scientific inquiry with precautionary governance, though critics argue that those recommendations do not equate to legislative limits and leave substantial discretion to agencies and the executive branch [1].
5. What to watch next — possible legislative moves, political drivers, and international context
Expect continued congressional oversight hearings, appropriations language, and executive branch research activity rather than an immediate standalone geoengineering statute; future triggers that could spur new federal bills include high‑profile field experiments, international decisions on SRM, or escalating public concern that pushes lawmakers toward either explicit bans or frameworks authorizing tightly controlled research [1] [7]. Simultaneously, the rapid growth of state-level prohibitions may pressure Congress to act to harmonize rules, or conversely to defer to states on certain restrictions, creating a complex interplay between federal research programs and state bans that will shape U.S. governance of geoengineering going forward [3] [4].