In recent years, major weather events have drawn suspicions from some corners surrounding weather modification and geoengineering technologies and practices. These suspicions are often dismissed as conspiracy theories or outlandish claims, though some view them as plausible given the technologies developed and used over the years by private companies and militaries worldwide.
These suspicions have led some lawmakers, like Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Tim Burchett (R-TN), to push for the introduction of a bill outlawing what Greene calls “the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering.” Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Lee Zeldin has also spoken to these concerns, saying the “Trump EPA is committed to total transparency” and has tasked the EPA with compiling and releasing publicly “everything we know about contrails and geoengineering.”
Greene’s announcement also received significant pushback on X. Some questioned how Greene could “hold a position in a government office being this dumb,” and others, like Meteorologist Steven DiMartino from nynjpaweather.com, said, “With all due respect, I don’t think you have a clue about what you’re talking about.”
History of Weather Modification
Suspected attempts to control weather can be traced back to at least the 1700s, when veterans of wars reported rain falling after every major battle. In the late 19th century, the US Department of War detonated gunpowder and explosives in Texas in an attempt to condense water vapor into rain; the results were deemed inconclusive.
However, technology and testing have evolved since the 19th century, and government ambitions to modify weather have persisted. Former President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1962, “He who controls the weather will control the world.”
A now-declassified Vietnam War operation dubbed ‘Operation Popeye’ secretly utilized silver iodide to lace clouds and increase rainfall by an estimated 30% to slow down enemies on the Ho Chi Minh trail. This process is known by some as “cloud seeding” today.
Between 1890 and 2014, at least 200 patents have been issued for weather modification operations, with information on issued patents since 2014 remaining undisclosed.
Academics have debated the effectiveness of cloud seeding, and many of the disclosed patents would not affect the weather on a large scale. Climate engineering site Geoengineering Monitor has created an interactive map displaying 1350 different known geoengineering locations worldwide. Geoengineering Monitor sources their information from the Heinrich Böll Foundation and ETC Group, explaining that there is no “complete records” of geoengineering projects making the map “necessarily incomplete.”
Different forms of weather modification are being used today all over the globe. Some US states actively employ cloud seeding operations, including states that have been hit by major weather events. Other states either do not have legislation allowing the technology to be used or have banned it altogether. Many, like the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International believe intelligence agencies and militaries worldwide are very interested in geoengineering. Reports concerning agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) show that operations intended to alter Earth’s environment and stop climate change are receiving extensive funding.
Climate Change Concerns Spur Geoengineering Advancements
Bloomberg (Lean Left bias) reported in April 2025 that many companies are actively developing more sophisticated geoengineering to “find a silver bullet for global warming.” Despite the potential for unknown risks and side effects, according to Bloomberg, scientists and “deep-pocketed entrepreneurs” are testing “radical” new ideas such as solar radiation modification (SRM) and ocean fertilization techniques. Bloomberg’s article calls these new technologies “the terrible idea whose time has come,” given the “climate crisis and lack of consensus in addressing it.”
Daily Caller (Right), on the other hand, included commentary from several people who do not believe the climate is in crisis. Jeremy Redfern, Communications Director for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, said, “The climate cult believes they can save the planet by blocking the sun.”
According to the Weather Modification Act of 1976, the article explains, participants in any weather modification practices are required to report any activities to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 10 days before carrying out any operation. Daily Caller also mentioned that the reporting requirement excludes subcontractors for the federal government, essentially allowing for “cloak and dagger efforts to change the weather.”
What is Solar Radiation Modification?
SRM, according to the NOAA, refers to “deliberate, large-scale actions intended to decrease global average surface temperatures by increasing the reflection of sunlight away from the Earth.”
Some of these methods, such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), involve spraying aerosols or other small particles into the atmosphere to deflect radiation from the sun away from Earth. Scientists are also keenly interested in marine cloud brightening (MCB), which would inject aerosols into low-lying marine clouds. Both methods are currently undergoing testing to ascertain the feasibility, risks, benefits, and negative consequences of utilizing the technology.
What is Ocean Fertilization?
Ocean fertilization is another method of weather modification that is being developed and tested. It involves stimulating phytoplankton growth with iron throughout large swathes of the world’s oceans in order to enhance atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) removal, sequestering greenhouse gases in the depths of the ocean. Scientists have increasingly pointed to this method as an attractive and relatively low-cost means of abating greenhouse gases.
Critics of ocean fertilization cite what is called the ‘problem of permissible pollution,’ which asks whether it is permissible to remediate one pollutant by introducing a second pollutant into a system that has already been damaged, threatened, or altered.
Proponents of the method counter that there isn’t much of an ecosystem to impact in the first place in the “biological dead zones” where large-scale ocean fertilization would take place. But a recent study complicates this assertion, identifying a negative impact on even far-away tropical marine life that could be comparable to that of climate change. One of the study’s authors emphasized the need for more holistic modeling of ocean fertilization’s consequences for a complete understanding of its pros and cons.
Views on Geoengineering and Weather Modification Across the Spectrum
Views across the political spectrum tend to differ vastly in terms of geoengineering efforts, often based on the differences in views on climate change.
An opinion writer for Townhall (Right) asserts that “Democrats are dangerous people” and “need to be stopped before they do damage to life on Earth that cannot be undone.” A different Townhall opinion voiced concerns over hurricane seeding and manipulation, saying “while the government generally claims it hasn’t had much success affecting hurricanes, why not let the people decide for themselves based on the facts instead of issuing far left ‘fact checks’ that cherry-pick sources of information to arrive at a predetermined outcome in advance.”
A writer for Newsmax Opinion (Right) urges people to “beware” of geoengineering proposals for the environment, stressing that “our planet has only one atmosphere” and explaining that one geoengineering project could “produce catastrophic results even faster than global warming is doing.” The writer goes on to explain that even if geoengineering efforts succeed in mitigating climate change, geopolitical changes brought on by the effects of such a project could cause major wars and famines.
The Daily Beast (Left) criticized Marjorie Taylor Greene for introducing the new bill outlawing all geoengineering efforts. The article went on to criticize EPA Administrator Zeldin for his post about transparency, saying it “was seen by some as a dog whistle to MAGA conspiracy theorists.”
Another article from Daily Beast alleged, “We’ve been accidentally geoengineering the Earth for decades.” The article explains that, after the United Nations International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 2020 limited sulfur emissions from ships by more than 80%, scientists discovered the sulfur dioxide that had been polluting the atmosphere had an unexpected benefit — it functioned as a solar radiation modifier, brightening marine clouds and deflecting some of the warming caused by the sun’s radiation. Observations since 2020 indicate an uptick in global temperatures corresponding to the IMO’s emissions rule coming into force. The article went on to say that the findings “may help bolster the case for geoengineering.”
The Guardian (Left) published an article highlighting “researchers call for urgent exploration of methods to cool Earth,” while noting that alternatives to injecting sulphates into the atmosphere should be prioritized. The article urges the importance of finding ways to combat the climate crisis, but notes that current methods could do more harm than good.
Many on the left, such as the Associated Press (Left), point to the increasing prevalence of severe weather as a reason to change “attitudes and actions” concerning climate change. The article features commentary saying, as the climate situation grows more dire, “what used to be extreme becomes average.”
Regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum, the wide differences in coverage and narratives on weather modification demonstrate why consuming a balanced news diet is crucial for seeing the full picture. To do more of your own research on weather modification efforts, use the AllSides Balanced Search tool to make sure you’re seeing coverage and views from across the spectrum.
Johnathon Held is a News & Bias Assistant with a Lean Right bias…
This piece was edited and reviewed by Andy Gorel, News and Social Media Editor (Center bias); Evan Wagner, Product Manager (Lean Left bias); and Henry Brechter, Editor in Chief (Center bias).
