The disconnect between media claims that weather modification is a debunked conspiracy theory and the clear, solid evidence of its existence and regulation stems from a combination of miscommunication, conflation of terms, public perception, and differing agendas. Weather modification, particularly under the term cloud seeding, is well-documented with patents and programs and legal regulations. The debate is not about if it exists, it is a fact it does, the debate is exactly how extensive, how far-reaching and how potent the weather-controlling programs actually are, like claims of hurricane-steering or how much it is used to fuel the political climate-change-agenda.
There is an operational reality. Over 50 countries, including the U.S., China, Australia, Russia and the UAE, conduct cloud seeding to enhance precipitation or suppress hail. These are active programs. In Sweden the governement denies it fully while American military has admitted to having an active program in the country. In the U.S., states like California, Colorado, and Texas fund programs, with techniques like silver iodide dispersal dating back to the 1940s (e.g., Vincent Schaefer’s 1946 experiment).
There are the patents and technology with hundreds of patents (estimated 700-1,000 globally) existing for weather modification, from early rain-making devices (e.g., US462795, 1891) to modern systems like US10888051B2 (2020), showing ongoing innovation.
Historical precedents
In the 1970s the Senate and House held hearings starting in 1972 on environmental modification, spurred by concerns over its potential military use (e.g., during the Vietnam War with Project Popeye (Vietnam War, 1967-1972) and later Project STORMFURY (1962-1983) again confirm government extensive interest in controlling the weather.). Actually, in 1973, the Senate passed a resolution urging an international ban on using weather modification as a weapon, leading to the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), signed in 1977 and ratified by the U.S. in 1979 after Senate approval (98-0 vote).
The National Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-490) directed the Secretary of Commerce to study weather modification science and propose a national policy. A 1979 NOAA report to Congress followed, focusing on scientific knowledge rather than operational mandates.
In the 2000s the Weather Modification Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2005 (S. 517, 109th Congress) was introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to establish a federal research program under NOAA (NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION). It passed the Senate Commerce Committee but stalled due to concerns over liability, national security, and foreign policy raised by the Bush Administration. Hearings (e.g., November 2005) featured experts debating its feasibility and risks. Since then formal discussions in Congress have been sparse, representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s being an excemption when she brought up the weather control for discussion in 2024, then without any legislative follow-through.
Observations
People have noticed the sky is changed. Perhaps not so many of those living in the cities where the sky are obscured, but many that work outdoors or live in the countryside confirm daily observations of the extensive spraying and can often more accurately tell what the weather forecast will be by having a look at the spraying pattern in the sky than listen to meterologs. The smog and haze that obscure the sun that so exactly correlates with patents and suggestions to combat “climate” despite the intense official denial that any such program is active, show a clear discrepancy.
State regulations
Then there is the legal framework. The U.S. Weather Modification Reporting Act of 1972 (15 CFR § 908) mandates reporting of such activities to NOAA, which tracks but doesn’t regulate them. States like Pennsylvania (1967 Weather Modification Control Act) and Maryland have licensing requirements or past moratoriums, but these regulate rather than ban outright.
Most active weather modification states (e.g., California, Colorado, Texas, Utah) regulate it under licensing frameworks (e.g., California Water Code § 400-410) rather than prohibit it. Approximately 25 states have some form of weather modification law, per NOAA’s reporting records, focusing on oversight, not bans. However, a few states have moved toward restrictions or bans as there has been an increased discussion around health concerns from the spraying. At least ten American states now consider a ban while in 2024, Tennessee passed SB 2691/HB 2063, signed into law on April 11, 2024, as Public Chapter 709. It prohibits “the intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or intensity of the sunlight.” This effectively bans cloud seeding and geoengineering activities, making Tennessee the first state with such a broad prohibition. Posts on X confirm its passage and enforcement sentiment.
In Florida in November 20, 2024, Senator Ileana Garcia introduced SB 158, aiming to ban “weather modification activities” by prohibiting the release of substances into the atmosphere to alter weather patterns. It passed the Senate on February 11, 2025 (6-3 vote, per X posts), and awaits House approval and the governor’s signature as of March 5, 2025. If enacted (effective July 1, 2025), Florida would join Tennessee in banning the practice outright.
In 2022, HB 1259 was introduced in New Hampshire, to prohibit “atmospheric dispersion of chemicals” tied to weather modification, reflecting geoengeneering concerns. It passed the House but died in the Senate. In Illinois HB 3523 (2023) proposed banning geoengineering experiments, including cloud seeding, but it stalled in committee.
Since 2023 bills have been noted in Kentucky, South Dakota, Rhode Island, and other states (e.g., KY HB 506, SD HB 1234) since 2023 to restrict or ban weather modification, often citing health or environmental risks. None of these have yet passed into law.
Media’s “Debunked Conspiracy” Narrative
Politicians and media outlets label weather modification as a conspiracy theory or debunked notion, creating a perception that all weather modification is fictitous, despite that the practise is real and the activities regulated. The media’s “conspiracy theory” label arises from a mix of combating information about the agendas, conflating terms, and simplifying complex realities, even as evidence of regulated weather modification—like cloud seeding—stands firm. It’s a failure to distinguish between proven, limited techniques and unproven claims (like hurricane steering) that dominate public discourse. The establishment narrative dismisses legitimate questions about environmental impact or ethics to maintain a clean debunking slate, alienating those who see the evidence and feel gaslit. This fuels the public distrust of mainstream media and the more governements and mainstream media around the world have denied its existens the more public interest has increased over the years, sparked not the least after events like Hurricanes Helene and Milton and from documenting the worldwide spraying-activities in the skies.
Cloud seeding
Cloud seeding is a weather modification technique with the purpose to increase precipitation by adding substances to clouds to influence their microprocesses. The core principles of cloud seeding are to provide artificial icing nuclei or condensation nuclei to clouds that lack enough natural particles to form precipitation effectively. There are some different techniques: Dry ice seeding is when dry ice is used to induce snow. Silver iodide seeding is when Silver iodide is used as an icing core. Other varieties are Hygroscopic seeding for hygroscopic materials used to increase droplet formation, Liquid propane seeding when Liquid propane is used to cool the air and form ice crystals and Electric charge seeding for experimental systems where charged particles are used to influence droplet coalescence or ice formation.
Heavily propagating solar radiation management as a solution to the “Climate Crisis” Bill Gates have funded research in solar geoengineering, notably by supporting Harvard’s Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx)
DOGE, NOAA and Weatherprojects
Since 5 March 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and under the administration of President Donald Trump, has been actively working to identify and reduce what DOGE considers to be wasteful use of government funds. DOGE’s official goal is to focus on areas such as anti-fraud, contract cancellations, and regulatory reductions, but also on climate-related appropriations. DOGE claims to have saved significant sums, up to $105 billion according to the latest updates, through contract cancellations, such as of unused software licences for huge sums, payments to 160 year olds, unnecessary or even fake personnel expenses, and the elimination of unnecessary programmes in various federal agencies.
Two agencies DOGE has taken an interest in are the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It is now rumoured that DOGE has disclosed, among other things, USAID grants that fund geoengineering projects linked to weather modification efforts globally.
NOAA operates satellites that monitor weather patterns worldwide and provide data for global climate and weather models, and conducts weather-related work globally through the National Weather Service (NWS) and other branches such as the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to track phenomena such as hurricanes, tsunamis, and El Niño/La Niña events.
Although NOAA itself claims that it does not carry out weather modification but only collects reports from US entities to monitor such activities, DOGE’s targeting of USAID and NOAA has raised concerns among prominent weather advocates that potential cuts could affect climate data programmes and critics argue that limitations on NOAA’s international involvement could impair global weather and climate efforts, while acknowledging that NOAA in particular has had at least a very large indirect influence on climate efforts globally.
DOGE has already started to influence NOAA and has initiated layoffs, with up to 1,200 NOAA employees worldwide reportedly fired. Following the suspension of payments to USAID and NOAA, there have been some reports of now unusual ‘naturally clear blue skies’. However, no specific contract IDs or verifiable documentation have been presented. There has also been talk of links between DOGE’s work and Bill Gates-funded weather projects, NASA and the Pentagon, but again this is not yet substantiated by any official DOGE data.
