- Federal officials are reassessing oversight of U.S. weather modification programs, which have operated for decades with minimal regulation.
- The review follows severe weather events, like the 2025 Texas floods, that have sparked public debate over the potential impacts of cloud seeding and other interventions.
- The U.S. has a long, documented history of weather modification, including military programs and presidential discussions of controlling global weather systems.
- Current federal law relies on self-reporting, with no verification or enforcement, and most states require no permits for weather modification activities.
- At least 13 states have introduced legislation to restrict atmospheric modification, with three having enacted bans, as the debate over environmental impacts and oversight intensifies.
For over a century, the ambition to control the weather has moved from the realm of folklore into documented government programs and commercial ventures. Now, that largely unchecked history is prompting a fresh federal review. Following severe weather disasters and increasing state-level legislative action, officials are re-examining whether the nation’s minimal oversight of weather and climate modification is sufficient for an era of advanced geoengineering.
From rainmakers to hurricane hunters
The American pursuit of weather control is deeply rooted. In 1916, San Diego hired rainmaker Charles Hatfield to break a drought; his methods were followed by weeks of torrential rain, catastrophic flooding and the city’s deadliest natural disaster. Federal involvement escalated after World War II. In 1947, the military and General Electric launched Project Cirrus, the first attempt to modify a hurricane using dry ice. This inaugurated decades of experimentation, including the public Project Stormfury and the classified Operation Popeye during the Vietnam War, which used cloud seeding to extend monsoons and disrupt enemy supply lines. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both publicly mused about the ultimate goal of weather control, with Johnson noting in 1962 that “he who controls the weather will control the world.”
Modern operations and a regulatory vacuum
Today, cloud seeding operations are conducted in at least nine states, primarily in the West, to enhance precipitation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lists numerous other techniques, from hail suppression to fog dispersal. More controversially, research continues into large-scale Solar Radiation Management, such as Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, aimed at cooling the planet by reflecting sunlight. Despite this activity, oversight is scant. The primary federal law, enacted in 1972, operates on an honor system of self-reporting without verification or enforcement. In 35 states, no permits are required to modify the weather.
A flash point in Texas
Public and political scrutiny intensified after devastating floods in central Texas in July 2025. Following a prolonged drought, parts of the region received approximately 13 inches of rain in a short period, causing deadly flash flooding. Days earlier and roughly 130 miles away, a private company, Rainmaker Technology, had conducted a cloud-seeding operation. While geoengineering researcher Dane Wigington suggested a connection, the company’s CEO, Augustus Doricko, forcefully denied it, stating the scale of seeding is “de minimis” compared to a major storm system. The event nonetheless highlighted public fears and the lack of transparent monitoring.
The legislative response
The ambiguity surrounding the effectiveness and environmental impact of these programs has spurred legislative action. Citing concerns over unknown consequences for agriculture, human health and ecosystems, at least 13 states have introduced bills to restrict atmospheric modification. Tennessee, Montana and Florida have enacted prohibitions. In Congress, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has introduced legislation for a national ban, framing the issue as a matter of ecological precaution and sovereignty. Meteorologists testifying at related hearings have acknowledged the significant uncertainties, with some advocating for updated federal laws to create national uniformity and guide international discussions on geoengineering.
An unsettled forecast
The current federal review, noted in a recent report, centers on whether Congress must act or if regulatory authority should be reassigned to a different agency. The debate pits the potential benefits of drought mitigation and climate intervention against profound questions of unintended consequences, ethical governance and who holds the dial for the planet’s thermostat. As the technology advances, the nation grapples with a legacy of experimentation conducted under open skies but often in regulatory shadows, determining who should control attempts to control the weather.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.