Greene’s Weather FELONY Plan Ignites DC Uproar

Glowing lights above dramatic sunset clouds.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has just announced a federal move to make weather modification and geoengineering a felony—yes, you read that right, in a world where actual border security and basic constitutional rights are up for grabs, Congress is debating the criminalization of cloud seeding and solar reflection.

At a Glance

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is introducing a bill to ban all forms of weather modification and geoengineering at the federal level.
The bill would make it a felony to inject or disperse substances into the atmosphere for purposes of altering weather or climate.
This proposal follows Florida’s recent passage of a similar law, SB 56.
The move is a response to growing public skepticism and conspiracy theories about so-called “chemtrails.”
The scientific community is deeply divided—some call for research, others demand a full stop.

Greene’s Weather Modification Ban: Common Sense or Political Theater?

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has never been one to shy away from controversy, and her latest legislative crusade is no exception. Modeled after Florida’s SB 56, Greene’s proposed bill would make it a felony to inject, release, or disperse any chemical or substance into the atmosphere with the aim of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity. The announcement comes on the heels of widespread public concern about “chemtrails”—that ever-popular conspiracy theory that refuses to die, fueled by social media echo chambers and a deep mistrust of government transparency.

But here’s the kicker: while Congress dithers over banning cloud seeding, the American public is dogpaddling through waves of inflation, border chaos, and government overreach. Greene insists this is about protecting “clean air, clean skies, clean rain water, clean ground water, and sunshine just like God created it.” Critics, meanwhile, say it’s a legislative reaction to online paranoia rather than genuine science or environmental policy. Either way, this bill is about to launch a new round of political theater, and you can bet every taxpayer dollar on it.

The Florida Precedent and the New Conservative Playbook

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis set the stage by signing SB 56, a law explicitly banning geoengineering and weather modification in the state, citing concerns for public health and the right to know what’s being dumped into our skies. State Senator Ileana Garcia, who sponsored the legislation, positioned herself as a champion of transparency, declaring that Floridians should not be subject to untested atmospheric experiments without consent. The law’s passage was energized by a groundswell of public skepticism—and not just among the tinfoil hat crowd. A recent Rasmussen poll revealed that 44% of likely U.S. voters believe in secret government weather modification activities.

Greene’s bill aims to take this approach national. The legislation is still being drafted, but if enacted, it would halt not only large-scale geoengineering projects but also smaller research and agricultural operations that rely on weather modification, like cloud seeding for drought-stricken farms. The move is cheered by those who believe government and global elites are up to no good in the stratosphere, and jeered by scientists who warn that banning research could cripple our ability to address climate emergencies down the line.

Science, Skepticism, and the War on Research

The scientific community is split down the middle. Some experts, like Mark Jacobson of Stanford, support state and federal bans, calling geoengineering a “hare-brained scheme” with the potential for catastrophic side effects—think reduced crop yields and unintended climate disasters. Their argument: just because you can tinker with the weather doesn’t mean you should. On the other hand, leading climate researchers caution that an outright ban is a dangerous overcorrection. They argue that understanding the risks and potential benefits of geoengineering is essential if we ever hope to respond intelligently to runaway climate change.

But let’s not kid ourselves—this debate is less about science and more about trust, or the lack thereof. Years of official stonewalling and ever-shifting government narratives have left a public primed to believe the worst. The “chemtrails” theory, once a fringe idea, is now mainstream enough to inspire state and federal policy. For the scientific establishment, the chilling effect is real: research projects could be shuttered, international collaborations iced out, and future innovation stifled by fear of felony prosecution.

Political Theater or Precautionary Principle?

So where does this leave the average American? If you’re a scientist, you’re looking at new legal risks and a shrinking research landscape. If you’re a farmer depending on cloud seeding, you may soon be out of luck. For the everyday taxpayer, it’s another chapter in the never-ending saga of government telling you what’s good for you, whether you asked or not. The bill is sure to inflame partisan divides, with conservatives hailing it as a triumph of common sense and progressives decrying it as anti-science hysteria.

Meanwhile, the real issues—runaway spending, border security, government bloat—keep chugging along, largely ignored by the very people paid to address them. But hey, at least we’ll have “clean skies” and “sunshine just like God created it,” even as the government prints more money, inflation soars, and the southern border is a revolving door. Priorities, apparently, are a matter of atmospheric importance.