The 'chemtrail' theory is an internet conspiracy that claims the white trails behind jets are proof of a secret government program spraying chemicals on people, a narrative that WyoFile reports has spurred real policy debate in the Wyoming legislature and started a real policy debate led by the Wyoming Freedom Caucus.

A fringe issue has become a legislative battle. In 2025, lawmakers introduced a bill to ban geoengineering, but it failed due to a technical error, not controversy. The following year, in 2026, they returned with two new, more substantial bills, now backed by a key committee and intended to fix previous mistakes.

With the recent return of geoengineering legislation, it’s essential to step back and trace how the effort evolved. The story isn’t just about policy, but about how an idea moved from online speculation to the floor of Wyoming’s legislature—and how the process shaped what came next. Before diving into the changes this year, let’s look at what went wrong last year and why this year’s approach is different. Here are the most surprising lessons from Wyoming’s unusual legislative process.

The First Attempt Crashed Because It Targeted the Wrong Clouds

Last Year's Bill Failed by Accidentally Banning Wyoming's Own Rainmaking Program.

In early 2025, lawmakers introduced HB0208 to ban "geoengineering." Supporters wanted to stop the supposed spraying of "chemtrails." However, the bill’s language was too broad. It tried to ban any activity with the "express purpose of affecting or changing temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight."

This broad definition created a significant problem. It did not separate the alleged conspiracy from Wyoming’s long-running, state-approved cloud seeding program. For years, the state has used ground-based generators to release particles into the air and boost mountain snowpack. This extra snow is essential for Wyoming’s farms and city water supplies.

The mistake had fast and severe effects. The bill’s official Fiscal Note said that banning cloud seeding by accident would have caused both financial and operational problems.

• Annual Revenue Loss: ~$570,000 from partners who help fund the program, including states in the Colorado River Basin (CA, AZ, NV) and the City of Cheyenne.
• One-Time Cost: $150,000 to dismantle the 13 ground-based cloud seeding generator sites.

Facing the risk of ending a vital water program, lawmakers made a strategic decision. Rather than forcing a recorded "No" vote that might upset voters, the House Minerals committee let the bill quietly expire. The official record calls it a "Returned Bill Pursuant to HR 5-4," which is how the committee sends a bill back under House Rule 5-4. This process lets a controversial bill expire quietly if it misses a deadline, shielding lawmakers from a recorded vote.

A Tense Compromise Was a Political Game-Changer

To Ban "Chemtrails," Lawmakers First Had to Save Cloud Seeding.

After HB0208 failed, supporters of the ban changed their strategy. During the 2025 break, they moved the debate to the Joint Agriculture Committee. This strategic shift was significant because, while the Minerals Committee had blocked the first bill, the Agriculture Committee, which handles water policy, would have to deal with the cloud-seeding issue directly.

The turning point came during a tense, nearly five-hour meeting—reported by Wyoming Public Media—where lawmakers were confused, asking, "What are we voting on?" and even changing their votes. The committee considered a 10-year pause on all cloud seeding, but it failed in a 5-5 tie. This deadlock showed there was no support for ending Wyoming’s weather modification program. Supporters of a "chemtrail" ban realised they needed to protect the cloud seeding program to pass any law.

Supporters of the ban spoke about fears of government poisoning. Rep. Karlee Provenza, who was sceptical, offered a different view. She explained the environmental changes using standard scientific reasoning.

"It’s climate change. And yeah, you can shake your head. But I'll tell you most scientists agree with me. And there aren't a ton of PhD scientists here today or medical professionals telling me that we're being poisoned."

The compromise resulted in two new measures for the 2026 session: HB0012 and HJ0001. While HJ0001 is a joint resolution requesting Congressional action—a separate topic I will cover in a future article—HB0012 focuses on immediate state law. Instead of just adding exemptions, this new bill changes the definition of the offence. Now, 'Atmospheric contaminant' does not include “cloud seeding agents” or “exhaust from standard aviation.” By leaving these out, the sponsors created a legal barrier that removed the opposition, which blocked the 2025 bill.

The New Bill Has Felony-Sized Teeth

This Year's Proposal Escalates the Punishment to Serious Prison Time.

The most significant change in the new bill, HB0012, is its strict penalties. The earlier bill was unclear about enforcement, but the latest version is clear. It treats violations as serious felonies, not misdemeanours or civil offences.

The proposed penalties are severe and intended to discourage violations strongly.

For comparison, having more than three ounces of marijuana in Wyoming is also a felony, with up to five years in prison and a maximum fine of $10,000. The hefty penalties in HB0012, especially the $500,000 minimum for a second offence, show lawmakers are targeting not just individuals but also bigger players, like federal contractors or large companies, they believe might try atmospheric modification.

The Bill's Biggest Hurdles Are Math and the Federal Government

The New Bill's Prospects Hinge on a Tough Vote and a Looming Legal Showdown.

Even with its new design, the geoengineering ban faces two significant challenges. The first is procedural. In the 2026 "Budget Session," any non-budget bill like HB0012 needs a two-thirds majority just to be discussed. This high threshold means only 21 out of 62 House members can stop the bill before it gets a hearing.

The next big challenge is the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) controls all U.S. airspace. To push back, the bill cites the 10th Amendment, which gives states powers not given to the federal government. Still, legal experts and some lawmakers doubt whether a state can enforce such a ban on federal or commercial planes. Senator Barry Crago, a vocal sceptic of the bill, challenged the committee on this exact point during recorded debates.

"What's the process of actually stopping the airplanes that are flying over our state doing this? If we're going to do this, we need to be able to actually enforce it."

Even if supporters secure the supermajority needed to introduce the bill, enforcement remains a significant question. The state might pass a law that it cannot enforce.

A Strange Forecast for Wyoming

Wyoming's anti-geoengineering push shows how politics shifts from conspiracy-driven legislation to detailed, enforceable laws. A bill introduced on weak grounds failed; compromise and focus then led to a more precise, aggressive proposal aimed at real implementation.

This story is more than just a political curiosity. It is a test case for state power in a time of deep distrust. But the outcome leaves Wyoming—and the nation—grappling with a lingering challenge: can a state really police the sky, or will this law fade as little more than a warning of how far fear and policy can travel together?