In early 2025, Iowa joined 32 other states in introducing bills to ban geoengineering. Geoengineering means trying to cool the Earth or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These actions fall into two main categories: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and the more controversial Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), which tries to reflect sunlight away from Earth.

The story of House File 191 and Senate File 142 in Iowa’s legislature shows how grassroots energy, strategy, and politics can shape a bill’s path. What began as an attempt to ban "chemtrails" turned into an example of how a fringe issue can challenge normal lawmaking and catch even seasoned lawmakers off guard.

A Tale of Two Chambers: Why One Bill Moved Forward, and the Other Did Not

At the start of the 2025 session, the House and Senate took different approaches to the bills, showing a clear divide.

House Success: House File 191, led by Representative Jeff Shipley and 22 fellow Republicans, gained immediate support. The first subcommittee hearing on February 11 drew over 75 public attendees, a significant turnout.

Most speakers at the hearing supported the ban, citing concerns about chemtrails, soil contamination, and health risks. Strong grassroots backing helped the bill move through the subcommittee and the full Environmental Protection Committee.

Senate Failure: SF 142 went to the Judiciary Committee and would have made geoengineering a Class D felony. However, it lacked sufficient support in the Senate and did not move forward.

Senator Jason Schultz, the subcommittee chair, blocked the bill by failing to schedule a hearing. With no strong Senate advocate or notable public backing, the bill was unable to meet the legislature's 'funnel' deadline.

The Renumbering Trick: How a "Fringe" Bill Became Official Business

The House Environmental Protection Committee approved HF 191 and then officially renumbered it as House File 927. This renumbering, a standard step in the legislative process, signals that the legislation has advanced from committee consideration to eligibility for debate on the House floor.

With this new status as a committee-sponsored bill, HF 927 became eligible for placement on the House debate calendar. Committee sponsorship changes the bill's status, increasing its chances for discussion compared to measures sponsored by individual lawmakers.

The Poison Pill: How a "Bigfoot Study" Derailed the Debate

Representative Adam Zabner, a Democrat, proposed this amendment, asking the Department of Natural Resources to study whether Bigfoot exists in Iowa. Zabner’s proposal was a classic 'ridicule amendment' or 'poison pill.' The aim was not to actually search for Bigfoot, but to link the geoengineering ban to fringe ideas.

This tactical manoeuvre successfully stalled the bill’s momentum during the 2025 session. While the amendment was never adopted, it was also never withdrawn, leaving it "lurking" on the legislative docket. As the 2026 session resumes, the Bigfoot provision remains attached to HB927. This persistent political hurdle forces proponents to choose between defending their bill or engaging with the absurdity of the rider.

The Overreach: Proponents Pushed for Felonies and a Fight with the Feds

As reported by the Des Moines Register, supporters of the bill countered with Amendment H-1167, a tougher proposal to increase enforcement. The measure stripped state agencies of rulemaking power and reclassified geoengineering as a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Notably, the amendment also included language barring the federal government from geoengineering within state borders. One of the bill’s primary sponsors, Rep. Jeff Shipley, framed the move as a matter of state rights: 'It is incumbent on the state of Iowa to exercise sovereignty in this area.'"

However, this move was a legal overreach. If a state law tried to criminalise the flight operations of the U.S. military or federal agencies like NOAA, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution would almost certainly nullify it. This legal precedent goes back to the 1946 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Causby, which affirmed federal control over 'navigable airspace’. While states can control the air just above the ground, they lack authority over the higher flight paths where these activities occur. Federal dominance over the skies renders the felony rule powerless against federal actions.

What's Next for Iowa's Geoengineering Bills?

Because Iowa’s session lasts two years, HF 927 and SF 142 will carry over in committee to 2026.

Major obstacles remain. House leaders will likely avoid controversial bills during an election year. The Senate has shown little interest, and the bill is stuck because of two tough amendments.

Looking ahead, if the issue returns in 2026, supporters will have to confront both strategic setbacks and legal challenges. Meanwhile, broader national implications are emerging as other countries act on climate intervention.