Recently, lawmakers in the South Carolina Statehouse have moved away from usual topics like taxes and healthcare to focus on banning atmospheric modification, such as “chemtrails” and geoengineering. During the 2025 session, legislators introduced four related bills—including Senate Bill 110—but struggled to advance them, even under pressure from constituents.

This article shows that South Carolina’s legislative fight over atmospheric modification is not primarily about environmental policy but rather reveals a power struggle within the state’s Republican Party. It also explains how the new 2026 bill, H4624, shifts this conflict from symbolic resistance into a direct political and economic battle for the state.

The Real Fight Isn’t About the Sky—It’s a Political Proxy War on the Ground

Conservatives see the current push to ban atmospheric modification as a reflection of tensions within the state’s Republican party, as they use the issue to challenge more moderate party leadership and assert their influence.

For the sponsors, these bills show loyalty to their supporters and a commitment to resisting federal control. Pressure from constituents has become a significant influence. Representative Gil Gatch, who sponsored a bill, explained:

“It seems unusual, I guess, because of all the subjects that we have, of all of the issues that we address at the state level, I’ve heard more about this particular subject than anything else… More than abortion, more than energy, more than DEI, more than taxes, more than roads.”

This wave of constituent concern gives Freedom Caucus members political support, allowing them to claim their actions reflect the will of the people, even if party leaders disagree.

At the same time, state party leaders see these bills as more than just a distraction. They believe the bills threaten South Carolina’s pro-business reputation. Since aviation, especially Boeing in North Charleston, is a key part of the state’s economy, suggesting that industry activities are harmful is seen as both politically risky and bad for business. The potential backlash from industry leaders shows the debate affects the state’s core interests, not just policy.

Two Powerful Gatekeepers grounded the 2025 Bills.

The anti-geoengineering bills did not move forward because two committee chairs used procedural rules to keep them from reaching a vote in the House.

The “Agriculture Barrier”

The first bill, H3083, went to the House Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Environmental Affairs, led by Representative Bill Hixon. Its wording was expansive, banning the “dispersing chemicals” into the air to affect the weather. This broad language created a direct risk to agriculture, a key state industry.

Because the bill’s vague wording could have made routine agricultural aviation, such as crop dusting, illegal, they set it aside without a hearing to protect farmers.

The “Judiciary Barrier”

Two bills, H3915 and H4010, were sent to the Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Newton. H3915 would have allowed citizens to sue the federal government, which is not legally possible under the doctrine of federal supremacy.

Since the committee was already handling complex issues, these bills were deemed weak under the Constitution and set aside as unworkable.

A New ‘Nuclear Option’ Bill Escalates the Fight for 2026

After the 2025 bills failed, sponsors tried again by prefiling House Bill 4624, which is more than just another attempt. By directly targeting private aviation in the state and threatening felony charges, H4624 turns the conflict from a debate over federal power into a real threat to important state industries, sharpening the political argument.

The table below clarifies key distinctions among the 2025 bills and the new H4624 for 2026. For example, the 2025 bills primarily targeted federal agencies and broadly banned atmospheric modification, while H4624 specifically targets private aviation companies in South Carolina. H4624 increases penalties by introducing felony charges for violations. Unlike earlier bills, it introduces new civil liability tools, such as allowing citizens to sue without showing personal harm, and criminalises routine airport activities if linked to banned actions. These changes represent a significant shift in both legal scope and economic impact compared to previous proposals.

H4624 brings in two significant new legal changes:

The "Bounty Hunter" Clause: Section 4(B)(ii) of H4624 features the most aggressive innovation. The text explicitly states that a private citizen "is not required to prove actual damages" to win a verdict.

This provision creates a radical departure from customary American tort law, effectively bypassing the standard 'standing' requirement that a plaintiff must prove harm. Instead, it establishes a 'bounty' system in which a flight's visual appearance alone triggers strict liability for airports.

By exposing aviation companies to lawsuits without requiring proof of injury or property loss, the bill creates an environment of potentially unlimited liability—a level of financial risk that could make securing standard aviation insurance difficult, if not impossible.

The "Logistical Stranglehold": Just as the bill targets airports financially, it targets their operations criminally. The legislation bans workers from refuelling, repairing, or servicing any aircraft if they know it will engage in SAI activities.

This provision effectively deputises private ground crews as environmental regulators. It places a perilous legal burden on fuel truck drivers and mechanics, requiring them to judge the "intent" of a flight before providing routine maintenance.

The threat of criminal charges may force aviation service providers to preemptively refuse service to any aircraft with unfamiliar equipment or flight plans. This defensive posture could grind airport operations to a halt, as workers prioritise their own legal safety over flight schedules.

Meanwhile, while House sponsors have escalated their tactics with H4624, Senate Bill 110 has found new life, sparking fresh debate in committee after a year of inactivity.

Federal Law Makes the Whole Debate Legally Fragile

Federal law takes precedence over state law. The Federal Aviation Act gives the federal government sole authority over U.S. airspace, preventing states from imposing their own regulations.

Fiscal reviews underscore this, pointing to Section 233 of the Clean Air Act, which reserves federal regulation of aircraft emissions.

The legislation also confuses Solar Radiation Modification with typical jet contrails, which are ice crystals from high-altitude exhaust.

Besides legal and procedural problems, the sponsors also faced strong scepticism from others in their own party, who have a practical conservative outlook. At the Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee hearing on Dec 11, 2025, for Senate Bill 110 (S110), Senator Josh Kimbrell, a conservative Republican, shared his doubts about the basic idea behind the legislation: “Call me crazy, I just think that human beings aren’t totally capable of changing everything the way that God could… I don’t even think I believe we can actually fix a drought with cloud seeding.”

There is an irony: while the bills nominally seek state power over the sky, their underlying purpose is to signal to party factions and leaders that the actual fight is about political control within the state.

Conclusion: A Legislative Contrail

Ultimately, the 2025 'chemtrail' bills failed not because of the issue itself, but because they exposed the larger struggle over who would lead and define the Republican party in South Carolina.

Even though H4624 is strict, it is unlikely to pass because it could hurt aviation and tourism in the state.

H4624 is unlikely to pass, but its primary purpose is to serve as a strong signal in the struggle for influence within the Republican party, showing that this legislation is about political positioning, not atmospheric policy.