In 2024, Tennessee passed a law banning atmospheric geoengineering—a problem the state itself acknowledged did not exist. The bill, SB2691, soon became known as the "chemtrail ban." Supporters called it a win for public health and state rights when it took effect on July 1, 2024. But months later, the same aircraft trails still fill the sky, making people question what the law really accomplished.

After finding the initial ban—which targeted a scientifically debunked conspiracy theory—legally unenforceable, lawmakers introduced a sequel with severe penalties based on the same flawed premise.

This article analyses the escalation of Tennessee's geoengineering laws—a political drama of invented problems, legal fictions, and unintended consequences. Now, the laws place a key industry in the crosshairs and serve as a platform for a gubernatorial campaign.

The Original Ban Targeted Something That Wasn't Happening

Tennessee's chemtrail ban addressed an activity that analysts said was not occurring. The fiscal memorandum for SB2691 made this clear:

"It is assumed that the action prohibited by this legislation is not currently occurring in this state, nor will it in the future; therefore, this legislation will result in no significant fiscal impact on state government."

This view matches what scientists agree on. Climate science professor Alan Robock put it simply: “There’s no such thing as chemtrails.”

Groups like the U.S. Air Force and the EPA have explained that these trails are just condensation, or "contrails," created when hot, humid jet exhaust meets cold air high up. It's like seeing your breath on a chilly day. The law was not addressing a real danger, but instead was a response to a conspiracy theory.

The "Toothless" Law Faced Federal Legal Barriers

Besides targeting something that was not happening, the law had two main problems: no clear penalties and unclear enforceability.

A February 2025 opinion from the Tennessee Attorney General (No. 25-006) confirmed this. The opinion said that if the state tried to regulate activities in "navigable airspace," where federal authority is strongest, it would likely face problems.

The analysis found that enforcing the law at the state level could easily be blocked by federal law, since the U.S. government has "exclusive sovereignty of airspace." The opinion’s conclusion points out this legal problem:

"Ultimately, how a court would resolve a preemption challenge to enforcement of § 68-201-122 in airspace remains unclear... there remains a serious risk that a court could hold that enforcement is preempted as applied to certain activities occurring in navigable airspace."

In short, the law targeted a non-existent problem and had no control over its intended area.

Lawmakers Try to Add Stronger Penalties with a $100,000 Fine.

Because the original ban failed, Representative Monty Fritts introduced new legislation in 2025 to make it tougher.

House Bill 1112 (HB 1112) aims to set strict penalties by making any violation a Class A misdemeanour and adding a $100,000 fine for each offence. The bill also makes it a crime to provide materials for weather modification and gives the Attorney General the power to investigate.

However, the official review of the bill points out an irony. The fiscal memorandum for HB 1112 notes that the prohibited action 'is not currently occurring in this state, nor will it in the future.' Consequently, the bill imposes harsh penalties, including a $100,000 fine, for an activity that analysts say does not occur in Tennessee, rendering the law a political gesture rather than a practical measure.

The bill’s future is uncertain. It passed the House, but its matching bill in the Senate (SB1033) did not advance out of committee, so it is unclear whether it will become law.

The Effort to Ban Geoengineering Could Unintentionally Harm Farmers

The broad language of the law has led to a conflict between two conservative groups: anti-establishment conservatives who believe in conspiracy theories, and the state's practical farming industry.

The 2024 law bans releasing chemicals to change the weather. Such a restriction risks outlawing proven methods like 'cloud seeding,' a move that would hurt farming and local weather management.

Cloud seeding, used for years in states like Idaho and Texas, spreads small amounts of silver iodide to increase rainfall—making it an essential tool for farmers during dry periods. Augustus Doricko, founder of the cloud-seeding company Rainmaker, testified against the original bill, warning that lawmakers were putting this proven American technology at risk.

"The current bill language, if passed, would deprive Americans of the option to use a technology that we invented while China uses it at scale. And it would totally disregard the mountain of scientific evidence on cloud seeding’s safety."

This conflict is real, not theoretical. Another 2025 bill (HB0899/SB0723) specifically targets both "weather-related companies" and "cloud seeding."

This kind of law could remove an essential tool for agriculture. If these bills pass, companies and farmers in Tennessee would have to stop or change their cloud seeding work, which could seriously affect the state's farming economy and operations.

The Lawmaker Behind the Ban Is Now Running for Governor

Representative Monty Fritts, sponsor of both bans, announced on September 5, 2025, that he is running for Governor. He is making his opposition to geoengineering the focus of his campaign, claiming he is protecting Tennessee's water, soil, and food.

Fritts has a long-term plan. By focusing on a simple and popular issue, he has boosted his profile and mobilised supporters for 2026. The debate will continue in Tennessee.

Conclusion: Ongoing Uncertainty

Tennessee's "chemtrail" ban began with an unenforceable law targeting an imaginary threat. Lawmakers later proposed stiff fines based on the same premise, jeopardising valuable agricultural technologies and fueling a major gubernatorial campaign.

This situation shows a contradiction: Even as science advances, fear-driven laws about science can hurt real industries and weaken the rule of law.