Across the United States, many states have introduced bills to regulate geoengineering and weather modification. Minnesota offers a noteworthy example. In both 2024 and 2025, lawmakers introduced bills to ban these activities. Both times, the bills stalled in committee and did not advance. Some media reports characterise these efforts as conspiracy-driven; however, the factors contributing to their failure are more nuanced. What caused these bills to stall? What could occur in 2026? This analysis examines three key reasons behind Minnesota’s legislative gridlock.

1. The First Attempt Was Not a Fringe Rant, But an Overly Ambitious Legal Document

To understand why the bill stalled, it helps to look at the original 2024 legislation. Conspiracy theories factored into some committee discussions, but established science informed the bill itself. The House and Senate versions (HF4687 & SF4630) were not vague. They were detailed legal documents. They defined terms like "stratospheric aerosol injection" and "cloud-seeding." Academic journals such as the Minnesota Law Review discuss these topics.

The issue was not a lack of seriousness. Instead, the bill's scope and level of detail contributed to its complexity. Lawmakers reported difficulty implementing its broad requirements.

• Felony Penalties: A violation was defined as a felony, carrying a staggering $500,000 fine.
• The bill required a complicated process for citizens to report suspected activity. People would need to provide specific evidence. Examples include time-stamped videos, independent precipitation analysis, and reports from "audiography, microscopy, [and] spectrometry."
• The bill allowed the governor to use the Minnesota National Guard to identify aircraft releasing pollutants. It also allowed the governor to require them to land at the nearest airport for investigation.
• The text explicitly cited the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It used this to challenge any federally approved atmospheric activities within or over state borders.

The committee ultimately decided that the first bill was too controversial and complex to advance. Pointing to its intricacies, lawmakers chose to set it aside to avoid a heated debate. This outcome set the stage for a strategic shift in 2025, yet new challenges quickly emerged.

2. Minnesota's Stalemate Is the National Norm, Not an Exception

To put Minnesota’s situation in perspective, it helps to examine the national picture. The state’s failure to pass a geoengineering bill reflects a broader nationwide trend of hesitation.

A summary of the 2025 legislative sessions from GeoLawWatch, an organisation that tracks such bills, provides the stark data:

• 33 states considered geoengineering-related bills.
• Two states (Florida and Louisiana) passed them into law.
• 12 states, including Minnesota, saw their bills stall in committee and are scheduled to resume in 2026.
• 19 states saw their bills fail during the session.

This data shows that Minnesota is not alone. By 2025, only Florida and Louisiana had passed these laws. Tennessee joined in 2024, bringing the total to three states with active bans. Minnesota’s lack of action matches a national pattern of legislative difficulty, known as a “governance deadlock”, to quote Parson and Keith. With science unsettled and many ethical and political questions, state lawmakers have little federal guidance. Many are choosing not to act on this challenging issue.

3. The primary obstacle is not conspiracy but political and governance challenges.

Besides the bill’s ambitious details and national trends, Minnesota’s own political situation is essential. The state has many politically active residents. However, it is also very divided. This split is clear in its evenly divided congressional delegation (4 Democrats and 4 Republicans). There are also different political views between the Twin Cities and the rest of the state, known as "Greater Minnesota."

This divided environment makes it hard to pass any controversial bill. The Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL) now holds the main statewide offices, including the governor’s seat. Opponents can easily label this type of legislation as "anti-science." This conflict makes it difficult to secure sufficient support from both parties.

The Minnesota bills failed for two main reasons. One is a worldwide challenge in governing science. The other is a deeply divided state political scene. The media focused on conspiracy theories from the hearings. However, the real problem was that lawmakers lacked the political will to tackle this complex issue in a split legislature.

Conclusion: A Question of Framing for 2026

Minnesota’s attempt to ban geoengineering failed for three reasons. The 2024 bill was too ambitious. The state followed a national trend of similar failures. Ongoing political deadlock also made the issue hard to solve.

In 2025, supporters tried a much simpler, streamlined bill: "Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a person must not engage or attempt to engage in weather modification..." Even this straightforward approach did not move the bill forward. The legislature will reconsider these fourteen similar bills across the country in committee in 2026.

With the 2026 session coming up, one big question remains. Can supporters turn this complex global issue into a straightforward case for state environmental rights? Will that approach be strong enough to succeed in Minnesota’s divided political climate?