South Carolina Bill Targets 'Chemtrails' Emissions

South Carolina lawmakers are weighing legislation that would prohibit the “intentional injection, release, dispersion, or other emission, by any means,” of chemicals or other substances into the atmosphere, "with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight” within the state’s borders.

The proposal, Senate Bill 110, would amend Section 48-1-110 of state law. Its preamble asserts, “it is documented that the federal government or other entities acting on the federal government’s behalf or at the federal government’s request may conduct geoengineering experiments by intentionally dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere,” and that such activities “may occur within the State of South Carolina.” 

In a December 11 medical affairs Senate subcommittee hearing, lawmakers attempted to separate constituent concerns about “chemtrails” from routine aviation operations and from legally permitted aerial spraying at low altitude for activities such as agriculture. Sen. Rex Rice described the constituent concerns he hears: “I’m concerned about what’s going on over my head,” and, “It looks like somebody is doing something in the atmosphere.” Sen. Josh Kimbrell said he receives texts and emails from constituents about aircraft operations in his district. 

The FAA describes contrails, short for condensation trails, as “line-shaped clouds” that sometimes form behind jet airplanes at cruise altitudes and notes they are “composed primarily of water (in the form of ice crystals).” The EPA, meanwhile, clarifies that “chemtrails,” short for chemical trails, is a term “some people use to inaccurately claim that contrails resulting from routine air traffic are actually an intentional release of dangerous chemicals or biological agents,” often for “nefarious purposes.” The EPA also states, “The federal government is not aware of there ever being a contrail intentionally formed over the United States for the purpose of geoengineering or weather modification.”

The agency was also careful to note, “that chemicals are sometimes intentionally sprayed from aircraft for legitimate purposes like firefighting or farming, but these are well-documented occurrences, regulated, and used for specific legitimate purposes. Releases of this type are from low-flying propeller aircraft, not high-altitude jets.”

It is unclear what evidence is being offered to support the bill’s language that claims geoengineering dispersals are documented and may be occurring in South Carolina. 

 Aviation enforcement mechanics are not straightforward. Airspace and flight operations are federally regulated, and the bill’s operative language is broad, covering any “apparatus” or “other air contaminants” emitted “by any means,” if the purpose is to affect weather or sunlight intensity. In practical terms, that formulation invites questions about how state investigators would determine “express purpose,” how intent would be proved, and what technical criteria would distinguish a prohibited act from ordinary emissions and contrail formation described by the FAA. 

The debate also lands amid legitimate scientific and policy work on contrails as a climate variable, which is separate from claims of covert spraying. In May, AIN reported on a National Academies research agenda that treats persistent contrails and aviation-induced cloudiness as potential contributors to net atmospheric warming, and calls for better measurement and forecasting to support potential operational mitigation, like directing flights to altitudes that lack the conditions for persistent condensation cloud formation. That research framing centers on atmospheric conditions and exhaust microphysics, not secret chemical dispersal.

Similar state-level policy activity has already emerged elsewhere. In October, AIN reported that Florida began enforcing a law prohibiting weather modification and geoengineering activities in the state and directing public-use airports to report aircraft “equipped” for such operations, with some airports posting related FAA notices. 

The FAA and EPA material provides a baseline explanation for contrail formation and a clear federal rejection of “chemtrail” claims. The legislative question becomes whether Senate Bill 110 is being advanced as a narrow prohibition on demonstrable, intentional atmospheric intervention, or as a statutory endorsement of claims that federal agencies say are unsupported.