By Dr. Shuchi Talati and Whitney Peterson
Two months ago, we warned that a second Trump administration could turn solar geoengineering—also known as solar radiation modification (SRM)—into a major political flashpoint. At the time, it seemed like a slow-building conflict, one that might escalate over years as climate policy became even more polarized. But instead of a gradual shift, the debate is unraveling much faster than anticipated.
Let’s be clear: this administration will not improve the approach to SRM—full stop. Whether through neglect, politicization, or reckless commercialization, this administration will not foster the careful, transparent, and globally coordinated approach that SRM demands. This is the same administration that is scrubbing references to climate change from federal websites, dismantling U.S. scientific institutions, and has already withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and IPCC processes. It is no stretch to imagine that SRM will face a similar fate—either erased from public discourse altogether or twisted into a tool for ideological battles. Instead of rigorous governance and oversight, we risk seeing SRM turned into either an unregulated corporate venture or a reactionary political weapon—both of which undermine the serious scientific, ethical, and governance considerations that must come first.
In a matter of weeks, we have seen just how far the Republican party is willing to go. What was once a niche scientific discussion has now become a battleground, leading to a fractured landscape, even within the conservative party: one side is moving to criminalize SRM (and likely research) entirely, while the other is steeped in technocratic idealism that favors deregulation and no public oversight.
Many of the traditional SRM opposition voices from the left are overwhelmed by the relentless wave of anti-climate and anti-science policies they must push back against. Yet, when it comes to SRM, there is a dangerous silence—one that extends even to the troubling breakdown of scientific integrity in this space. This absence of critical discourse not only leaves SRM governance vulnerable to narrow interests but also risks sidelining the justice-oriented and evidence-based perspectives that are so crucial in shaping responsible climate interventions.
The result? A volatile and uncertain future—one where the fate of the planet’s climate is shaped not by careful deliberation grounded in science and ethics, but by conspiracy theories, political maneuvering, and corporate interests.
State Legislatures Are Moving to Prohibit and Even Criminalize SRM Deployment
In December, we expected that state-level opposition to SRM might grow under a second Trump presidency. What we didn’t expect was how quickly it would escalate into a coordinated push to ban SRM outright—without fully assessing the facts.
At the federal level, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services has emboldened a wave of anti-science policymaking. A longtime vaccine skeptic and chemtrails conspiracy theorist, RFK Jr. has wasted no time promoting his “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda—a mix of alternative health rhetoric and regulatory skepticism, packaged as common-sense policy.
With RFK Jr. empowered, Republican state lawmakers are as well, attempting to start a rapid shift from fringe skepticism to state law. More than twenty-five states in the U.S. have introduced bills to ban or severely restrict the deployment of SRM (and in some cases, research), with more than nineteen of these states having introduced bills in early 2025 alone. While concerns about health, environmental risks, and sovereignty are valid areas of discussion, these bills are rooted in misinformation rather than an actual understanding or assessment of SRM’s potential risks and governance needs.
Prohibiting the deployment of SRM is not inherently a bad policy—there are strong arguments for a precautionary approach and developing a carefully crafted non-deployment agreement given the scientific uncertainties and governance challenges involved. However, these proposed bans are being developed without meaningful debate or engagement with scientific expertise, resulting in poorly crafted policies with potentially adverse environmental and health impacts. They draw on unfounded fears of covert atmospheric manipulation rather than actual concerns about climate intervention governance.
Though these laws primarily target deployment rather than research, they could have unintended consequences for scientific study and future governance discussions. By attempting to ban SRM outright before research can fully assess its feasibility, risks, and ethical considerations, these policies risk shutting down informed conversations about what role, if any, SRM should play in climate policy.
The Private Sector is Seizing the Global Governance Vacuum
At the same time, while individual states move to prohibit deployment, private sector actors elsewhere are attempting to advance geoengineering —without public accountability or governance structures in place.
There has been recent speculation that Trump might embrace SRM—not as a governance challenge, but as a shortcut to sidestep deeper climate action. While this narrative captures attention, it risks overshadowing the broader and more pressing issues surrounding SRM governance. Focusing too much on hypothetical scenarios can divert attention from the established needs to establish transparent, accountable frameworks that prevent corporate actors from shaping the field on their own terms and ensure that SRM is not misused as a distraction from meaningful climate solutions.
We’re watching a dangerous contradiction take place before our eyes. Public institutions and researchers are being censored, defunded, and even threatened with criminal charges, while private companies are moving forward with zero oversight, making decisions based on profit, not the public good. What might this mean for SRM? Instead of fostering scientific integrity and climate justice, we are moving toward a future where SRM’s first movers will be determined not by global agreement, but by whomever acts recklessly.
A Fractured Global Landscape, A Growing Risk of Unilateral Action
As the U.S. dismantles its scientific institutions, the global governance landscape on climate change is unraveling. The formal withdrawals from the Paris Agreement and IPCC over the past two months further weakened international cooperation on climate policy. Compounding this, only a handful of nations have met their updated emissions reduction commitments, signaling a troubling decline in global climate momentum.
Beyond the immediate impacts, the U.S. retreat from multilateral institutions leaves a dangerous potential void in funding for intergovernmental bodies that work on climate, such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), where American support has historically played stabilizing roles. This absence is creating fertile ground for conservative ideologies on SRM to proliferate in ways that were not even on our radar before January, which is being met with silence from traditional leftist voices. Some left-leaning organizations that once lobbied against SRM in the name of justice and inclusion are now quiet when it comes to SRM misinformation in policy—perhaps because, in some cases, they share the same end goal of halting SRM as their conservative counterparts. This silence reveals a deeper truth: for some, it was never truly about justice or inclusion but about achieving a predetermined outcome. The taboo they helped create around SRM can now be weaponized by those seeking to undermine scientific integrity and climate governance, leaving communities vulnerable to exclusion and poor decision-making.
Outside of the U.S., as mitigation efforts stall and climate impacts grow, it’s possible that SRM deployment develops pockets of support inside a fractured landscape. Without clear governance structures in place, some countries—or even corporations—may move forward on their own.
This debate highlights broader governance challenges, with the divide widened by differing political ideologies on both sides. On one end of the spectrum, some are pushing to halt research altogether, influenced by both conspiracy theories and some left-leaning activist perspectives. Meanwhile, on the other end, there is a strong push to accelerate SRM, driven by private interests as well as a belief in “climate saviorism,” i.e. the hope in technological solutions to climate challenges.
Neither extreme offers a viable future. Instead of fostering responsible governance, polarization is fueling instability.
The Danger of No Middle Ground
The polarization of the SRM debate is reinforcing itself. In the near future, we could see state-level bans and reactionary opposition shut down public research, leaving a gap in transparent, science-based decision-making. Private companies or militaries can easily exploit this vacuum, advancing geoengineering in the dark.
If this trend continues, SRM will be prematurely discarded, developed either in secrecy, or advanced for corporate gain— with the public good as an afterthought at best.
The Time for Governance Is Now
The SRM debate is at a critical juncture. The question is no longer whether its research will or can continue in a judicious manner, but rather, who will control it, and under what conditions.
James Hansen, the nation’s preeminent scientist who first testified about climate change to Congress in 1988, along with his co-authors, recently warned:
“Today’s older generations—despite having adequate information—failed to stem climate change or set the planet on a course to avoid growing climate disasters. Now, as it has become clear that climate is driving toward the Point of No Return, there are efforts to prohibit actions that may be needed to affect Earth’s energy balance, namely Solar Radiation Modification (SRM).”
Hansen’s warning is clear: banning research does not mean SRM will never be used—it only ensures that if it is, it will happen without knowledge, preparation, or ethical safeguards.
This failure of leadership is fueling reactionary movements that thrive on fear and uncertainty. As global governance expert Jonathan White has argued, when technocratic solutions dominate discourse without an underlying ethical or justice-based vision, reactionary populism flourishes. The SRM debate is no longer just about science and policy—it’s about whether we let fear and corporate interests dictate the future, or insist on governance rooted in transparency, accountability, and justice.
This is the central issue: preserving the ability to have informed, inclusive conversations about SRM governance—before it’s too late.
The choice is clear: Do we let ideological extremes and unchecked interests take control, or do we insist on an open, global conversation about SRM.