Nicole Shanahan has released a Detailed Report on Geoengineering That’s Drawing Serious Attention
In a recent thread on X, she exposes how U.S. agencies are pursuing solar radiation management (SRM) and other climate intervention methods with minimal public oversight or transparency.
Key Findings:
• Weather modification in the U.S. often requires only a basic NOAA Form 17-4
• No mandatory environmental impact assessments
• No opportunity for public input or review
• Federal agencies including NOAA—and possibly the Department of Defense—are involved, yet the full extent remains unclear
Shanahan argues that significant atmospheric interventions are being conducted with little to no public knowledge, ethical scrutiny, or regulatory safeguards.
What she’s calling for:
• Full transparency on all geoengineering activities
• Independent scientific and ethical oversight
• Public and international dialogue before any deployment of SRM technologies
In her words: “We have the right to know who’s manipulating our atmosphere — and why.”
Read the full thread:
Geoengineering: Who’s Behind It and How We Stop It
Over the past month, I’ve been in contact with a government whistleblower—an individual who has held high-level security clearances and has spent over a decade consulting directly with major federal agencies. Their experience spans the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, NOAA, and the Intelligence Community. With their permission, I’ve agreed to share here on X the information they provided to me, as they—and I—believe it raises serious concerns.
While the whistleblower did not disclose any classified information, what they did provide was a roadmap to navigate the tangled mess that is our government’s geoengineering programs. They told me that despite President Trump’s 2020 directive to halt taxpayer-funded climate change initiatives, federal grants for solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), and other geoengineering technologies are still being issued. The programs haven’t stopped—they’ve just been rebranded.
Geoengineering is now commonly called “climate intervention.” SRM is now referred to as “solar radiation modification.” SAI is now “stratospheric aerosol intervention.” These semantic shifts aren’t scientific; they’re strategic. They’re designed to obfuscate the truth and shield these programs from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, media scrutiny, and public opposition.
The whistleblower provided me with federal grant data showing millions of taxpayer dollars flowing to universities under these new labels. One organization stood out: the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). This nonprofit consortium of 130 colleges and universities manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research on behalf of the National Science Foundation. UCAR has received more than $230 million in direct federal awards. Yet much of the documentation about their work is inaccessible without an internal login. Even so, their public-facing pages and scientific papers reveal clear participation in stratospheric aerosol assessments and other geoengineering research. The university-to-geoengineering pipeline is a real problem, and one that I discussed with Dane Wigington on Back to the People a few weeks ago.
Major universities are recruiting young people to be activists for geoengineering, and many of them later end up working at the very companies pushing these technologies. pic.twitter.com/B0afxL3lGU
— Back to the People (@backtothepeople) July 7, 2025
According to the whistleblower, this network of programs is far more advanced and coordinated than the public has been led to believe.
In addition to internal files and historical documentation, they directed me to the Biden-Harris administration’s mandated 2023 SRM Report, which outlines the federal agencies currently involved in geoengineering, climate intervention, solar radiation management (SRM), and stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). These include NOAA, NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Department of Energy (DOE).
NOAA was emphasized as a critical place to start digging, an agency that has taken deliberate steps to discourage public inquiry into its own archives. One document that was highlighted, titled Weather Modification, published in 1979, describes nearly 100 geoengineering projects. These included hurricane manipulation, radioactive and electromagnetically enhanced fog dispersal, microwave chaff deployment, supersonic ice nucleation, and conventional cloud seeding operations. That report was released nearly 50 years ago. Since then, both the funding and the technology have expanded significantly.
Today, NOAA insists it does not fund geoengineering; however, it is currently allocating an estimated $1.2 million to solar radiation research, with up to four projects each receiving $300,000. NOAA disclosed this funding in a webinar last year; a clip of the presentation can be viewed below.
NASA also plays a critical logistical role. With a fleet of high-altitude, long-range aircraft and a global network of satellites, the agency is uniquely positioned to support large-scale deployment and monitoring of SRM technologies. The SRM Report (pg. 20) even references a National Academies publication describing NASA’s involvement in climate-related flight operations and airborne labs.
None of this is speculation. It is documented, federally coordinated, and strategically concealed behind euphemistic labels. These programs haven’t been discontinued. They’ve been renamed and reframed.
The History of Weather Warfare
What many Americans don’t realize is that none of this is new.
Our government has been investing in weather modification for over half a century, quietly and expansively, with almost no public oversight. A 1964 congressional hearing by the Senate Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation revealed astonishing testimony about the scale and ambition of federal efforts, even at that time.
During that hearing, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was officially designated as the lead federal agency responsible for weather modification research. This helps explain why so many of today’s geoengineering grants are routed through NSF, rather than more obvious environmental or energy-related agencies. As early as 1959, the NSF was funding large-scale cloud seeding programs, awarding millions to universities for experiments involving the dispersal of silver iodide, hail suppression, and the manipulation of tropical storms and hurricanes.
These programs were already accelerating in the early 1960s. By 1962, NSF had more than doubled its weather modification funding compared to 1961. In its annual report, the agency stated plainly: “The promise of useful weather modification techniques is sufficiently great that research into its full potential should be pushed urgently.” It even went so far as to claim that large-scale weather control might “equal or surpass atomic energy” in its potential to solve global problems such as the “population explosion.”
At the same hearing, Senator Clinton Anderson of New Mexico recalled a chilling warning from Dr. John von Neumann, a member of the Atomic Energy Commission and a pioneer in modern computing. According to Anderson, von Neumann had warned that “weather manipulation, not the ICBM, would be the ultimate weapon for the protection of the free world.” Other expert witnesses echoed the concern. Dr. Irving Langmuir, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist and early cloud seeding researcher, was quoted as saying that the real long-term threat wasn’t from missiles but from weather control. In his own words, one could “control the march of armies and everything” using weather modification.
Geophysical warfare—a term The New York Times used way back in 1972—has in fact been utilized by militaries for millennia, as Peter Kirby explained on Back to the People earlier this year.
Geophysical warfare has been around for a long time, and what has evolved from it has fundamentally altered everything we thought we knew about weather. For starters, geoengineering is no longer strictly reserved for the battlefield. pic.twitter.com/3XtzUfmXI0
— Back to the People (@backtothepeople) July 8, 2025
Despite the extraordinary claims made during the hearing, legal and ethical concerns were largely brushed aside. Senators acknowledged that liability could become a problem if weather modification went wrong. However, they repeatedly suggested that legal issues could be addressed later and should not hinder rapid experimentation. At no point did they consider public input, environmental safety, or the long-term impacts of aerosolized metals used in these operations.
The obsession with weather control was, and arguably still is, driven by a militarized, industrial mindset. Nature is treated not as something to preserve, but as a system to be engineered. The Colorado River offers a prime example: The federal government has been trying to induce rainfall there since at least the 1940s using various artificial techniques. And yet, despite nearly a century of experimentation, the river is still in decline. The results have not lived up to the promises. The funding, however, hasn’t slowed.
One of the most shocking pieces of information the whistleblower provided was testimony from a 1974 hearing before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and the International Environment, where lawmakers addressed the pressing need for an international treaty to ban the use of environmental and geophysical modification as “weapons of war.”
While Congress expressed strong support for a ban, the Executive Branch at the time was unwilling to take initiative. Testimony revealed that the Department of Defense held primary authority over weather warfare programs, all of which required at least Top Secret clearance. Furthermore, it was disclosed that the DoD requested the inclusion of vague or flexible language in any treaty—such as “where feasible” or “to the greatest extent possible”—to avoid binding prohibitions. Testimony also revealed that weather modification experiments had been conducted domestically since the 1960s, including in various regions across the United States.
Perhaps the most provocative testimony came from Dr. Gordon MacDonald (pg. 55), who discussed the use of electromagnetic frequencies to influence human brain activity. He described the potential for global-scale manipulation of neurological states, provoking erratic behavior, disrupting cognition, and generating widespread adverse psychological effects. His testimony suggested that these emerging technologies could one day be used not only for environmental warfare but also as tools of psychological manipulation.
Our government is also not the exclusive source of funding for these programs. The fossil fuel industry has also taken a seat at the geoengineering table. ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP have all lobbied for solar radiation modification as a convenient engineering solution to climate change, one that allows them to continue emissions-heavy operations without regulatory consequence. These companies’ scientists are publishing academic papers, funding think tanks, and shaping narratives that normalize geoengineering.
In addition, elite private foundations like the Simons Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and Bill Gates’ Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER) are all actively funding projects. They funnel millions into academic institutions, where the work proceeds without public engagement or informed consent.
Bill Gates’ FICER is particularly alarming. The person in charge of disbursing funds there is David Keith, one of geoengineering’s most vocal champions. Keith has appeared on national TV and publicly acknowledged that these activities could result in the premature deaths of at least 10,000 people annually. Still, he continues to advocate for expanding these technologies.
Officials Neglect Public Health Risks
Sadly, those deaths may not be purely speculative. Independent medical research (see a couple of examples here and here) has raised serious concerns about human exposure to the fine particulates used in stratospheric aerosol injection, particularly aluminum, barium, and strontium compounds. These substances, when inhaled, ingested, or absorbed, have been linked to a range of neurological, respiratory, and cardiovascular conditions.
A 2020 review in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease found that chronic aluminum exposure correlates with Alzheimer’s-type dementia, pointing out risks of atmospheric dispersants leaching into the human body. Other peer-reviewed research has associated aerosol pollution with rising asthma rates, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and even endocrine disruption. Yet, these risks go largely unaddressed. The EPA has not conducted any long-term toxicological studies on atmospheric dispersants used in climate intervention. Neither have state health departments. Because if you acknowledge the risk, you must also accept liability.
And while this is happening in plain sight, the federal government, in nearly every respect, claims ignorance. The whistleblower informed me that they had previously sent evidence to the EPA, which dismissed it as nothing more than “persistent contrails.” They filed formal requests with the Department of Energy; no response. They testified before state legislatures in support of bills to ban geoengineering, only to see most quietly get held up or killed in committee. The reason is that many lawmakers are funded by utilities and water authorities—organizations that stand to benefit from cloud seeding and other types of weather modification.
The approval process for these operations is just as reckless. NOAA requires only a single-page form (Form 17-4) for anyone to begin modifying the atmosphere. No long-term environmental impact studies, no chemical safety requirements, no business license, no public comment. The form reads like something from a bygone era: simple, outdated, and completely inadequate given the scale of what’s being proposed. And yet, that’s the only thing standing between a private operator and the right to manipulate our weather.
In the Southwest, where the whistleblower now resides, the process is equally lax. Their state’s Water Resources Department manages applications for weather modification and even assists applicants in filling out the paperwork. When the whistleblower submitted a FOIA request asking for all applications related to geoengineering, the department claimed they had none, even though public records show such programs do exist.
This entire ecosystem (federal agencies, university labs, private foundations, and fossil fuel lobbyists) operates in coordinated silence. They push weather modification as a public good while refusing to publicly disclose all of what they’re doing, where they’re doing it, or what the consequences might be.
Why isn’t Congress talking about this? Why are most media outlets labeling it a conspiracy theory? Why do federal and state regulators continue to deny the undeniable? We know that these programs exist. We can trace the money. We can read the grant descriptions. We can see the evidence in the sky.
Why the silence?
The answer, I believe, is fear: fear of the backlash that would follow public acknowledgment, fear of legal liability, and fear of losing control over one of the most powerful tools of environmental and geophysical manipulation in history—the ability to geoengineer our weather.
Changing the Climate on Geoengineering
The American people deserve better. We deserve informed consent, complete transparency, and, above all, a say in whether our skies, soil, water, and air are being altered without our permission.
That’s why I’m calling for action.
- We need an Executive Order from President Trump that immediately bans all forms of geoengineering until an independent and publicly accountable review is conducted.
- We need a Congressional inquiry into every agency and institution—whether public, private, or academic—that currently participates in or funds these programs.
- And, we need a new Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to unaltered weather in America.
If you care about your health, your children’s health, or just the integrity of the natural world, now is the time to act. This isn’t about politics. This is about basic human rights.
Geoengineering isn’t the future. It’s the present. And it’s time we make it the past.
Unpacking Nicole Shanahan’s X Report on Geoengineering: A Deep Dive into Climate Manipulation
A Call for Transparency and Accountability
Nicole Shanahan unveiled a thought-provoking report on X yesterday, drawing from a government whistleblower with over a decade of high-level security clearance across the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, NOAA, and the Intelligence Community. With the whistleblower’s consent, she disclosed that despite President Trump’s 2020 directive to halt taxpayer-funded climate initiatives, geoengineering programs continue under rebranded terms like “climate intervention,” “solar radiation modification” (SRM), and “stratospheric aerosol injection” (SAI). These name changes, she argues, are strategic, aimed at evading Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and public oversight. The whistleblower provided federal grant data, highlighting millions funneled to academic institutions, notably the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), which manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research for the National Science Foundation and has received over $230 million. Much of UCAR’s geoengineering research is obscured behind restricted portals, a point Shanahan previously explored with Dane Wigington.
This connects to federal agency involvement, with the 2023 SRM Report implicating NOAA, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Department of Energy. NOAA allocates $1.2 million to solar radiation research across four projects (up to $300,000 each), a figure disclosed in a 2024 webinar, though the agency denies geoengineering activities. NASA supports logistics with high-altitude aircraft and satellites, as detailed on page 20 of the SRM Report and a National Academies publication. Historically, a 1964 congressional hearing designated the National Science Foundation to lead weather modification, funding silver iodide and hurricane experiments by 1959, with funding doubling by 1962. Dr. John von Neumann warned it could be the ultimate weapon, a view shared by Nobel laureate Dr. Irving Langmuir. A 1972 New York Times article termed it “geophysical warfare,” and a 1974 Senate hearing pushed for a treaty ban, though the Department of Defense sought vague language to retain flexibility.
Private funding complicates the picture, with ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and elite foundations like the Simons Foundation, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and Bill Gates’ Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER) investing millions. FICER’s David Keith, a geoengineering proponent, acknowledges these activities could cause 10,000 premature deaths annually from aerosol exposure. Health risks are significant, with independent studies linking aluminum, barium, and strontium particulates—used in SAI—to Alzheimer’s, respiratory issues, and endocrine disruption. Yet, the EPA and state health departments have conducted no long-term toxicological studies, possibly to avoid liability. Approval for weather modification requires only a one-page NOAA Form 17-4, lacking environmental impact assessments or public input.
Shanahan proposes bold action: a Trump Executive Order to ban geoengineering pending an independent review, a Congressional inquiry into all involved entities, and a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing unaltered weather rights. X reactions, including streaky sky images and links to Texas’s 10,000-square-mile cloud seeding yesterday, reflect growing concern, supported by NOAA’s $22 million in recent geoengineering funds. This prompts a key question: Should we demand transparency now or await more data?
