What Trump’s Executive Order means for cannabis research

What the CSA requires for drug scheduling

The CSA grants the Attorney General the authority to schedule and reschedule drugs, and the Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  Before initiating proceedings to control, decontrol, or transfer between schedules a drug or other substance, DEA must first request a scientific and medical evaluation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS's recommendations with respect to the appropriate schedule. DEA then evaluates the drug under the CSA's eight statutory factors, including abuse potential, pharmacological effects, public health risk, and dependence liability, and proposes scheduling through notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register.  Following the comment period, DEA will then initiate administrative proceedings and publish a final rule announcing the substance's schedule.

Alternatively, the Attorney General can control the drug under the schedule deemed most appropriate to carry out U.S. treaty obligations without going through the rulemaking process. 

How the CSA regulates marijuana

Marijuana has been regulated as a Schedule I controlled substance since the enactment of the CSA in 1970.

The status of marijuana as a Schedule I substance has been challenged numerous times.  Following a 2022 directive from the Biden Administration, DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking initiating the rulemaking process to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.  DEA scheduled a hearing for December 2024, but the proceedings have been stayed since January 2025. 

What the EO does

The EO aims to accelerate rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III.  Under the EO, the Attorney General is directed to “take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 811.”  The “most expeditious manner” could mean that the stalled administrative proceedings initiated in 2024 may soon be reinitiated, or Attorney General Pam Bondi could issue a final rescheduling order.  Regardless of the approach, any action is certain to face legal challenges.

Rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to a lower schedule would significantly reduce research barriers under the CSA.  As marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, the CSA subjects prospective marijuana researchers to a special review process involving multiple layers of government authorization; stringent security, storage, and record-keeping requirements; and access to only a very limited number of federally authorized cannabis suppliers. Rescheduling marijuana would remove these Schedule I-specific burdens by allowing research to proceed under a standard DEA registration and use normal procurement channels, thereby expanding research opportunities.

Rescheduling would not authorize interstate commerce in marijuana or federally legalize it, but the change could potentially bring state dispensaries within the federal controlled‑substance framework.  As a Schedule III (or otherwise controlled) substance, marijuana could be handled lawfully only by DEA-registered dispensaries—meaning state dispensaries may be required to obtain DEA registration regardless of state law. This radical shift would likely accompany heightened federal oversight and enforcement, with potential consequences for noncompliance including administrative action and civil monetary penalties.

Rescheduling would not alter the applicability of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; any drug containing a substance within the CSA's definition of “marijuana” would still require FDA approval before it could be introduced into interstate commerce unless an investigational new drug application is in effect.  Medical marijuana sold through state dispensaries could not be distributed through traditional pharmacies or prescribed under federal law.

Conclusion

In summary, while the EO signals a shift toward the rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, the process remains ongoing and subject to federal rulemaking and legal requirements.  Any change in marijuana's scheduling would reduce certain research barriers but would not legalize the substance for general distribution or use outside the strict confines of federal law.  The ultimate impact will depend on how the Attorney General and DEA interpret and implement the EO, and stakeholders should continue to monitor developments closely as federal policy surrounding marijuana continues to evolve.

Authored by Dave Fox and Stephanie Agu