Published on January 28, 2025
By Kyle Jaeger
It “remains to be seen” how President Donald Trump will navigate
marijuana policy in his second term, and it’s “unknown” whether the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) will finalize a proposed rule to
reschedule cannabis, congressional researchers say in a new report.
In an analysis published last week that broadly overviews the federal
Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Congressional Research Service
(CRS) discussed a number of cannabis-specific issues for lawmakers to
consider as the 119th Congress gets underway.
“Recent years saw developments in marijuana law and policy, including a
growing divergence between federal and state marijuana laws, a 2022
presidential grant of clemency for federal and D.C. marijuana possession
offenses, and 2024 DEA rulemaking proceedings proposing to reschedule
marijuana under the CSA,” the report says.
What’s uncertain, however, is what’s next to come under Trump’s second
term—a question top of mind for advocates and stakeholders.
Some are holding out hope that the president’s endorsement of
rescheduling, marijuana industry banking access and a 2024 Florida
legalization ballot initiative during the campaign—as well as his stated
support for states’ rights to set their own cannabis laws—will motivate the
GOP-controlled Congress to take action.
Others are skeptical, pointing to anti-marijuana leadership in both the
House and Senate as well as controversial administrative figures like the
acting head of DEA who has made sensational claims about cannabis use
and repeatedly criticized the rescheduling process that unfolded under the
Biden administration.
“It remains to be seen what approach President Trump’s second
Administration will take toward marijuana regulation,” CRS said, adding that
while the president’s first attorney general in his first term rescinded federal
guidance on marijuana enforcement priorities, “the number of DEA
marijuana arrests fell every year during the first Trump Administration.”
The researchers also said “it is unknown whether DOJ will finalize the
proposal and, if so, what controls the agency would impose on marijuana.”
To that point, although the Justice Department started moving forward on
the proposal to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug under the CSA, it
is ultimately up to DEA to finalize that rule. And administrative hearings on
the issue have been delayed amid legal challenges.
“In recent years, DOJ has pursued marijuana prosecutions in the context of
large-scale trafficking operations or gang-related activity,” CRS also said.
“The Biden Administration DOJ did not issue formal guidance on marijuana
policy, but Attorney General Merrick Garland indicated that the agency
would not prioritize prosecuting individuals for personal use of marijuana.”
CRS also pointed out that, while presidents can issue pardons related to
cannabis offenses as former President Joe Biden did, the president “lacks
the power” to move marijuana out of its Schedule I status “unilaterally.”
“Perhaps the most straightforward way to change a substance’s legal
status under the CSA is for Congress to pass legislation,” the report said.
“If Congress wishes to change the legal status of marijuana, it could do so
before or after DOJ makes any final scheduling decision.”
As CRS has noted in past analyses, reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule
III drug, “without other legal changes, would not bring the state-legal
medical or recreational marijuana industry into compliance with federal
controlled substances law.”
Separately, Trump’s pick for attorney general, former Florida Attorney
General Pam Bondi (R) is declining to say how she plans to navigate key
marijuana policy issues—including the ongoing rescheduling process and
renewing federal enforcement guidance—if she’s ultimately confirmed.
Meanwhile, as lawmakers prepare to once again take up large-scale
agriculture legislation in the new session, CRS also recently provided an
overview of the policy landscape around hemp—emphasizing the divides
around various cannabis-related proposals among legislators, stakeholders
and advocates.
コメント