Key Takeaways
- Six major cannabis companies donated $11.5 million to a Trump-linked super PAC, America First Agriculture Action, which supports anti-legalization lawmakers.
- These donations align with the companies’ interests in tax relief and competition control, rather than federal marijuana legalization.
- While the donations don’t prove illegal agreements, they indicate a strategy focused on financial benefits for established operators.
- Schedule III classification could provide tax relief without creating an open market, thus protecting current MSOs from competition.
- The contributions highlight the divide between corporate cannabis reform and broader legalization efforts, raising questions about priorities in the industry.
Six major cannabis operators supplied $11.5 million to a Trump-linked super PAC that is now supporting Republican lawmakers with records opposing marijuana legalization. The public record does not prove an illegal agreement or direct exchange of money for votes. It does reveal a political strategy that appears focused less on ending federal prohibition than on securing tax relief, protecting state-licensed businesses and controlling competition from hemp-derived THC.
That distinction matters. Cannabis reform designed around the country’s biggest multistate operators is not necessarily reform designed for patients, consumers, small businesses, legacy operators or people still carrying the consequences of prohibition.
What Happened?
In June 2026, six companies or affiliated entities connected to some of the largest multistate operators in American cannabis contributed a combined $11.5 million to America First Agriculture Action Inc., an independent-expenditure-only political committee.
According to Federal Election Commission records and reporting by Marijuana Moment, Trulieve, Curaleaf, Verano and Vision Management Services, an entity tied to Green Thumb Industries, each contributed $2.5 million. Arboretum Bidco, a holding company connected to AYR Wellness, gave $1 million, while Ascend Wellness Holdings contributed $500,000.
The Federal Election Commission identifies America First Agriculture Action as a super PAC registered in May 2025. The committee reported $13 million in total receipts through June 30, 2026, meaning the cannabis-related money represented nearly all the funds disclosed during that reporting period.
The committee also shares a treasurer, Charles Gantt, with MAGA Inc., President Donald Trump’s principal super PAC. Sharing a treasurer does not establish that the committees are legally identical or that Trump controls every expenditure. It does establish a meaningful operational connection to Trump’s political network.
America First Agriculture Action is now spending nearly $1.8 million on advertising supporting 11 vulnerable Republican House members, according to Marijuana Moment’s September 14 investigation. The advertisements emphasize taxes, congressional stock trading and other issues. They do not tell voters that the committee’s funding came overwhelmingly from cannabis companies, and they do not discuss marijuana policy.
Are the Donors Really Large Multistate Cannabis Operators?
Yes. This part of the story is not speculation.
Trulieve, Curaleaf, Verano, Green Thumb Industries, AYR Wellness and Ascend Wellness Holdings are established multistate operators with investments in cultivation, manufacturing, brands and retail dispensaries. Several operate in limited-license markets where a state-issued license can be an extremely valuable barrier to entry.
Verano, for example, said in a May 2026 corporate announcement that it operated 162 dispensaries and 14 production facilities across 13 states. The company described itself as one of the country’s leading cannabis businesses based on revenue, geographic reach and brand performance. Its scale is documented in Verano’s announcement concerning Schedule III registration.
Trulieve describes itself as a vertically integrated MSO with leading positions in Florida, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Green Thumb operates the RISE dispensary chain and numerous consumer brands. Curaleaf has built one of the largest cannabis footprints in the country. These companies have far more capital, regulatory infrastructure and political access than the typical independent cultivator, manufacturer or retailer.
Calling them “Big Cannabis” is therefore a description of their market position, not a claim that they acted illegally.
Why Would Cannabis Companies Support Politicians Who Opposed Legalization?
That is the question the industry deserves to have answered.
Three beneficiaries of the PAC’s advertising, Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick, Scott Perry and Bryan Steil, voted against federal marijuana legalization bills considered by the House in 2020 and 2022. Representative Jen Kiggans opposed legalization while serving in the Virginia Senate. Representative Juan Ciscomani celebrated the defeat of Arizona’s 2016 legalization initiative.
Representative Mike Lawler has gone further. He has opposed rescheduling, described marijuana as a gateway drug and cosponsored legislation designed to preserve the federal Section 280E tax penalty for cannabis businesses even if marijuana’s scheduling status changes. Other lawmakers receiving support have shorter federal records and cannot fairly be characterized based on votes they never had an opportunity to cast.
The PAC chooses its own independent expenditures, and no public evidence reviewed for this article proves that the cannabis donors directed it to support these particular candidates. Nevertheless, cannabis-derived money is being used to help elect lawmakers whose records conflict with comprehensive marijuana reform.
That makes “the cannabis industry is supporting legalization” an inadequate explanation. A more plausible reading is that these companies are pursuing narrower policies with substantial financial value to incumbent operators.
Schedule III Offers Tax Relief Without Creating an Open Market
For large MSOs, moving marijuana to Schedule III can deliver one of the most valuable reforms available: relief from Internal Revenue Code Section 280E.
Section 280E prevents businesses trafficking in Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances from deducting ordinary business expenses. Cannabis companies can face effective tax burdens far above those imposed on conventional businesses. Because Section 280E does not apply to Schedule III substances, rescheduling can dramatically improve the finances of profitable operators.
But Schedule III is not federal legalization. By itself, it does not establish unrestricted interstate cannabis commerce, create nationwide adult-use sales, erase state licensing limits or open existing markets to every qualified independent business.
Trulieve’s own description of rescheduling captures the corporate appeal. In an official December 2025 statement, the company praised Schedule III for removing 280E, supporting state-legal operators and preserving law-enforcement authority to prosecute illicit businesses. Trulieve expressly noted that rescheduling does not legalize marijuana.
That position is not inherently improper. Licensed cannabis companies should not face a punitive tax rule written for illegal drug trafficking. Consumers also deserve products subject to legitimate testing, labeling and age restrictions.
The competitive result, however, cannot be ignored. Schedule III can improve the balance sheets of established operators while leaving valuable state licensing walls largely intact. An MSO could receive federal tax relief without having to face immediate national competition from independent growers, lower-cost production states or new retail entrants.
Full legalization could eventually make cannabis markets more open. Schedule III offers many incumbents financial relief before that competitive reckoning arrives.
Is the Real Target Hemp-Derived THC?
Hemp competition appears to be an important part of the picture, but the evidence requires careful wording.
The 2018 Farm Bill created a federal definition of hemp based primarily on delta-9 THC concentration. Businesses subsequently developed a national market for intoxicating hemp-derived products, including delta-8 THC, hemp-derived delta-9 beverages and products containing THCA. Regulation varies widely between states, and the market includes both responsible manufacturers and operators selling inadequately tested or misleadingly packaged products.
State-licensed marijuana businesses operate under a much more expensive regulatory system. They commonly pay cannabis-specific taxes, use seed-to-sale tracking, comply with testing and packaging mandates and sell through licensed dispensaries. Hemp-derived products can compete for the same consumer without carrying all those costs.
That creates a legitimate policy dispute and an obvious economic conflict. Marijuana Moment reported that some state-licensed cannabis companies view hemp products as competition and support measures restricting that sector. The publication also cautioned that the congressional spending vote connected to the latest PAC advertisements was not a standalone vote on delaying federal hemp restrictions. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim the ad campaign proves that particular votes were purchased.
There are valid reasons to regulate intoxicating hemp. In 2025, a bipartisan coalition of 39 state and territorial attorneys general urged Congress to redefine hemp to exclude intoxicating and synthetic THC products. The officials cited youth access, inconsistent labeling, unregulated retail sales and increases in cannabinoid exposure reports. The request and underlying letter are summarized by Cannabis Science and Technology.
Safety standards are not the same thing as market protection. Age restrictions, laboratory testing, accurate labels, child-resistant packaging and reasonable serving limits can protect consumers without handing the entire cannabinoid economy to existing dispensary licensees.
The question is whether major MSOs want equivalent rules for equivalent products or rules that eliminate competing sales channels. If hemp-derived products are banned from conventional retail but similar products remain available through MSO-controlled dispensaries, the result will be commercial protection regardless of the public-safety language used to sell it.
Does This Prove Big Cannabis Bought Political Favors?
No. The public record does not currently prove a quid pro quo, illegal coordination or an agreement to exchange donations for official action.
Super PACs may accept unlimited corporate contributions and make independent political expenditures, but they are prohibited from coordinating those expenditures with candidates. Donating to a super PAC does not give a company legal control over every advertisement the committee purchases.
There is also no basis to claim every contributing company opposes legalization or wants every hemp-derived product banned. Some of these operators have supported adult-use campaigns, expungement programs and other reforms. Trulieve spent heavily promoting Florida’s unsuccessful 2024 adult-use initiative. Curaleaf has participated in hemp-derived product markets, illustrating that corporate interests are not identical across every issue.
What the evidence does support is scrutiny of a shared political and economic strategy.
Six large operators made exceptionally large contributions to the same committee during the same month. The committee is connected through its treasurer to Trump’s political operation. It is using cannabis-funded resources to support several politicians with anti-legalization records. Meanwhile, the donor companies stand to benefit from Schedule III tax relief, preservation of state licensing barriers and restrictions imposed on competing hemp channels.
That pattern is not proof of an illegal conspiracy. It is more than enough to demand transparency.
Corporate Cannabis Reform Is Not the Same as Ending Prohibition
The cannabis movement has spent decades fighting for medical access, personal freedom, home cultivation, criminal-record relief, racial justice and an end to arrests. Corporate reform can overlap with those goals, but it should never be mistaken for the whole mission.
A federal policy that removes 280E for major operators while preserving criminalization elsewhere would be meaningful tax reform. It would not be cannabis liberation.
A policy that gives existing state licensees federal recognition while excluding legacy operators and independent businesses would create winners. It would not automatically create justice.
A hemp policy that imposes testing, labeling and age standards could protect consumers. A policy written to erase competitors and concentrate cannabinoid sales inside a limited number of corporate retail systems would protect incumbents.
The cannabis industry needs to ask its largest companies a direct set of questions: What policies were these donations intended to advance? Do the donors support full federal legalization? Do they support interstate commerce? Do they support small-business access and social-equity licensing? What hemp regulations have they requested? Would those rules permit responsible hemp businesses to survive outside MSO-controlled dispensaries?
Those questions are not accusations. They are the minimum price of political accountability when an industry still rooted in civil disobedience begins writing eight-figure checks to the political establishment.
What We’re Taking Away
We cannot responsibly claim that Big Cannabis purchased an agreement to crush its competitors. The evidence available today does not establish that.
We can say that some of the largest operators in the country funded a Trump-linked political committee that is supporting lawmakers who opposed legalization. We can say those operators would receive substantial financial benefits from Schedule III without the immediate competition created by an open national market. We can say licensed marijuana companies have an economic interest in restricting hemp products that compete outside dispensaries.
The most defensible conclusion is also the one the industry should find most uncomfortable: major cannabis companies appear to be separating corporate reform from comprehensive legalization. Their political spending suggests that tax relief, protection of existing licenses and control over competing cannabinoid markets may be taking priority over ending prohibition for everyone.
If these companies disagree, they should disclose their federal policy commitments, their lobbying requests and the outcomes they expected when they contributed $11.5 million. Until then, nobody should confuse a better deal for the biggest MSOs with freedom for the plant or the people who built this movement.
Frequently Asked Questions
FEC disclosures identified contributions from Trulieve, Curaleaf, Verano, Ascend Wellness Holdings and entities connected to Green Thumb Industries and AYR Wellness. Together, the June 2026 contributions totaled $11.5 million.
The super PAC is legally separate from Trump’s campaign, but its treasurer, Charles Gantt, is also the treasurer of MAGA Inc., Trump’s principal super PAC. That shared officer establishes an operational connection without proving that Trump directs every committee decision.
No public evidence currently proves that claim. The PAC, not the contributing companies, formally controls its independent expenditures. The spending nevertheless raises legitimate questions because cannabis-company money is supporting politicians with anti-legalization records.
Schedule III can remove the federal Section 280E tax restriction, allowing cannabis businesses to deduct ordinary expenses. It does not, by itself, create nationwide legalization or unrestricted interstate cannabis commerce.
It could. Hemp-derived THC products often compete with licensed dispensary products while operating under different taxes and regulations. Consumer-safety rules may be warranted, but bans or dispensary-only requirements could give established marijuana licensees a substantial competitive advantage.
No. Equivalent intoxicating products should face serious standards for age verification, testing, labeling, packaging and responsible marketing. Regulation should protect consumers without disguising corporate market protection as public safety.
