Last week, Iowa’s Governor Kim Reynolds vetoed a bill that had gained unanimous approval in both the Iowa House of Representatives and Senate. House File 383 (HF 383) was designed to prepare Iowa for the potential federal approval of crystalline polymorph psilocybin, commonly referred to as COMP360, by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This decision stunned many, not only because of the overwhelming bipartisan support the bill had received, but also because of the compelling promise it held for mental health treatments.

The veto adds a compelling twist to the dialogue around the use of psychedelics for therapeutic purposes and raises eyebrows about the motivations behind blocking a bill so well-supported and straightforward.

The Promise of HF 383

HF 383 wasn’t about the legalization or unregulated access to psilocybin. Its purpose was straightforward but significant. The legislation would have enabled Iowa’s doctors and pharmacists to prescribe and dispense psilocybin medication if (and only if) the FDA approved it for therapeutic use.

Essentially, the law would prepare the state to align with federal actions on psilocybin once thorough clinical trials and regulatory guidelines were completed.

Psilocybin, the psychoactive compound in magic mushrooms, has shown promising results in clinical settings for the treatment of depression, PTSD, and other mental health conditions that often do not respond to conventional therapies.

COMP360, a synthetic form of psilocybin, is already undergoing trials for these purposes. If approved, it could bring hope to many individuals struggling with treatment-resistant conditions.

This bill was not groundbreaking in its approach. Similar initiatives have already gained traction in other states. Colorado recently signed such a measure into law, and Oregon has been at the forefront of psilocybin medical licensing.

With HF 383, Iowa lawmakers attempted to get ahead of the curve, creating a pathway for medical professionals to follow federally backed science.

Why Was HF 383 Vetoed?

Governor Reynolds, in her veto statement, emphasized the need for a more “Iowa-centric approach” and a cautious strategy. She acknowledged the growing body of research into psilocybin’s therapeutic potential but argued that the bill “surrendered state authority” to federal agencies like the FDA without thoroughly preparing Iowa’s own public health infrastructure, regulatory systems, and law enforcement protocols.

The governor expressed concern about the potential “legal uncertainty” and risks of misuse and stated that Iowa would need to create safeguards and guidelines aligned with federal changes before moving forward.

However, critics of the veto question how a bill that precisely hinged on FDA approval could possibly undermine state authority. If enacted, HF 383 would have given doctors the ability to prescribe psilocybin within the safe boundaries set by the FDA and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). It wouldn’t open floodgates to recreational use or create loopholes enabling misuse.

A Unified Legislature, A Divided Result

What stands out most in this controversy is the legislative support behind HF 383. The measure passed unanimously in both the Iowa Senate (47–0) and the House (92–0)—an increasingly rare feat in today’s polarized political climate. Bipartisan consensus on such a sensitive issue underlines the thoughtful approach lawmakers took when drafting the bill.

The reasons for the governor’s decision, despite overwhelming legislative support, remain subject to intense debate. Representative Brett Barker, R-Nevada, who managed the bill on the legislative floor, expressed surprise at the veto and voiced his eagerness to discuss the governor’s concerns further. “It’s unexpected,” he said to the Iowa Capital Dispatch, reflecting the general sense of confusion among lawmakers and advocates.

The Bigger Picture

Iowa’s veto comes against the backdrop of a shifting landscape in psychedelic medicine policy. States like Maine, New Mexico, Missouri, and Virginia have discussed or moved forward with psilocybin-related bills this year.

The trajectory suggests growing acknowledgment of the potential for psychedelics in healthcare, particularly for mental health conditions. Yet, Iowa’s decision introduces a roadblock to this momentum.

Governor Reynolds’ insistence on waiting for clearer federal action could be seen as a prudent move by some, but it also risks leaving Iowa behind when federal approval eventually comes. Psilocybin isn’t just a niche topic anymore. The conversations surrounding it are gaining visibility in research labs, hospitals, and state capitals across the country.

Clinical trials continue to highlight psilocybin’s role in creating lasting effects for individuals who struggle with PTSD, depression, and anxiety. These trials follow strict scientific and regulatory guidelines, making the substance far from experimental. Instead, it holds potential as the next step in mental health innovation.

What Happens Next?

For now, HF 383 remains a missed opportunity, and its veto is a setback for many who supported the bill, including veterans, healthcare advocates, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

However, this is likely not the final chapter for psilocybin legislation in Iowa. Legislators are expected to regroup, refine the framework, address state-specific concerns, and reintroduce the measure in the future.

The veto represents a larger question for Iowa (and other states): How cautious is too cautious when faced with the opportunity to alleviate suffering? While reasonable safeguards and preparations are essential, delaying action indefinitely risks leaving vulnerable individuals without access to potentially life-changing treatment.

The nearly universal support HF 383 enjoyed in the legislature shows that change is on the horizon. The science behind psilocybin is growing, and public opinion is shifting to view psychedelics as valuable therapeutic tools rather than recreational substances.

For the thousands of Iowa residents struggling with mental health conditions unmet by traditional approaches, the governor’s veto feels like another hurdle. But as the conversation around psilocybin continues, the unified legislative backing for the bill suggests Iowa may eventually step forward into the modern era of mental health care.

What remains important now is keeping the dialogue alive, pushing for informed, science-based discussions, and ensuring that Iowa lawmakers continue advocating for better access to the treatments of tomorrow.