No Word from DEA on Marijuana Rescheduling, A Silence That Says It All

The cannabis industry and advocates nationwide have been waiting for news about marijuana rescheduling under the Controlled Substances Act. Six months into the Trump administration, that news remains the same: there is no news.

The Drug Enforcement Administration continues to provide identical status updates to the administrative law judge overseeing the process, each one confirming what many suspected—political gridlock has brought meaningful cannabis reform to a standstill.

This radio silence from federal agencies represents more than just delays. It highlights the fundamental problem with attempting to reform cannabis policy through the existing scheduling system, a framework that was never designed to handle the complex realities of modern cannabis use and regulation.

The Current State of Marijuana Rescheduling

The marijuana rescheduling process has been effectively frozen since January 2025, when DEA Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney granted an interlocutory appeal that paused hearings on the proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III.

The appeal came after allegations surfaced that DEA officials had engaged in improper communications with anti-rescheduling witnesses selected for the hearing process.

Since then, the DEA has been required to provide joint status updates to Judge Mulrooney every 90 days. The most recent update, filed in this week, was identical to the previous one submitted in April.

Both reports contained the same disappointing message: “No briefing schedule has been set.”

This lack of progress has persisted through two different acting administrators. Derek Maltz, who led the agency from January until May 2025, made no headway on establishing the required briefing schedule. His replacement, Robert Murphy, has similarly failed to move the process forward.

The Nomination of Terrance Cole

The one potential development on the horizon is the nomination of Terrance Cole to serve as the permanent DEA Administrator. Cole, a career DEA veteran, was nominated by President Trump in February 2025 but has yet to be confirmed by the Senate.

During his confirmation hearings, Cole provided what some viewed as cautiously optimistic statements about marijuana rescheduling. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that reviewing the rescheduling process would be “one of my first priorities” if confirmed, and that “it’s time to move forward” with the stalled proceedings.

However, Cole’s commitment to actually implementing the proposed Schedule III reclassification remains unclear. When pressed by Democratic senators about his stance on the Department of Justice’s proposed rule, Cole declined to commit, stating only that he would provide “careful consideration” to the matter after consulting with DEA personnel and reviewing all relevant information.

This non-committal approach is concerning given Cole’s background and previous statements about cannabis. He has previously expressed concerns about marijuana use, linking it to suicide risk among youth and other mental health issues.

Politics Over Science

The prolonged delay in rescheduling cannabis highlights a fundamental problem with how the United States creates drug policy. Although the Controlled Substances Act intended the scheduling system to rely on scientific and medical determinations, politics have heavily influenced the process.

The current situation demonstrates how political considerations can override scientific evidence and public health needs. The Department of Health and Human Services recommended Schedule III classification for cannabis in August 2023 based on scientific review.

This recommendation was supported by extensive research showing cannabis has accepted medical uses and a lower abuse potential than substances in Schedule I or II.

Yet here we are, nearly two years later, with the process stalled not because of scientific disagreement, but because of political maneuvering and bureaucratic inaction.

The DEA’s handling of the hearing process, including the alleged improper communications with anti-rescheduling witnesses, suggests that political motivations may be influencing what should be a scientific determination.

The Administrative Burden of Incremental Reform

The complexity and delays inherent in the rescheduling process illustrate why incremental reform through the existing scheduling system is inadequate.

The administrative law judge hearing process, while thorough, creates multiple opportunities for delay and obstruction. Each procedural step becomes a potential roadblock, and the involvement of multiple agencies with different priorities creates additional friction.

This legal maze serves the interests of those who oppose cannabis reform by creating opportunities to delay and obstruct progress.

Meanwhile, patients who could benefit from expanded access to cannabis continue to wait, and legitimate businesses operate in a legal gray area that creates unnecessary risks and costs.

The Path Forward: Complete Descheduling

The ongoing delays and political interference in the rescheduling process make a compelling case for a more decisive approach: removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely.

This approach would eliminate the bureaucratic bullshit that have plagued the current process and provide the clarity that patients, businesses, and law enforcement need.

Complete descheduling would acknowledge the reality that cannabis prohibition has failed. After decades of enforcement, cannabis remains widely available and increasingly accepted by the American public.

According to recent polling from Pew Research, nine in ten Americans support legalizing marijuana in some form, including bipartisan majorities.

Descheduling would also align federal policy with state-level reforms. Currently, 38 states have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states have legalized adult-use cannabis.

This patchwork of state laws creates confusion and legal risks for patients and businesses who are operating legally under state law but remain vulnerable to federal enforcement.

The continued delay in cannabis reform has real economic and social consequences. Cannabis businesses operating in legal states continue to face punitive federal tax treatment under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which prohibits businesses trafficking in controlled substances from taking standard business deductions.

This tax burden puts legal cannabis businesses at a competitive disadvantage compared to illegal operators, undermining the goals of legalization and regulation.

It also reduces tax revenue for states that have legalized cannabis, limiting their ability to fund public health and safety programs.

The delay also perpetuates the injustices of cannabis prohibition. Despite growing acceptance of cannabis use, thousands of people continue to be arrested and prosecuted for cannabis-related offenses.

These arrests disproportionately impact communities of color and contribute to the broader problems of mass incarceration and criminal justice inequality.

Congressional Action as an Alternative

While the DEA process remains stalled, Congress has the authority to act independently on cannabis scheduling. Congressional researchers have noted that lawmakers could enact rescheduling or descheduling with “greater speed and flexibility” than the current administrative process allows.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress that would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely.

These include the STATES Act, which would respect state-level cannabis legalization decisions, and the PREPARE Act, which would create a federal regulatory framework for cannabis.

However, congressional action on cannabis reform faces its own political challenges. While public support for cannabis reform continues to grow, there remains significant opposition among some lawmakers, particularly in the Republican Party.

The current composition of Congress makes comprehensive cannabis reform difficult, though not impossible.

The Business Impact of Uncertainty

The ongoing uncertainty around federal cannabis policy and not moving to reschedule marijuana under the CSA creates significant challenges for businesses operating in legal cannabis markets.

Without clear federal guidance, businesses must navigate a complex web of state regulations while remaining vulnerable to federal enforcement actions.

This uncertainty affects everything from banking and insurance to interstate commerce and research. Many banks remain reluctant to provide services to cannabis businesses due to federal prohibition, forcing many operators to conduct business in cash. This creates security risks and limits business growth and development.

The lack of federal clarity also prevents the development of interstate cannabis commerce, which could reduce costs and improve product quality through competition. Instead, each state operates as an isolated market, creating inefficiencies and limiting consumer choice.

The delay in U.S. cannabis reform also has international implications. The United States has historically led global drug prohibition efforts, and American policy changes could influence international approaches to cannabis regulation.

Several countries, including Canada and Germany, have moved ahead with cannabis legalization while the United States continues to debate incremental reforms.

This positions other nations as leaders in cannabis policy innovation while the United States lags behind despite having extensive state-level experience with cannabis regulation.

The Role of Public Opinion

Public opinion on cannabis has shifted dramatically over the past decade, with support for legalization reaching record levels. This highlights the growing awareness of the failures of prohibition and recognition of cannabis’s therapeutic potential.

However, federal policy has not effectively reflected public opinion. The rescheduling process remains insulated from public pressure, and its technical nature makes it difficult for the public to engage meaningfully.

This disconnect between public opinion and policy outcomes highlights the need for more democratic approaches to drug policy reform. Rather than leaving these decisions to administrative agencies, cannabis policy should be subject to public debate and legislative action.

The Need for Leadership

The current stalemate in marijuana rescheduling reflects a failure of leadership on drug policy reform. Rather than providing clear direction based on scientific evidence and public health needs, federal agencies have allowed the process to become mired in political considerations and delays.

What’s needed is leadership that recognizes the failure of cannabis prohibition and is willing to act decisively to end it. This means moving beyond incremental reforms like rescheduling and embracing approaches that remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely.

Such leadership would acknowledge that cannabis prohibition has caused more harm than cannabis use itself. It would recognize that regulation, not prohibition, is the appropriate policy response to cannabis use. And it would prioritize the needs of patients, businesses, and communities over the interests of those who profit from maintaining the status quo.

The Only Logical Solution

The ongoing delays and political interference in the cannabis rescheduling process highlight a clear issue: the current system is broken. The scheduling framework under the Controlled Substances Act cannot handle the complex realities of cannabis use and regulation. Efforts to reform it through administrative processes have repeatedly fallen short.

The only logical solution is to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely. This would eliminate the bureaucratic obstacles that have plagued the current process, provide clarity for patients and businesses, and align federal policy with scientific evidence and public opinion.

Complete descheduling would also allow for the development of appropriate regulatory frameworks that treat cannabis like other regulated substances such as alcohol and tobacco. This approach would prioritize public health and safety while respecting individual choice and state-level policy decisions.

The cannabis industry, patients, and advocates have waited long enough for meaningful reform. It’s time for federal leaders to acknowledge the failure of cannabis prohibition and take decisive action to end it.

The silence from federal agencies on marijuana rescheduling speaks volumes about the need for a new approach. Rather than continuing to wait for a broken system to fix itself, it’s time to move beyond scheduling altogether and embrace the cannabis policy reform that Americans clearly support.