Attorney General Reschedules Marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III

Acting AG Todd Blanche immediately reclassified state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved products to Schedule III while scheduling a June 29 hearing on broader rescheduling, dividing both left and right.

Objective Facts

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed an order Thursday reclassifying state-licensed medical marijuana as a less dangerous drug, changing a policy that has for decades made the drug's potential medicinal benefits more difficult to research. The order moves FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and marijuana subject to qualifying state-issued medical marijuana licenses from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The Justice Department said Blanche's action "recognizes the longstanding regulation of medical marijuana by state governments and the need for a common-sense approach to this reality." On April 22, 2026, a final order issued by the Acting Attorney General and the Drug Enforcement Administration took effect, fundamentally altering the federal regulatory landscape for marijuana. In late June, the Drug Enforcement Agency will hold hearings looking at the broader rescheduling of marijuana, not just medical programs. Critically, any form of marijuana that is neither in an FDA-approved drug product nor subject to a state medical marijuana license remains a Schedule I controlled substance. This leaves the cultivation and sale of recreational cannabis that dominates the state-licensed industry in legal limbo for the time being.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), a leading Congressional advocate for decriminalization, welcomed the rescheduling as a step forward but characterized it as "a small step in the right direction but is limited in its application since it doesn't affect recreational marijuana possession under federal criminal law, nor remove the disproportionately harsh life-altering criminal penalties." He pledged to continue working "to get marijuana reclassified so that the lives upended by misguided federal prosecutions can be avoided." Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI) argued "Let's be blunt: we need full legalization now!" Adam J. Smith, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, acknowledged the rescheduling as "a historic move towards sanity in cannabis policy" while emphasizing its limits: "a move to Schedule III stops short of the systemic change we need. It does nothing to end hundreds of thousands of possession arrests each year, nor does it do anything to fix the untenable, ongoing disconnect between federal prohibition and the regulated state markets under which more than half of American adults live." Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) expressed cautious skepticism, stating "The ability of the Trump administration to speak out of both sides of their mouth is staggering. So I'm just going to wait and see right now. Obviously, there's things that look promising—to end generations of injustice." Left-leaning coverage emphasizes that while this marks federal acknowledgment of marijuana's medical value, it falls short of true reform because it leaves recreational marijuana and thousands of imprisoned individuals untouched. Advocates celebrate the symbolic shift but stress the order does not legalize marijuana federally, address past convictions, or resolve the federal-state conflict.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) characterized rescheduling as "a shortsighted policy decision that will have detrimental effects on the health and safety of Americans, especially our nation's youth," citing research showing "increased risk of heart attack, stroke, psychotic disorders, addiction and hospitalization." Opposition to rescheduling has been organized and vocal: 22 Republican senators and 26 House Republicans formally urged the Administration to abandon rescheduling prior to the December 2025 Executive Order, and SAM has reportedly retained former Attorney General Bill Barr to litigate against any final rescheduling action. House Republicans led by Rep. Pete Sessions stated "The Biden administration rescheduling decision was wrong. Rather than following the science, the Biden White House tried to expand the use of an addictive drug for partisan gain." They disputed industry claims that rescheduling enables research, arguing "the U.S. has already conducted research for decades on this drug. Congress even passed a bipartisan law to expand marijuana research while keeping the drug in Schedule I." Anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana announced it will "take legal action immediately" against the order, with president Kevin Sabet arguing "Today's marijuana is more dangerous than previously thought, not less dangerous. And until data shows otherwise, it meets current criteria for Schedule I." Conservative opposition frames rescheduling as disregarding scientific evidence of marijuana's health risks and conflates this administrative action with broader legalization concerns. They emphasize youth protection and argue existing legal mechanisms already permit research without schedule changes.

Deep Dive

This rescheduling order represents the culmination of a multi-year federal review process that began under the Biden administration in October 2022 when President Biden directed agencies to reassess cannabis's Schedule I status. In 2023, the US Department of Health and Human Services recommended for the first time that the Drug Enforcement Administration reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The Biden administration also moved to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug, though the rule was not finalized and the drug remained at the most severe categorization. The process of rescheduling marijuana got a boost during the Biden administration. Then, President Trump issued an executive order in December of last year directing the attorney general's office to expedite rescheduling marijuana. Both sides get something right and something wrong in their framings. The left is correct that this order is limited—it applies only to state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved products, not the recreational market that dominates most state legal cannabis industries. Recreational marijuana remains Schedule I. The left also accurately identifies the criminal justice gap: the order provides no relief to the thousands incarcerated under prior Schedule I prosecutions and does not decriminalize possession. However, the left underestimates the practical significance of the medical rescheduling itself. Removing Schedule I research barriers and eliminating Section 280E tax penalties for medical operators represents substantial, real regulatory change that will affect medical research accessibility and industry viability. The right's public health concerns are not baseless—marijuana has documented risks, including potential cardiovascular and psychiatric effects in certain populations—but opponents conflate policy disagreement with scientific falsity. Their claim that rescheduling offers no research benefits is contradicted by their own assertion that "Congress even passed a bipartisan law to expand marijuana research while keeping the drug in Schedule I," implying that removing Schedule I barriers could yield incremental research advantages. The right's framing also ignores that 38 states have medical marijuana programs according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, making this a de facto acknowledgment of existing state policy rather than the creation of new permissiveness. What to watch: The June 29, 2026 hearing will determine whether the administration pursues broader rescheduling covering recreational marijuana. SAM has reportedly retained former Attorney General Bill Barr to litigate against any final rescheduling action, signaling swift legal challenges. The executive branch's use of treaty authority to bypass standard Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment requirements will itself face judicial scrutiny. Additionally, implementation details remain uncertain—the IRS must issue guidance on Section 280E relief, and state-level cannabis operators with both medical and recreational licenses face regulatory ambiguity. Political dynamics also matter: More than 20 Republican senators, several of them staunch Trump allies, signed a letter last year urging the president to keep the current standards, suggesting conservative resistance could resurface if Trump moves toward fuller rescheduling.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Attorney General Reschedules Marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III

Acting AG Todd Blanche immediately reclassified state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved products to Schedule III while scheduling a June 29 hearing on broader rescheduling, dividing both left and right.

Apr 23, 2026· Updated Apr 24, 2026
What's Going On

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed an order Thursday reclassifying state-licensed medical marijuana as a less dangerous drug, changing a policy that has for decades made the drug's potential medicinal benefits more difficult to research. The order moves FDA-approved drug products containing marijuana and marijuana subject to qualifying state-issued medical marijuana licenses from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The Justice Department said Blanche's action "recognizes the longstanding regulation of medical marijuana by state governments and the need for a common-sense approach to this reality." On April 22, 2026, a final order issued by the Acting Attorney General and the Drug Enforcement Administration took effect, fundamentally altering the federal regulatory landscape for marijuana. In late June, the Drug Enforcement Agency will hold hearings looking at the broader rescheduling of marijuana, not just medical programs. Critically, any form of marijuana that is neither in an FDA-approved drug product nor subject to a state medical marijuana license remains a Schedule I controlled substance. This leaves the cultivation and sale of recreational cannabis that dominates the state-licensed industry in legal limbo for the time being.

Left says: Rep. Steve Cohen views rescheduling as insufficient progress, calling it a small step that doesn't address recreational marijuana criminalization or thousands imprisoned for possession, vowing to pursue full reclassification.
Right says: Conservative opponents like Sen. Ted Budd argue rescheduling is shortsighted policy that endangers youth health through increased addiction risks and cardiac damage without genuine research benefits.
✓ Common Ground
Several voices across the political spectrum acknowledge that the move would not legalize marijuana federally or affect current incarceration, understanding a key limitation of the order.
Both supporters and skeptics recognize that the shift to Schedule III does mean that medical marijuana researchers would no longer have to go through the onerous process of obtaining a Schedule I license, as that process has long been seen as intensely rigorous, including tight laboratory regulations to acquire and study marijuana.
Even skeptics like the Marijuana Policy Project acknowledge that rescheduling is "a historic move towards sanity in cannabis policy" that will "open the door to more medical research, inspires states to guarantee access to safe, regulated cannabinoids for patients who desperately need them."
Industry observers across perspectives recognize that state-licensed medical marijuana licensees will no longer be subject to the deduction disallowance imposed by Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which applies only to businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II controlled substances.
Objective Deep Dive

This rescheduling order represents the culmination of a multi-year federal review process that began under the Biden administration in October 2022 when President Biden directed agencies to reassess cannabis's Schedule I status. In 2023, the US Department of Health and Human Services recommended for the first time that the Drug Enforcement Administration reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The Biden administration also moved to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug, though the rule was not finalized and the drug remained at the most severe categorization. The process of rescheduling marijuana got a boost during the Biden administration. Then, President Trump issued an executive order in December of last year directing the attorney general's office to expedite rescheduling marijuana.

Both sides get something right and something wrong in their framings. The left is correct that this order is limited—it applies only to state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved products, not the recreational market that dominates most state legal cannabis industries. Recreational marijuana remains Schedule I. The left also accurately identifies the criminal justice gap: the order provides no relief to the thousands incarcerated under prior Schedule I prosecutions and does not decriminalize possession. However, the left underestimates the practical significance of the medical rescheduling itself. Removing Schedule I research barriers and eliminating Section 280E tax penalties for medical operators represents substantial, real regulatory change that will affect medical research accessibility and industry viability.

The right's public health concerns are not baseless—marijuana has documented risks, including potential cardiovascular and psychiatric effects in certain populations—but opponents conflate policy disagreement with scientific falsity. Their claim that rescheduling offers no research benefits is contradicted by their own assertion that "Congress even passed a bipartisan law to expand marijuana research while keeping the drug in Schedule I," implying that removing Schedule I barriers could yield incremental research advantages. The right's framing also ignores that 38 states have medical marijuana programs according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, making this a de facto acknowledgment of existing state policy rather than the creation of new permissiveness.

What to watch: The June 29, 2026 hearing will determine whether the administration pursues broader rescheduling covering recreational marijuana. SAM has reportedly retained former Attorney General Bill Barr to litigate against any final rescheduling action, signaling swift legal challenges. The executive branch's use of treaty authority to bypass standard Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment requirements will itself face judicial scrutiny. Additionally, implementation details remain uncertain—the IRS must issue guidance on Section 280E relief, and state-level cannabis operators with both medical and recreational licenses face regulatory ambiguity. Political dynamics also matter: More than 20 Republican senators, several of them staunch Trump allies, signed a letter last year urging the president to keep the current standards, suggesting conservative resistance could resurface if Trump moves toward fuller rescheduling.

◈ Tone Comparison

The left frames the move as "a small step in the right direction but is limited in its application," using measured, cautiously optimistic language while noting shortcomings. The right employs phrases like "shortsighted policy decision" and appeals to tradition ("You have always been a role model for America's youth, telling young people for years that they should never do drugs"), conveying moral concern rather than policy nuance.