"Great Things about Medical," Trump on Rescheduling Cannabis
Trump Has Heard “Great Things” About Medical Cannabis, Says Policy is Complicated.
On Monday, August 11th, 2025, responding to a reporter’s question about rumors that he was going to move forward with rescheduling, President Trump said:
“Some people hate the whole concept of marijuana. Because if it is bad for the children, it is bad for people that are older than children. But we're looking at reclassification. And we'll make a determination over the next -- I would say over the next few weeks. And that determination hopefully will be the right one.
Very complicated subject. The subject of marijuana. I've heard great things having to do with medical, and I've heard bad things having to do with just about everything else. But medical and, you know, for pain and various things. I've heard some pretty good things. But for other things, I’ve heard some pretty bad things.”
So, what “determination” can Trump make?
What a President can — and cannot — do
According to a November 4, 2021, Congressional Research Service analysis, Does the President Have the Power to Legalize Marijuana?, the President cannot directly deschedule or reschedule marijuana by executive order. The Supreme Court has held that a president may issue an executive order only if authorized by statute or the Constitution. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) assigns scheduling to the Attorney General (delegated to DEA) with scientific input from HHS/FDA, not the President.
Bottom line: The only realistic way a president can affect scheduling is by directing agencies to use the CSA process already in motion — the same process President Biden initiated. However, he cannot start a new rescheduling process until the current one is completed.
Also relevant: House Republicans have attempted to choke off that very process through appropriations. The FY2026 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) bill includes language that would block rescheduling activity:
Sec. 607: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to reschedule marijuana… or remove marijuana from the schedules….”
Status Report: Current Cannabis Rescheduling Process
Following a public comment period, the DEA called for an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing. The hearing was initially set to begin in January but was delayed at the request of a few witnesses, who had their motions to remove the DEA from the proceedings denied, allowing them to file an interlocutory appeal. On July 7th, attorneys for the witnesses (now referred to as "Movants") and the DEA filed an update to ALJ Mulrooney that no progress had been made on the appeal.
"To date, Movants’ interlocutory appeal to the Acting Administrator regarding their Motion to Reconsider remains pending with the Acting Administrator. No briefing schedule has been set."
Shortly following this update, Judge Mulrooney announced he was retiring effective August 1, 2025.
Timeline of the Current Cannabis Rescheduling Proceedings:
2022: President Biden requested Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to revisit the scheduling of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (ASA's Memo to HHS/FDA on their approach to 8 Factor Analysis and 5 Elements for CAMU)
2023: CRS Issues Guidance on Scheduling Options for Congress, including an option for a new schedule
2023: FDA publicly states it cannot regulate CBD within current authorities for dietary supplements and conventional foods (see the Cholestin/Pharmanex precedent under 21 U.S.C. § 321(ff)(3)).
2023: DEA letters clarify that THC-O and certain delta‑8 products are not protected under the 2018 Farm Bill; courts continue to limit states from outright prohibiting/regulating some hemp-derived products.
January 2024: HHS Report to DEA on Scheduling Recommendation is Released
May 2024: DOJ/DEA publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, opening public comment (89 Fed. Reg. 44597). (ASA's Public Comments to DEA on the Proposed Rulemaking )
July 2024: ASA Press Briefing on Rescheduling
August 2024: The DEA Administrator issues a General Notice of Hearing (GNoH) determining that in‑person Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) proceedings are appropriate and calls for impacted individuals to request to testify, with hearings set to begin December 2, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 70148
October 2024: Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney responds to the DEA Witness list, adjusts the Dec. 2 date to a preliminary hearing, and orders selected witnesses to establish standing. (ASA’s Blog on hearing postponement: Recalibrating for Rescheduled Rescheduling )
November 2024: Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney releases the final witness list (ASA’s breakdown of Judge Mulrooney’s determination of standing and participation of witnesses)
January 2025: Village Farms International, Hemp for Victory filed a “Motion To Reconsider” earlier motions the group filed concerning the DEA’s role in the hearings and requested that if the ALJ did not grant their motion, that he postpone the hearing for the group to file an immediate interlocutory appeal.
January 2025: Judge John J. Mulrooney denies Village Farms International and Hemp for Victory’s “Motion To Reconsider” and postpones hearings for groups to file an immediate interlocutory appeal.
July 2025: DEA/Movants update the court on the progress of the appeal
July 2025: Senate confirms new DEA administrator, Terry Cole, who has said he will make rescheduling proceedings a top priority
July 2025: Judge Mulrooney announced his retirement
More information on the history of cannabis scheduling
The Ball is in DEA’s court: Administrator Cole’s options
1. Resume the current ALJ track.
-
-
- Set a briefing schedule on the pending interlocutory appeal that paused the hearings in January.
- Appoint a new ALJ to replace Judge Mulrooney.
-
2. Scrap the current ALJ proceedings and issue a new “Notice of Hearing on Proposed Rulemaking.” (Under ALJ case law, any hearing would still center on HHS’s Schedule III recommendation) or
3. Skip an ALJ hearing and issue a final scheduling determination (Schedule I, II, or III), which would then be subject to judicial review.
What Schedule III would — and would not — do
What it would do
- Establish, as a matter of federal policy, that cannabis has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU) in the U.S. Expect stigma to fall and clinical engagement to rise.
- Lower the regulatory burden for research compared with Schedule I (e.g., security, storage, and registration costs).
What it would not do
- It would not make state-licensed cannabis businesses federally legal. Unregulated Schedule II/III substances remain illegal under federal law. State medical programs would still rely on the annual CJS Medical Cannabis Amendment to protect against DOJ/DEA interference — and that protection must be renewed every year.
- It would not automatically fix taxes. While IRC §280E would no longer apply, IRC §162(c)(2) still disallows deductions for illegal payments or expenses that violate federal or state law. Deductions would require a tax-code change or full federal legality — either way, Congress must act.
Translation: Rescheduling is a real win for patients and science — but without congressional follow-through, Schedule III could become another long holding pattern.
“I've heard great things having to do with medical, and I've heard bad things having to do with just about everything else.”- President Trump
Who is Trump listening to?
Anti-Cannabis Lobby or Current Leadership in Congress?
Surprisingly, patient-centered perspectives were largely absent from media coverage of rescheduling. Instead, much of the media amplified cannabis business press releases, focusing on how rescheduling might impact taxes for businesses or tying the move to President Biden’s re-election campaign. These narratives, though unfounded, shaped debates on Capitol Hill and diverted attention from patient concerns.
The much-awaited recognition of the “accepted medical use in the United States” did not galvanize support for patients; the most visible impact of rescheduling is temporary surges in cannabis company stock prices and a resurgence of the anti-marijuana lobby in Washington, D.C. In 2024, the House Appropriations Committee passed a version of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill that included language (Section 623) to block cannabis rescheduling efforts. Additionally, a proposed modification to the 2014 medical cannabis amendment (Section 531(b)) threatens to allow federal interference in state programs with harsher penalties (House CJS Approps passed these again for FY2026). The very next day, 25 Republican Senators and Congressmen sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, condemning the rescheduling process as politically motivated and unsupported by science.
Many of the signatories of that letter are now in leadership positions that the President must work to move his agenda in the Senate, including John Thune (R-SD), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)-GOP Policy Committee Chair, James Lankford (R-OK)- GOP Policy Committee Vice-Chair, Jerry Moran (R-KS), chair of CJS appropriations, and Hal Rogers, chair of House appropriations.
Unexpected Support from Conservative Circles?
Last week, Bob Barr, former Congressman (R-GA), authored an opinion piece, “Should marijuana be rescheduled?” While in Congress, Barr blocked the District of Columbia from implementing medical cannabis laws for almost a decade with the “Barr Amendment.”
“Rescheduling cannabis is not merely a bureaucratic reshuffling. Its Schedule I status creates major barriers for researchers and doctors wishing to study potential therapeutic uses. Further, it creates burdensome red tape that slows scientific progress.
It demonstrably is not the case that no medical value can be had from marijuana. It has been used effectively to help patients with epilepsy, chronic pain, PTSD and chemotherapy-induced nausea. The notion that there is no known medical use for cannabis and cannabis-derived medication is clearly outdated.
As a conservative, I have always believed that cutting regulatory red tape spurs economic growth. This would be the case for rescheduling cannabis; a straightforward change would support more than 440,000 existing jobs and open the door to future growth. It would lead to more American jobs in research and medicine, generating therapeutic breakthroughs and boosting the economy.”
Patient Organizations?
A coalition of patient organizations representing millions of Americans weighed in on FY2026 CJS appropriations, calling for protections and greater reform:
“Medical cannabis programs have become a lifeline for millions of Americans, including many of the 30 million Americans living with one of 7,000 known rare diseases (95% of which have no FDA-approved treatment available) as well as the one-third of Americans who live with chronic pain and the 10% of Americans living with debilitating, intractable pain.
You have the power to protect the health, safety, and dignity of millions of Americans. Until comprehensive, permanent federal legislation is enacted to align federal cannabis policy with state laws and integrate medical cannabis into mainstream healthcare, maintaining the Medical Cannabis CJS Amendment is essential.”
Maybe he heard some of these “great things”
* FDA on safety signal: According to the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER):
“None of the evidence from the systematic reviews included in our analysis demonstrated substantial safety concerns that would argue against the use of marijuana in any of the indications where there exists some support for its benefit.”
(See: CDER’s “Considerations for Whether Marijuana Has a Currently Accepted Medical Use…”.)
* Opioid‑related mortality: A recent Washington Post op‑ed by Julien Berman highlights county‑level data associating dispensary access with significantly lower opioid death rates over time.
“Turns out, when a county opens its first dispensary — giving residents easy access to marijuana — opioid death rates go down relative to counties that don’t yet have any dispensaries. The effects aren’t small, either. Ten years after that first dispensary opens, death rates in cannabis counties are, on average, about 30 percent lower than death rates in counties without a dispensary.”
* Chronic pain: Roughly 3 in 10 chronic pain patients report using cannabis to manage pain and improve function, often reducing or replacing opioids. More than 68 million Americans live with chronic pain (CDC).
* Older adults: About 1 in 5 older adults use cannabis (AARP). In medical cannabis states, they frequently report benefits for chronic pain, arthritis, sleep, and appetite. The 65+ population now numbers 57.8 million (U.S. Census, 2023), representing the fastest-growing demographic using medical cannabis.
* Veterans: Approximately 22% of veterans report cannabis use to manage PTSD symptoms, chronic pain, and sleep issues (American Legion, 2019). The U.S. has 15.8 million veterans; 31% live with at least one disability (Census, 2023).
Medical cannabis policy is complicated, but these “great things” make it worth the challenge!
What else can President Trump do?
1. Keep Congress from kneecapping the process. Urge appropriators to remove Sec. 607 from CJS appropriations and keep the state medical-program protections in place.
2. Pull out the Sharpie: Create an Office of Medical Cannabis and Cannabinoid Control (OMC) at HHS, as outlined in Americans for Safe Access’ model legislation, end evictions of medical cannabis patients from federal housing, allow VA doctors to recommend cannabis, and end cannabis drug testing for federal employees.
3. Create a real medical pathway. Ask Congress to pass bipartisan medical cannabis legislation that moves cannabis oversight to the OMC and creates a dedicated cannabis schedule (call it Schedule VI) aligned with our treaty obligations (think: national agency oversight as envisioned under the Single Convention). That’s how we support patients, science, and U.S. manufacturers at once.
What can YOU do?
Tell President Trump the “great things” you have experienced with medical cannabis and why medical cannabis policy needs a bold, beautiful breakthrough!
If you appreciate ASA's work, sign up to get alerts and updates and make a donation to support ASA's vital mission.
Share this page
