Federal cannabis rescheduling talks heat up as DEA prepares a new rule under Trump’s directive

29 January 2026

Talk of a federal cannabis rescheduling rule surged late in January as advocates, lawmakers and industry observers reacted to word from inside Washington that the Drug Enforcement Administration is drafting a proposal to reclassify marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, a move that could dramatically reshape the legal and economic landscape for cannabis in the United States. The buzz comes more than 40 days after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on December 18, 2025, instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi to expedite the process of moving cannabis from Schedule I, the most restrictive category reserved for drugs deemed to have high abuse potential and no accepted medical use to Schedule III, a classification that acknowledges medical use and reduces federal penalties and barriers for research and commerce.

In late January insiders close to the administration suggested that the DEA was actively drafting a rule to implement Trump’s rescheduling directive and hoped to issue it “ASAP.” That suggestion, posted on social platforms and reflected in newsletters covering cannabis policy, sent ripples through the industry and prompted discussions about how quickly federal reform might arrive and what it might mean for states, businesses and patients who have long grappled with conflicting federal and state laws.

Despite the growing anticipation, the Justice Department itself has been notably circumspect. When asked about the status of cannabis rescheduling in late January, DOJ deputy director of public affairs Wyn Hornbuckle told Marijuana Moment that the department had no comment or updates to share, underscoring a lingering uncertainty about how soon formal action might occur and how smooth the rulemaking process will be.

The lack of transparency from the Justice Department has frustrated some advocates who hoped that Trump’s executive order would kickstart swift change. While the president’s directive signaled a major shift in federal posture especially compared with previous administrations, the bureaucratic reality of rescheduling remains complex and slow. Under federal law, the Attorney General must undertake a notice-and-comment rulemaking process that includes scientific review and input from the Department of Health and Human Services before any scheduling change can take effect. That means even if the DEA finalizes a draft rule quickly, it is likely to face weeks or months of administrative procedures before becoming law.

Industry experts and reform advocates caution that even with an expedited timeline, rescheduling does not guarantee an immediate overhaul of cannabis policy. Moving marijuana into Schedule III would ease some federal restrictions, such as enabling broader medical research and allowing cannabis businesses to deduct ordinary expenses on federal tax filings that are currently barred under the Internal Revenue Code, but it likely would not eliminate all legal obstacles. Criminal penalties for some distribution offenses could persist, and interstate commerce restrictions under federal law might remain in place unless Congress acts separately.

These technical nuances have fueled debate within the reform community. Some see rescheduling as a crucial intermediate step that could unlock economic and scientific opportunities, while others warn that federal classification alone will not address deeper issues like banking access, social equity or the patchwork of state-level regulatory frameworks. The rescheduling discussion also intersects with broader national politics, as members of both parties weigh in on how marijuana should be treated at the federal level and whether legislative action by Congress might be a more definitive solution than an administrative change.

Adding another layer of complexity, some critics have questioned whether the urgency implied by the phrase “ASAP” truly reflects a fast-moving process or simply reflects optimism among insiders who hope to accelerate a decades-long bureaucratic timeline. Previous rescheduling proposals, including efforts under the Biden administration that began in 2022, went through protracted lengthy administrative phases before stalling, illustrating how federal drug policy changes can be protracted affairs even in the face of clear executive direction.

As the cannabis community watches developments closely, state policymakers and industry leaders continue to react and adapt. Some state governors and legislators have pointed to the possibility of federal rescheduling as momentum for further state-level reforms, including adult-use legalization efforts and expanded medical access, while others caution that federal uncertainty still complicates long-term business planning and investment decisions.

By late January, the broader policy conversation had also seen other cannabis-related action, including Virginia lawmakers approving a bill to provide sentencing relief for people with past marijuana convictions and Florida lawmakers reducing fees for veterans to obtain medical cannabis registry cards. These developments reflect how states are moving forward on cannabis reform in parallel with, and sometimes in spite of, federal dynamics.

Looking ahead, the timeline for rescheduling remains unclear but consequential. If the DEA issues a formal proposed rule this year, it could mark a historic shift in how marijuana is treated under federal law, potentially easing barriers to research and economic participation while also setting the stage for future legislative reforms. However, the ultimate impact will depend on how the rule is structured, how stakeholders respond during the public comment period and whether Congress chooses to act alongside or independently of administrative efforts.