In a significant tug-of-war over federal drug policy, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has moved to withdraw dozens of proposed rules related to cannabis research and hemp testing that were advanced under the Biden administration. This regulatory rollback occurs concurrently with a concerted effort by Republican lawmakers in Congress to block the ongoing federal rescheduling of marijuana, creating a complex and uncertain landscape for the burgeoning cannabis industry.
DOJ’s Regulatory Retreat
The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, formally withdrew 54 proposed rules on September 8, which were published on September 11. These actions included the cancellation of regulations aimed at expanding medical marijuana and cannabidiol (CBD) research, as well as rules pertaining to the analytical testing of hemp. These measures were part of efforts to streamline and facilitate scientific study and regulatory compliance for cannabis-related products.
The withdrawal is framed by the DOJ as part of a broader “deregulatory initiative” and “ongoing assessments of agency needs, priorities and objectives.” However, the move has generated confusion, particularly regarding its potential impact on the bipartisan Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act signed into law in late 2022. This legislation was intended to simplify the process for researchers seeking to study cannabis for medical purposes. Uncertainty also surrounds the proposed withdrawal of a rule concerning hemp testing, which would have waived DEA registration requirements for labs analyzing hemp samples. This rule’s identifier number has also been linked to hearings concerning the federal rescheduling of marijuana, adding another layer of complexity.
GOP’s Congressional Stand Against Rescheduling
Parallel to the DOJ’s regulatory actions, a key committee in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has taken steps to impede the federal government’s reclassification of marijuana. The House Appropriations Committee approved a fiscal year 2026 funding bill that includes language explicitly blocking the DOJ from using federal funds to reschedule or remove marijuana from its current Schedule I status under the Controlled Substances Act. The provision states: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to reschedule marijuana… or to remove marijuana from the schedules established under section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act.”
This move reflects opposition from a faction of Republican lawmakers, including Representative Andy Harris, who have voiced concerns that rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III—a category for substances with moderate to low potential for dependence—would send a detrimental message to young people and provide substantial federal tax breaks, estimated in the billions annually, to large cannabis companies and even foreign drug cartels. Some Republican senators have also raised objections based on potential conflicts with international drug treaties.
Furthermore, some Republican representatives have introduced legislation aimed at preventing cannabis businesses from claiming tax deductions, even if marijuana is federally rescheduled. This effort seeks to maintain current tax prohibitions, such as IRS Code 280E, which significantly burdens the industry.
The Ongoing Rescheduling Saga
The current push to reschedule marijuana is an initiative stemming from President Biden’s October 2022 directive calling for a review of its federal classification. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) subsequently recommended in August 2023 that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III, citing evidence of its medical use and a lower potential for abuse compared to Schedule I substances.
In May 2024, Attorney General Merrick Garland formally submitted a proposed rule to the Federal Register, initiating the official rulemaking process. This proposal acknowledges the medical use of cannabis and its reduced abuse potential, which would align it with substances like ketamine and some anabolic steroids. The rescheduling process includes a public comment period, which concluded with over 43,000 submissions, the vast majority in favor of rescheduling or descheduling. A formal hearing before an administrative law judge was scheduled but has faced delays, with a new timeframe set for early 2025.
Conflicting Currents in Cannabis Policy
Despite opposition from some in Congress, public opinion polls suggest a majority of Americans, including a significant portion of Republicans, support rescheduling marijuana. Advocates argue that moving cannabis to Schedule III would acknowledge its medical value, ease research restrictions, and potentially improve banking access and tax burdens for legitimate cannabis businesses. However, critics contend that rescheduling primarily benefits the industry and does not address the fundamental health risks associated with cannabis use, especially with the potency of modern products.
The tension between rolling back existing regulations and simultaneously blocking rescheduling efforts highlights the deeply divided political landscape surrounding cannabis policy. While the Biden administration has signaled a shift, the actions by the DOJ and the GOP-led Congress demonstrate substantial resistance and ongoing debate over the future of federal cannabis laws. The outcome of these intertwined developments remains uncertain, leaving stakeholders navigating a complex and evolving regulatory environment. The broader implications for cannabis-related businesses, research, and public health are substantial, as the federal government grapples with decades of prohibitionist policy versus evolving scientific understanding and public sentiment. The debate also touches upon the growing influence of the cannabis industry in political discourse, with discussions often featuring arguments about potential economic benefits, tax implications, and the cultural perception of cannabis, sometimes reflected in various forms of cannabis-themed media across tv, streaming, and movies.
