WASHINGTON D.C. – The highly anticipated process to potentially reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance remains in a state of flux, with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) confirming that key appeal processes are still pending. This development comes as a flurry of commentary and action from political figures, industry stakeholders, and public health advocates underscores the complex and evolving landscape of federal cannabis policy. The DEA’s latest update, which surfaced on October 8, 2025, indicates that the rescheduling efforts, initiated under the Biden administration and now under renewed scrutiny during the Trump administration, have encountered significant administrative and procedural delays. Despite pledges to prioritize the issue, the process is currently stalled, awaiting further review by Administrator Terrance Cole.
A Long Road to Potential Reclassification
The journey toward rescheduling cannabis has been a protracted one, marked by significant milestones and subsequent bureaucratic inertia. In October 2022, President Biden directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Attorney General to review cannabis’s federal scheduling. This led to HHS issuing a recommendation in August 2023 to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, acknowledging its accepted medical use and lower potential for abuse. Subsequently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a proposed regulation in May 2024 to enact this change. The proposal generated substantial public interest, with tens of thousands of comments submitted and numerous requests for public hearings. However, administrative hearings, initially scheduled for early 2025, were delayed and eventually canceled, adding further uncertainty to the timeline.
Political Crossroads and Divided Opinions
Federal cannabis reform, particularly the rescheduling of cannabis, is increasingly becoming a trending topic in political discourse. President Donald Trump has indicated a decision on rescheduling is imminent, stating it would be a “game changer”. Several Republican senators, including Sens. Dan Sullivan, Lisa Murkowski, and Kevin Cramer, have echoed this sentiment, believing Trump’s endorsement could accelerate federal cannabis reform efforts. Their perspective suggests that rescheduling could pave the way for other incremental reforms, such as addressing banking access for the industry.
However, not all Republican lawmakers are in agreement. A group of nine House Republicans penned a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi opposing the rescheduling, warning it could send the wrong message to youth and disproportionately benefit large cannabis companies. This division within the GOP highlights the complex political terrain surrounding cannabis policy.
Amidst these debates, Attorney General Pam Bondi has adopted a cautious stance. During a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she stated her team would “look at” issues related to tribal cannabis sales and repeatedly dodged direct questions on her position regarding rescheduling, citing the need for “careful consideration” after consulting with department officials. Her past opposition to medical cannabis expansion in Florida has drawn scrutiny from reform advocates.
Safety Concerns and Youth Messaging
Adding another layer to the debate, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has voiced significant concerns about the potential impact of rescheduling or legalization on public safety and youth. Duffy argued that cannabis is “really addictive” and poses risks, particularly for young people and impaired driving. He expressed worry that a cultural shift celebrating marijuana use, coupled with rescheduling, could exacerbate these issues. “At a time when culture is pushing and celebrating the use of marijuana, we’re not talking about the risk,” Duffy stated, emphasizing his opposition to legalization and his concerns for his nine children. His remarks echo broader public health discussions that seek to balance potential medical benefits with risks to vulnerable populations, particularly teenagers.
Anticipated Implications and the Path Forward
Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III would represent a significant shift from its current Schedule I status, which presumes no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. A Schedule III classification would acknowledge cannabis’s medical utility, potentially opening doors for expanded research into its therapeutic benefits and leading to the development of new treatments.
Economically, a Schedule III classification could bring substantial relief to state-legal cannabis businesses by allowing them to claim standard business tax deductions currently prohibited under Section 280E of the federal tax code. This could lead to increased profitability, investment, and job creation within the burgeoning cannabis industry. It might also ease some barriers to banking and financial services for cannabis-related businesses.
However, it is crucial to note that rescheduling would not equate to full federal legalization. While criminal penalties for Schedule III offenses are less severe than for Schedule I, cannabis would remain a federally controlled substance. State-legal cannabis activities would still be federally illegal, although existing protections for state-legal medical marijuana programs might be strengthened.
The ongoing saga of cannabis rescheduling continues to be a major news item, reflecting the tension between evolving public opinion, scientific exploration, and the cautious pace of federal regulatory change. With the DEA’s administrative processes still pending, the ultimate impact of this trending news on the U.S. cannabis landscape remains a subject of intense speculation.
