The White House’s commitment to push through rescheduling has been challenged by a Democratic Senator, who has demanded answers on the administration’s radio silence.
Now 99 days since President Trump signed an executive order, dubbed‘Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research,’ directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to reschedule cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance ‘in the most expeditious manner’, Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) is demanding answers.
The US congressman wrote directly to Bondi and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Administrator, Terrance Cole on March 27, highlighting direct failures of implementation.
Under the HALT Fentanyl Act signed into law on July 16 2025, Cohen notes, the attorney general was required to issue rules implementing new research provisions within six months, a deadline of January 16 2026, that has now passed without action.
“Because the DEA has not issued these regulations, scientific research using these substances has been harmed and hampered,” Cohen wrote, noting that scientists are currently unable to access Schedule I substances, including cannabis and psilocybin, for research purposes.
He also raises a critical issue preventing progress from being made on the process. When DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney announced his retirement on July 23 2025, effective August 1, he stated explicitly: “My retirement will leave the DEA with no Administrative Law Judge to hear this matter or any of the Agency’s other pending administrative enforcement cases.”
With Cole yet to fill the vacancy, Cohen questions how ‘the Drug Enforcement Agency plans to reschedule without an ALJ to oversee the Hearing?’
READ MORE…
Decades of inaction
While calling for a concrete timeline for addressing these points, Cohen paints the current situation as a continuation of over half a century of inaction.
He writes that the government’s own scientific advisers recommended removing cannabis from Schedule I as far back as 1972, when the Nixon-appointed Shafer Commission presented findings to Congress calling for reform.
“However, the Nixon Administration did not adopt the findings from the Commission he appointed. It has been more than 50 years since that report. It is my firm belief that Marijuana never belonged on Schedule I. Its inclusion resulted in harsh and disproportionate prison sentences, particularly for communities of color, and has substantially hampered research.”
The calls for clarity will be welcomed by the industry, which has been eagerly waiting for the administration to provide some much-needed answers to a swathe of fundamental questions.
As has become increasingly common throughout the rescheduling process, this void has been filled with intense speculation from industry pundits.
Even a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, updated on March 10, the ninth revision of its assessment of the federal-state cannabis policy gap, reflected the level of uncertainty now surrounding rescheduling.
The 2024 version of the same report stated that if Congress took no action, ‘it appears likely DEA will move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.’
However, the 2026 version replaces that with the considerably more cautious language, stating that the ‘DOJ may move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.’
The CRS report also raises fundamental questions about the ultimate impact of rescheduling. It notes that even full descheduling of cannabis, the most expansive reform available, would not necessarily resolve all outstanding legal questions, as concerns about US compliance with international drug control treaty obligations ‘may remain.’
A separate CRS document from December notes that a bill introduced in the current 119th Congress would maintain the Section 280E tax prohibition on cannabis business deductions even if rescheduling is completed, meaning the tax relief widely anticipated as rescheduling’s most immediate commercial benefit is not guaranteed even if the process reaches its conclusion.
