53
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
Since President Biden announced the initiation of proceedings to reschedule marijuana and President Trump issued an executive order directing the attorney general to do so as expeditiously as possible, industry stakeholders and politicos have wondered when, and perhaps increasingly if, marijuana would be rescheduled. How is it possible that Trump, who self-admittedly demands loyalty from his top advisors, has not been able to get this pushed across the line?
Our friends at Marijuana Moment dropped some interesting news last week:
Someone in the Trump administration is “holding up” the completion of a marijuana rescheduling proposal, according to a longtime advisor to the president.
It’s been more than three months since President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to finalize a rule to move cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to Schedule III “in the most expeditious manner”—but that hasn’t happened.
Now, GOP operative Roger Stone is calling out the inaction.
In a follow-up phone interview, Stone told Marijuana Moment that it’s “vitally important to get this done before the next election,” citing the significance of the cannabis issue to younger and libertarian-leaning voters that his party needs to win over and turn out in order to maintain a congressional majority.
Also on Thursday, Washington Examiner reporter Kaelan Deese asked around about Stone’s post and said that “both the White House and the DOJ tell me they’re working on this but have offered no timeline.”
“A DOJ spokesperson said this morning the department ‘is working to implement the President’s executive order on rescheduling, and that work will continue,’” he said.
Get me Roger Stone! I haven’t heard that name in a minute.
So, what’s going on here?
On the one hand, it seems obvious that Republicans — who currently control the White House and both houses of Congress — wouldn’t be the logical party to legalize marijuana. The party has historically been much less accommodating to marijuana liberalization than Democrats.
On the other hand, some observers think it would be quite a coup for Republicans to claim the mantle of liberalizing marijuana and steal that potential “win” from Democrats. After all, if you believe some change is essentially inevitable (and that is not necessarily the case, but trend lines seem to me to suggest rescheduling eventually is more likely than not), why not take the credit for it? And in doing so, Republicans could do it on their own, more conservative terms and then declare that the issue has been addressed and that we should move on to other issues. Oh, and not for nothing, Republicans would be doing exactly what the leader of the party has ordered to be done.
Democrats of course realize this. When they controlled the White House and Congress from 2021-2023, marijuana liberalization was a hot subject of debate. Unfortunately for marijuana advocates, Democrats were split between those who wanted widespread reform and provisions on things like social equity and criminal justice and those who wanted more modest reforms that likely had sufficient bipartisan support to become law.
A final note. In at least one way, this delay in rescheduling is a fascinating instance of Trump’s inability to exert power over one of his prized cabinet appointees. The attorney general can reschedule cannabis with the stroke of a pen. To be sure, that decision can be challenged in administrative proceedings and courts of law, and it may not withstand that type of scrutiny despite the deference it will be given by adjudicators. Why is it that a president so fond of sycophants hasn’t been able to get someone to sign on the dotted line?
We’ll stay on top of the issue, so you don’t have to. Thanks for stopping by.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
Since President Biden announced the initiation of proceedings to reschedule marijuana and President Trump issued an executive order directing the attorney general to do so as expeditiously as possible, industry stakeholders and politicos have wondered when, and perhaps increasingly if, marijuana would be rescheduled. How is it possible that Trump, who self-admittedly demands loyalty from his top advisors, has not been able to get this pushed across the line?
Our friends at Marijuana Moment dropped some interesting news last week:
Someone in the Trump administration is “holding up” the completion of a marijuana rescheduling proposal, according to a longtime advisor to the president.
It’s been more than three months since President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice to finalize a rule to move cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to Schedule III “in the most expeditious manner”—but that hasn’t happened.
Now, GOP operative Roger Stone is calling out the inaction.
In a follow-up phone interview, Stone told Marijuana Moment that it’s “vitally important to get this done before the next election,” citing the significance of the cannabis issue to younger and libertarian-leaning voters that his party needs to win over and turn out in order to maintain a congressional majority.
Also on Thursday, Washington Examiner reporter Kaelan Deese asked around about Stone’s post and said that “both the White House and the DOJ tell me they’re working on this but have offered no timeline.”
“A DOJ spokesperson said this morning the department ‘is working to implement the President’s executive order on rescheduling, and that work will continue,’” he said.
Get me Roger Stone! I haven’t heard that name in a minute.
So, what’s going on here?
On the one hand, it seems obvious that Republicans — who currently control the White House and both houses of Congress — wouldn’t be the logical party to legalize marijuana. The party has historically been much less accommodating to marijuana liberalization than Democrats.
On the other hand, some observers think it would be quite a coup for Republicans to claim the mantle of liberalizing marijuana and steal that potential “win” from Democrats. After all, if you believe some change is essentially inevitable (and that is not necessarily the case, but trend lines seem to me to suggest rescheduling eventually is more likely than not), why not take the credit for it? And in doing so, Republicans could do it on their own, more conservative terms and then declare that the issue has been addressed and that we should move on to other issues. Oh, and not for nothing, Republicans would be doing exactly what the leader of the party has ordered to be done.
Democrats of course realize this. When they controlled the White House and Congress from 2021-2023, marijuana liberalization was a hot subject of debate. Unfortunately for marijuana advocates, Democrats were split between those who wanted widespread reform and provisions on things like social equity and criminal justice and those who wanted more modest reforms that likely had sufficient bipartisan support to become law.
A final note. In at least one way, this delay in rescheduling is a fascinating instance of Trump’s inability to exert power over one of his prized cabinet appointees. The attorney general can reschedule cannabis with the stroke of a pen. To be sure, that decision can be challenged in administrative proceedings and courts of law, and it may not withstand that type of scrutiny despite the deference it will be given by adjudicators. Why is it that a president so fond of sycophants hasn’t been able to get someone to sign on the dotted line?
We’ll stay on top of the issue, so you don’t have to. Thanks for stopping by.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC