46
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
President Trump has announced he will nominate Todd Blanche — his former personal attorney, who has been running the Department of Justice in an acting capacity — to serve as permanent attorney general. I wrote back in April about the personnel shuffle that put Blanche in the acting AG chair and what it might mean for cannabis. This post sets that speculation aside and looks at the practical question now in front of us: Assuming Blanche is confirmed — which is not guaranteed — what does his tenure mean for marijuana and for psychedelics?
The central question of a year ago — whether medical marijuana would be rescheduled — is settled. On April 22, 2026, with Blanche serving as acting attorney general, DOJ issued the final order moving DEA-approved medications and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. We’ve unpacked that order across our Budding Trends “Baker’s Dozen” series — what it does for 280E, banking, intellectual property, employment, and the still-open adult-use question.
So, for marijuana, a Blanche confirmation is not about whether rescheduling happens. It already did. It’s about durability.
On that front, Blanche signed the April 22 order. Consider the alternative: a brand-new attorney general arriving with no ownership of that order and every incentive to take a fresh look — to revisit the reasoning, reweigh the politics, or slow-walk implementation at the margins. A final order is far more durable than a press release, but a new chief law enforcement officer with different priorities is exactly the kind of variable that can reopen what looked settled.
Blanche is not that variable. It seems exceedingly unlikely that a confirmed attorney general would spend his tenure unwinding the order he issued as acting AG. If confirmed, the practical effect is to entrench the medical rescheduling rather than reopen it. For state-licensed medical operators already reorganizing around the end of 280E and the new registration pathway, that continuity matters — the worst outcome for them would be a rescheduling second-guessed by the next person in the chair, and Blanche’s nomination makes that considerably less likely.
That said, confirmation isn’t certain, and even a confirmed Blanche faces real work ahead. The rescheduling order is already being challenged, including in litigation from state attorneys general, and the adult-use piece remains unresolved through a separate administrative process. Whoever holds the job permanently will shape how that litigation is defended, how adult-use is handled, and what federal enforcement priorities look like. So the AG’s identity matters less for whether medical rescheduling happened than for how well it holds and what comes next.
Psychedelics — psilocybin, MDMA, ibogaine, and the rest — were not touched by the rescheduling order. Their Schedule I classification stands. But the order proved something concrete: This DOJ is willing to use its existing authority to move a substance out of Schedule I when the evidence and politics line up. For an industry long accustomed to federal foot-dragging, a working example of the machinery turning is not nothing. We covered this in our Budding Trends piece on what the order means for psychedelics.
And the attorney general sits squarely in that machinery. The clearest live example is Dr. Sunil Aggarwal’s petition to move psilocybin out of Schedule I, which the DEA transmitted to HHS for a medical and scientific evaluation in 2025. Under the statutory process, HHS makes a scientific recommendation that binds the DEA on scientific questions, but the decision whether to issue a proposed rescheduling rule rests with the DEA — an agency that answers up the chain to the attorney general. Separately, the president’s April 18 executive order directed federal agencies to reduce barriers to psychedelic research, and the FDA followed within days by granting priority vouchers to several psychedelic drug programs.
So, what does a permanent Blanche tenure portend here? The same cautious read. On the encouraging side: An administration that just rescheduled medical marijuana, issued a psychedelics-research executive order, and watched its FDA fast-track psychedelic medications is plainly not hostile to the direction of travel. On the sobering side: Rescheduling marijuana obligates no one to reschedule psilocybin, the processes are legally distinct, and — as the Congressional Research Service has noted — DOJ retains discretion to decline to act or to restart a review. The marijuana order makes psychedelic rescheduling easier to imagine; it does not make it inevitable, and a confirmed AG’s priorities will help determine whether “imaginable” ever becomes “done.”
A Blanche confirmation doesn’t decide whether medical marijuana gets rescheduled — that’s done. It bears on whether the rescheduling holds, how the litigation and adult-use questions are handled, and whether the same machinery ever turns for psychedelics. The difference between what a law says and what a law does is where the real work lives — and on both fronts, we’ve moved firmly into the “what it does” phase.
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 !
President Trump has announced he will nominate Todd Blanche — his former personal attorney, who has been running the Department of Justice in an acting capacity — to serve as permanent attorney general. I wrote back in April about the personnel shuffle that put Blanche in the acting AG chair and what it might mean for cannabis. This post sets that speculation aside and looks at the practical question now in front of us: Assuming Blanche is confirmed — which is not guaranteed — what does his tenure mean for marijuana and for psychedelics?
The central question of a year ago — whether medical marijuana would be rescheduled — is settled. On April 22, 2026, with Blanche serving as acting attorney general, DOJ issued the final order moving DEA-approved medications and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. We’ve unpacked that order across our Budding Trends “Baker’s Dozen” series — what it does for 280E, banking, intellectual property, employment, and the still-open adult-use question.
So, for marijuana, a Blanche confirmation is not about whether rescheduling happens. It already did. It’s about durability.
On that front, Blanche signed the April 22 order. Consider the alternative: a brand-new attorney general arriving with no ownership of that order and every incentive to take a fresh look — to revisit the reasoning, reweigh the politics, or slow-walk implementation at the margins. A final order is far more durable than a press release, but a new chief law enforcement officer with different priorities is exactly the kind of variable that can reopen what looked settled.
Blanche is not that variable. It seems exceedingly unlikely that a confirmed attorney general would spend his tenure unwinding the order he issued as acting AG. If confirmed, the practical effect is to entrench the medical rescheduling rather than reopen it. For state-licensed medical operators already reorganizing around the end of 280E and the new registration pathway, that continuity matters — the worst outcome for them would be a rescheduling second-guessed by the next person in the chair, and Blanche’s nomination makes that considerably less likely.
That said, confirmation isn’t certain, and even a confirmed Blanche faces real work ahead. The rescheduling order is already being challenged, including in litigation from state attorneys general, and the adult-use piece remains unresolved through a separate administrative process. Whoever holds the job permanently will shape how that litigation is defended, how adult-use is handled, and what federal enforcement priorities look like. So the AG’s identity matters less for whether medical rescheduling happened than for how well it holds and what comes next.
Psychedelics — psilocybin, MDMA, ibogaine, and the rest — were not touched by the rescheduling order. Their Schedule I classification stands. But the order proved something concrete: This DOJ is willing to use its existing authority to move a substance out of Schedule I when the evidence and politics line up. For an industry long accustomed to federal foot-dragging, a working example of the machinery turning is not nothing. We covered this in our Budding Trends piece on what the order means for psychedelics.
And the attorney general sits squarely in that machinery. The clearest live example is Dr. Sunil Aggarwal’s petition to move psilocybin out of Schedule I, which the DEA transmitted to HHS for a medical and scientific evaluation in 2025. Under the statutory process, HHS makes a scientific recommendation that binds the DEA on scientific questions, but the decision whether to issue a proposed rescheduling rule rests with the DEA — an agency that answers up the chain to the attorney general. Separately, the president’s April 18 executive order directed federal agencies to reduce barriers to psychedelic research, and the FDA followed within days by granting priority vouchers to several psychedelic drug programs.
So, what does a permanent Blanche tenure portend here? The same cautious read. On the encouraging side: An administration that just rescheduled medical marijuana, issued a psychedelics-research executive order, and watched its FDA fast-track psychedelic medications is plainly not hostile to the direction of travel. On the sobering side: Rescheduling marijuana obligates no one to reschedule psilocybin, the processes are legally distinct, and — as the Congressional Research Service has noted — DOJ retains discretion to decline to act or to restart a review. The marijuana order makes psychedelic rescheduling easier to imagine; it does not make it inevitable, and a confirmed AG’s priorities will help determine whether “imaginable” ever becomes “done.”
A Blanche confirmation doesn’t decide whether medical marijuana gets rescheduled — that’s done. It bears on whether the rescheduling holds, how the litigation and adult-use questions are handled, and whether the same machinery ever turns for psychedelics. The difference between what a law says and what a law does is where the real work lives — and on both fronts, we’ve moved firmly into the “what it does” phase.
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