Lobbying Data Shows Who's Shaping Trump's Marijuana Rescheduling Push

MSO Lobbying Spending Jumps 67% Quarter-Over-Quarter

Multi-state cannabis operators increased their combined federal lobbying expenditures to $2.8 million in Q2 2026, up from $1.67 million in Q1. Curaleaf Holdings led all cannabis firms with $620,000 in reported lobbying spend, followed by Green Thumb Industries at $480,000 and Trulieve Cannabis at $390,000, according to Senate Office of Public Records filings reviewed by CannIntel.

At least 11 MSOs retained Washington firms specializing in tax and regulatory policy. Seven explicitly listed "280E tax relief" and "Schedule III implementation" as lobbying targets in their disclosure narratives. The 280E provision of the Internal Revenue Code currently bars cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses—a restriction that would disappear if marijuana moves to Schedule III.

The lobbying push coincides with the DEA's notice-and-comment period on its March 2026 proposed rule. The agency has received more than 43,000 public comments. The comment window closes July 22. A final rule is expected by late Q3 or early Q4 2026.

Pharmaceutical Firms Spend $1.4M Targeting FDA Pathways

Pharmaceutical companies spent $1.4 million on cannabis-related lobbying in Q2, with most filings referencing FDA drug-approval pathways for cannabis-derived compounds. Jazz Pharmaceuticals reported $340,000 in lobbying expenditures tied to "cannabinoid therapeutic development," while GW Pharmaceuticals (now owned by Jazz) disclosed an additional $280,000 focused on "Schedule III regulatory framework."

Three smaller biotech firms—Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Cara Therapeutics, and Axim Biotechnologies—collectively spent $210,000 lobbying the FDA and DEA on "botanical drug pathways" and "cannabinoid clinical trial regulations." Their filings suggest interest in expedited approval routes that Schedule III status might enable for whole-plant or extract-based therapies.

Pharma's angle differs sharply from MSOs. Operators want tax relief and interstate commerce. Drug manufacturers want clarity on whether Schedule III marijuana can serve as a starting material for FDA-approved medications without triggering new DEA manufacturing quotas.

Hemp Industry Pushes THCA and Conversion-Ratio Guardrails

Hemp trade groups spent $420,000 in Q2 lobbying for regulatory distinctions between delta-9 THC and total THC, with four organizations citing "THCA decarboxylation policy" in their filings. The U.S. Hemp Roundtable reported $180,000 in expenditures, the Hemp Industries Association $120,000, and the National Hemp Association $85,000.

Their focus: preventing Schedule III rescheduling from collapsing the hemp-derived cannabinoid market. Under current law, hemp is defined as cannabis containing ≤0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight. But many hemp flower products contain high levels of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), which converts to delta-9 THC when heated. If DEA or FDA adopts a total-THC standard post-rescheduling, much of the legal hemp market could become federally controlled overnight.

Two hemp lobbyists told CannIntel their clients are pushing for explicit language in the final rule preserving the delta-9-only measurement for hemp and clarifying that THCA in raw form remains outside Schedule III. For context on the broader rescheduling process, see the CannIntel topic hub on DEA rescheduling.

What the Lobbying Data Reveals About Final-Rule Pressure Points

The distribution of lobbying spend points to three contested issues that will dominate the final rule: 280E tax treatment, interstate commerce authority, and total-THC vs. delta-9-THC measurement standards. MSO filings overwhelmingly cite tax relief. Pharma filings focus on manufacturing and clinical-trial pathways. Hemp groups want carve-outs for THCA and other acidic cannabinoids.

None of these issues is directly addressed in the DEA's proposed rule, which focuses narrowly on moving marijuana to Schedule III based on HHS's scientific review. That leaves Congress, the IRS, and FDA to resolve the downstream questions—and leaves every stakeholder scrambling to shape those answers before the final rule drops.

Enforcement will vary. State regulators in California, Michigan, and New York have said they won't automatically adopt federal Schedule III standards for intrastate programs. The lobbying war is federal, but implementation will be a patchwork.