Trump Administration Cannabis Policy: Federal Stance and State Impact

Executive Summary

The Trump administration's approach to cannabis policy has been characterized by internal contradictions and shifting positions that have left industry stakeholders, state regulators, and patients uncertain about federal enforcement priorities. Since returning to office in January 2025, President Donald Trump has overseen a federal cannabis policy landscape marked by conflicting signals from different agencies, campaign promises that remain partially unfulfilled, and ongoing tensions between stated support for state-level legalization and actions taken by federal law enforcement. As of May 2026, the administration has neither fully embraced comprehensive reform nor returned to the aggressive enforcement posture of the early Sessions era, instead occupying an ambiguous middle ground that has created significant challenges for the $30 billion legal cannabis industry. The mixed messaging extends from the Department of Justice to the Drug Enforcement Administration, with public statements from Trump himself often diverging from the regulatory actions pursued by his appointees. This policy uncertainty has affected everything from banking access and interstate commerce to rescheduling efforts and the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act.

Why This Matters

Federal cannabis policy under the Trump administration directly impacts 38 states with legal medical programs, 24 states with adult-use markets, approximately 500,000 cannabis industry jobs, and more than 100 million Americans living in jurisdictions with some form of legal access. The stakes extend far beyond the cannabis industry itself. Financial institutions serving state-legal operators face ongoing uncertainty about federal prosecution risk under 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 1957, which criminalize money laundering involving proceeds from activities that violate the Controlled Substances Act. More than $28 billion in annual cannabis sales currently occur through predominantly cash-based transactions due to banking restrictions, creating public safety concerns and tax compliance challenges. For patients, federal policy ambiguity affects access to medical cannabis, research into therapeutic applications, and the ability of healthcare providers to recommend cannabis without risking federal credentials. Veterans seeking cannabis treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs remain unable to access plant-based medicine despite state-level legalization, a situation that advocacy groups attribute directly to federal scheduling under 21 U.S.C. § 812. Multi-state operators face particularly acute challenges from policy inconsistency. Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II controlled substances from deducting ordinary business expenses, creating effective tax rates exceeding 70 percent for some cannabis companies. The administration's position on rescheduling directly determines whether this tax burden continues. Investment capital flows have contracted significantly during periods of enforcement uncertainty. According to data from cannabis investment firms, venture funding for cannabis companies declined 42 percent in the first quarter of 2026 compared to the same period in 2024, with investors citing federal policy unpredictability as a primary concern.

Background and History

Trump's relationship with cannabis policy has evolved substantially across three decades, from casino-era comments supporting legalization to first-term enforcement actions and second-term campaign promises.

Pre-Presidential Position (1990-2015)

In a 1990 luncheon speech in Florida, Trump stated that drug legalization could eliminate the profit motive driving organized crime, though he did not specifically address cannabis. Throughout the 2000s, Trump made few public statements on cannabis policy, focusing his political commentary on other issues.

2016 Campaign and First Term Transition

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump told a Colorado television station that he supported medical marijuana and believed recreational legalization should be decided by individual states. These comments marked his first clear position on cannabis federalism, suggesting he would not interfere with state-level programs. However, Trump's selection of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General immediately created tension with this stated position. Sessions had famously remarked that "good people don't smoke marijuana" and had consistently opposed any form of legalization throughout his Senate career.

The Sessions Era (2017-2018)

On January 4, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole Memorandum, an Obama-era guidance document that had directed federal prosecutors to deprioritize cannabis enforcement in states with robust regulatory frameworks. The Cole Memo, issued by Deputy Attorney General James Cole in August 2013, had established eight enforcement priorities including preventing distribution to minors, preventing revenue from going to criminal enterprises, and preventing drugged driving. Sessions' rescission memo stated that federal prosecutors should "follow the well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions" in deciding whether to pursue cannabis cases, effectively returning discretion to individual U.S. Attorneys. The move sent shockwaves through the cannabis industry, causing public cannabis company stock prices to drop an average of 23 percent in the week following the announcement. Despite the policy change, large-scale federal enforcement actions against state-compliant cannabis businesses did not materialize during Sessions' tenure. Most U.S. Attorneys continued to prioritize cases involving interstate trafficking, sales to minors, or operations with organized crime connections rather than pursuing compliant state-licensed operators.

Post-Sessions Period (2018-2021)

After Sessions' departure in November 2018, Trump appointed Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General, followed by William Barr as permanent Attorney General in February 2019. Neither Whitaker nor Barr issued formal guidance reinstating the Cole Memo protections, but enforcement rhetoric softened considerably. During this period, Trump made several statements suggesting support for cannabis reform. In June 2019, he told reporters he would "probably end up supporting" the STATES Act, bipartisan legislation that would have protected state cannabis programs from federal interference. However, Trump never formally endorsed the legislation or pushed for its passage. In December 2018, Trump signed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the Farm Bill), which removed hemp—defined as cannabis containing less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC—from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This represented the most significant federal cannabis policy reform in decades, legalizing hemp cultivation and creating a regulatory framework under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The hemp provision was championed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Trump's signature marked a rare instance of concrete federal cannabis policy liberalization during his first term.

2020 Campaign and Interregnum (2021-2024)

During the 2020 campaign, Trump reiterated support for medical marijuana and state-level decision-making but stopped short of endorsing federal legalization. After leaving office in January 2021, Trump made occasional comments on cannabis policy, generally maintaining his position that states should decide their own approaches. The Biden administration's tenure from 2021 to 2025 saw significant developments in federal cannabis policy, including a comprehensive review of marijuana's Schedule I status initiated by President Biden in October 2022. In August 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended to the Drug Enforcement Administration that cannabis be rescheduled from Schedule I to Schedule III, citing accepted medical use and lower abuse potential than other Schedule I substances. This recommendation triggered a formal rulemaking process at the DEA.

2024 Campaign and Return to Office

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump made his most explicit cannabis policy commitments to date. In September 2024, he announced support for Florida's Amendment 3, a ballot initiative to legalize adult-use cannabis in the state. Trump stated that he believed adults should not be criminalized for cannabis possession and that the federal government should respect state-level legalization decisions. Trump also expressed support for rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III, aligning with the Biden administration's ongoing rulemaking process. He stated that rescheduling would provide tax relief to cannabis businesses and facilitate medical research while maintaining some federal regulatory oversight. Following his inauguration in January 2025, Trump appointed Pam Bondi as Attorney General. Bondi, who served as Florida Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, had opposed medical marijuana legalization during her state tenure but had softened her position in recent years, stating that she recognized the will of voters in states that had chosen to legalize.

Key Players

President Donald Trump

Trump's personal position on cannabis has been characterized by rhetorical support for state rights and medical access combined with limited concrete action to advance federal reform. His public statements have often diverged from the enforcement priorities and regulatory decisions of his appointees, creating confusion about administration policy.

Attorney General Pam Bondi

As the head of the Department of Justice, Bondi oversees federal cannabis enforcement policy. She has not issued formal guidance comparable to the Cole Memorandum, leaving U.S. Attorneys with broad discretion in deciding whether to prosecute state-compliant cannabis operations. According to sources familiar with internal DOJ discussions, Bondi has directed the department to focus enforcement resources on interstate trafficking and operations with ties to organized crime rather than pursuing compliant state-licensed businesses.

Drug Enforcement Administration

The DEA controls cannabis scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act and has been conducting a formal rulemaking process to potentially move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III since receiving the HHS recommendation in August 2023. DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, a Biden appointee who remained in her position into the Trump administration, has overseen this process. The rulemaking has proceeded slowly, with the DEA accepting public comments through a period that closed in July 2025 and conducting administrative law judge hearings through late 2025 and early 2026. In March 2026, the DEA announced it would extend the rulemaking timeline to allow for additional review of scientific evidence regarding cannabis's abuse potential and medical applications. This extension was interpreted by some industry observers as a signal that the Trump administration was not prioritizing completion of the rescheduling process.

Department of Health and Human Services

HHS, through the Food and Drug Administration, conducted the scientific and medical evaluation that resulted in the August 2023 recommendation to reschedule cannabis. Under the Trump administration, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made public statements supporting expanded access to alternative medicines including cannabis, but has not issued formal policy guidance on federal cannabis regulation.

Treasury Department and FinCEN

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a bureau of the Treasury Department, continues to operate under the 2014 FinCEN guidance that allows banks to serve cannabis businesses provided they file Suspicious Activity Reports and conduct enhanced due diligence. However, the guidance does not provide safe harbor from prosecution under federal money laundering statutes, and most major banks continue to avoid the cannabis industry. The Trump administration has not moved to update or formalize this guidance through regulation or legislation.

Congressional Actors

Republican congressional leaders have sent mixed signals on cannabis policy during the Trump administration's second term. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has continued to push for comprehensive legalization through the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, while House Speaker Mike Johnson has stated that cannabis policy should be addressed through incremental reforms rather than full descheduling. Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democratic Senator Cory Booker have co-sponsored legislation to protect state cannabis programs from federal interference, but the bills have not advanced to floor votes.

Industry and Advocacy Organizations

The National Cannabis Industry Association, the Cannabis Trade Federation, and the U.S. Cannabis Council have all lobbied the Trump administration for clarity on enforcement policy and support for banking access legislation. These groups represent multi-state operators, ancillary businesses, and investors with billions of dollars at stake in federal policy decisions. Patient advocacy organizations including Americans for Safe Access and the Epilepsy Foundation have urged the administration to complete the rescheduling process and expand research access to enable clinical trials of cannabis-based therapies.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Federal cannabis policy operates within a complex framework of statutes, agency regulations, and prosecutorial discretion that creates inherent tensions with state-level legalization.

The Controlled Substances Act

Cannabis is currently classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 812, the same category as heroin, LSD, and MDMA. Schedule I designation requires a finding that the substance has high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Federal law prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of Schedule I substances under 21 U.S.C. § 841, with penalties ranging from one year to life imprisonment depending on quantity and prior convictions. These prohibitions apply regardless of state law, creating a direct conflict with the 38 states that have legalized medical cannabis and 24 states with adult-use programs. The Controlled Substances Act provides a mechanism for rescheduling through either congressional action or administrative rulemaking by the DEA following a scientific evaluation by HHS. The rescheduling process requires findings regarding abuse potential, scientific evidence of pharmacological effect, current scientific knowledge, history and pattern of abuse, scope and significance of abuse, and risk to public health.

The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment

Since 2014, Congress has included language in annual appropriations bills prohibiting the Department of Justice from using funds to prevent states from implementing their own medical cannabis laws. This provision, originally known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment and later as the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, does not legalize medical cannabis or provide complete immunity from federal prosecution, but it restricts DOJ's ability to prosecute individuals acting in strict compliance with state medical marijuana laws. In United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the amendment prohibits DOJ from spending funds to prosecute individuals whose actions were permitted under state medical marijuana laws and who strictly complied with those laws. However, the protection is limited to medical programs and does not extend to adult-use cannabis.

Section 280E Tax Restrictions

Internal Revenue Code Section 280E prohibits businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses if they traffic in controlled substances listed in Schedule I or II of the Controlled Substances Act. This provision, enacted in 1982 following a Tax Court case involving a cocaine dealer who claimed business expense deductions, has been applied to state-legal cannabis businesses since the 1990s. Cannabis businesses can deduct cost of goods sold but cannot deduct expenses such as rent, employee salaries, marketing, or legal fees. This creates effective tax rates of 60 to 80 percent for many cannabis operators, significantly disadvantaging them compared to other industries. Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III would eliminate 280E restrictions, as the statute only applies to Schedule I and II substances. This represents one of the most significant potential impacts of the ongoing DEA rulemaking process.

Banking and Financial Services Law

Federal money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 1957, criminalize financial transactions involving proceeds from specified unlawful activities, which include violations of the Controlled Substances Act. This creates legal risk for banks that provide services to cannabis businesses, as deposits of cannabis proceeds could theoretically constitute money laundering. The 2014 FinCEN guidance provides a framework for banks to serve cannabis clients while managing this risk, but it does not provide statutory safe harbor. As a result, fewer than 800 of the approximately 4,500 federally insured banks and credit unions in the United States provide services to cannabis businesses. The SAFE Banking Act, which would provide explicit legal protections for financial institutions serving state-legal cannabis businesses, has passed the House of Representatives seven times since 2019 but has not been enacted into law. The Trump administration has not taken a formal position on the legislation.

State-by-State Policy Landscape

The interaction between federal policy uncertainty and state-level cannabis programs creates a patchwork of regulatory approaches, market structures, and enforcement priorities across the United States.

California

California operates the largest legal cannabis market in the United States, with annual sales exceeding $5 billion. The state legalized medical cannabis in 1996 through Proposition 215 and adult-use cannabis in 2016 through Proposition 64. California's regulatory framework includes state licensing through the Department of Cannabis Control, local government approval requirements, and comprehensive track-and-trace systems. Federal policy uncertainty has particularly impacted California's market due to the state's proximity to the Mexican border and concerns about interstate diversion. U.S. Attorneys in California have historically been among the most active in prosecuting cannabis cases, though enforcement has focused primarily on unlicensed operations rather than state-compliant businesses.

Colorado

Colorado legalized adult-use cannabis in 2012 through Amendment 64, becoming one of the first two states to do so alongside Washington. The state's regulatory framework, overseen by the Marijuana Enforcement Division, has served as a model for other states. Colorado's market generates approximately $2 billion in annual sales and has contributed more than $1.6 billion in tax revenue since adult-use sales began in 2014. The Trump administration's mixed signals on cannabis policy have created uncertainty for Colorado's interstate commerce ambitions. State officials have explored frameworks for legal interstate cannabis commerce, but federal prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act prevents implementation of such systems.

Florida

Florida legalized medical cannabis in 2016 through Amendment 2, which requires a constitutional threshold of 60 percent voter approval. The state's medical program serves more than 800,000 registered patients, making it one of the largest medical markets in the country. In November 2024, Florida voters rejected Amendment 3, which would have legalized adult-use cannabis for individuals 21 and older, with 57 percent voting in favor—short of the required 60 percent threshold. Trump's public support for the amendment marked a significant political moment but was insufficient to secure passage. The defeat has left Florida as the largest state by population without adult-use legalization.

New York

New York legalized adult-use cannabis in March 2021 through the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act. The state's rollout of licensed retail sales has been slower than anticipated, with the first legal dispensaries opening in December 2022. As of May 2026, New York has approximately 150 licensed dispensaries operating, far fewer than the projected 400 to 500 locations state officials initially anticipated. Federal banking restrictions have complicated New York's market development, as many landlords refuse to lease to cannabis businesses due to concerns about federal property forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881.

Texas

Texas maintains one of the most restrictive medical cannabis programs in the country, limiting access to patients with specific qualifying conditions and capping THC content at 1 percent. The state has not legalized adult-use cannabis, and Republican legislative leaders have consistently opposed expansion of the medical program. Federal policy uncertainty has reinforced conservative opposition to cannabis reform in Texas, with opponents citing the ongoing Schedule I status of cannabis as evidence that legalization is premature.

Ohio

Ohio legalized adult-use cannabis through a ballot initiative in November 2023, with sales beginning in August 2024. The state's regulatory framework builds on its existing medical program, which launched in 2019. Ohio's market is projected to reach $3 billion in annual sales by 2028. Federal rescheduling would significantly impact Ohio's cannabis businesses by eliminating 280E tax restrictions, potentially reducing prices and improving profitability for state-licensed operators.

Illinois

Illinois legalized adult-use cannabis through legislation in June 2019, with sales beginning on January 1, 2020. The state's Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act includes social equity provisions designed to ensure that communities disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition benefit from legalization. Illinois' market generates approximately $1.8 billion in annual sales. The state has been a leader in advocating for federal reform, with Governor J.B. Pritzker publicly calling on the Trump administration to complete the rescheduling process and support banking access legislation.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania operates a medical cannabis program that launched in 2018, serving more than 400,000 registered patients. The state has not legalized adult-use cannabis, though Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro has expressed support for legalization and Republican legislative leaders have shown openness to considering reform. Federal policy clarity would likely accelerate Pennsylvania's consideration of adult-use legalization, as uncertainty about federal enforcement has been cited by some legislators as a reason for caution.

Market and Business Implications

The Trump administration's inconsistent cannabis policy has created significant challenges for the legal cannabis industry, affecting everything from capital formation to operational costs and strategic planning.

Multi-State Operator Impact

Large multi-state operators including Curaleaf, Trulieve, Green Thumb Industries, and Cresco Labs have seen their stock valuations fluctuate significantly based on federal policy signals. When Trump expressed support for Florida's Amendment 3 in September 2024, cannabis stocks rallied with some companies seeing share price increases of 15 to 20 percent in a single day. Conversely, when the DEA announced delays in the rescheduling process in March 2026, the sector experienced broad declines. MSOs face particular challenges from 280E tax restrictions, which prevent them from deducting most operating expenses. Trulieve, the largest cannabis company by revenue in the United States, reported an effective tax rate of 68 percent in its 2025 fiscal year due to 280E restrictions. Rescheduling to Schedule III would eliminate these restrictions, potentially increasing after-tax profits by 30 to 50 percent for major operators.

Capital Markets and Investment

Federal policy uncertainty has constrained institutional investment in the cannabis sector. Most major investment banks do not provide services to plant-touching cannabis businesses due to concerns about federal money laundering liability. Cannabis companies are largely excluded from major stock exchanges, with most trading on the Canadian Securities Exchange or over-the-counter markets in the United States. Venture capital and private equity investment in cannabis declined from $3.5 billion in 2021 to $1.4 billion in 2025, according to data from cannabis investment tracking firms. Investors cite federal prohibition and policy unpredictability as primary factors limiting capital deployment.

Wholesale Pricing and Supply Chain

Federal prohibition prevents interstate cannabis commerce, requiring each state to maintain a closed-loop system where all cannabis is cultivated, processed, and sold within state borders. This creates significant inefficiencies and price variations across states. Wholesale cannabis prices in mature markets like Colorado and Oregon have declined to $500 to $800 per pound, while prices in newer markets like New York and New Jersey remain at $2,000 to $3,500 per pound. Federal policy reform allowing interstate commerce could normalize pricing and improve supply chain efficiency, but the Trump administration has not addressed this issue.

Banking and Financial Services

The lack of banking access creates operational challenges and safety risks for cannabis businesses. Many dispensaries operate on a cash-only basis, requiring expensive security measures and creating targets for robbery. Cannabis businesses pay state and federal taxes in cash, requiring armored car services and creating logistical challenges for tax collection agencies. Some regional banks and credit unions have entered the cannabis banking space using the FinCEN guidance framework, but services are often expensive and limited. Cannabis businesses typically pay 2 to 5 times more for banking services than comparable non-cannabis businesses, with monthly fees ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 for basic checking accounts.

Ancillary Business Considerations

Companies providing services to the cannabis industry without touching the plant—including software providers, lighting manufacturers, packaging companies, and consulting firms—face fewer federal legal risks but still encounter challenges. Many landlords refuse to lease to cannabis-adjacent businesses, and some financial institutions decline to provide services to ancillary companies due to concerns about indirect involvement with Schedule I substances. Federal rescheduling would likely reduce stigma and risk perception for ancillary businesses, potentially expanding the ecosystem of service providers willing to work with the cannabis industry.

What Experts Say

Legal scholars, industry analysts, and policy experts have offered varied interpretations of the Trump administration's cannabis policy approach and its likely trajectory. Robert Mikos, a law professor at Vanderbilt University and expert on cannabis federalism, has noted that the administration's approach reflects the inherent tensions in Trump's political coalition. According to Mikos, Trump's personal inclination toward state-level decision-making conflicts with the preferences of some social conservatives in his base who oppose any form of cannabis legalization. This tension manifests in the mixed signals emanating from different parts of the administration. Sam Kamin, a professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, has observed that the lack of formal DOJ guidance comparable to the Cole Memorandum creates uncertainty but may actually provide more flexibility for state-legal operators than a formal policy that could be easily reversed. According to Kamin, the current approach of quiet non-enforcement may be more durable than explicit protections that could become political targets. Industry analysts at investment firms covering the cannabis sector have expressed frustration with the pace of federal reform. Analysts at Cowen & Company noted in an April 2026 research report that the administration's failure to complete the rescheduling process or advance banking legislation has contributed to continued underperformance of cannabis stocks relative to broader market indices. Aaron Smith, co-founder of the National Cannabis Industry Association, has stated that the industry needs clarity and consistency from federal policymakers rather than mixed signals. According to Smith, the current environment creates challenges for long-term business planning and deters institutional investment that could help the industry mature and professionalize. Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, has argued that rescheduling to Schedule III would be insufficient to address the core problems created by federal prohibition. According to Armentano, cannabis should be descheduled entirely and regulated similarly to alcohol rather than remaining in the controlled substances framework. Dr. Ziva Cooper, director of the UCLA Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids, has emphasized the research implications of federal policy. According to Cooper, the Schedule I status of cannabis creates significant barriers to clinical research, requiring special DEA licenses and limiting access to research-grade cannabis. Rescheduling to Schedule III would facilitate research but would not eliminate all barriers, as Schedule III substances still face regulatory restrictions that do not apply to non-scheduled substances.

What's Next

The trajectory of Trump administration cannabis policy will likely be determined by several key decision points and external factors over the coming months.

DEA Rescheduling Decision

The most significant near-term development will be the DEA's final decision on whether to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III. The agency is expected to issue a final rule by late 2026 or early 2027, following completion of administrative law judge hearings and review of public comments. If the DEA moves forward with rescheduling, the change would eliminate 280E tax restrictions and facilitate research, though cannabis would remain federally controlled and subject to FDA regulation. If the DEA declines to reschedule cannabis, the decision could be challenged in federal court by industry groups and advocacy organizations. Legal challenges would likely focus on whether the DEA properly considered the scientific evidence provided by HHS and whether the agency's decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Congressional Action

The SAFE Banking Act or similar legislation could advance in Congress if bipartisan support coalesces around the need for financial services access. The legislation has historically had stronger support in the House than the Senate, and passage would likely require active support or at least acquiescence from the Trump administration. More comprehensive legalization legislation, such as the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, faces longer odds in a divided Congress with Republican control of at least one chamber. However, incremental reforms addressing specific issues like banking, veterans' access, or research barriers could gain traction.

State-Level Developments

Several states are expected to consider cannabis legalization through ballot initiatives or legislation in 2026 and 2027. Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Ohio are among the states where adult-use legalization debates are active. Federal policy clarity could accelerate state-level reform by reducing uncertainty about federal enforcement. Conversely, continued federal prohibition and mixed signals from the Trump administration may embolden opponents of state-level legalization who argue that reform is premature while cannabis remains federally illegal.

Enforcement Actions

Any significant federal enforcement actions against state-compliant cannabis businesses would represent a major policy shift and would likely trigger intense political backlash from the cannabis industry, state officials, and voters in legalization states. Such actions appear unlikely based on current enforcement patterns, but the absence of formal guidance means the possibility cannot be entirely discounted.

2026 Midterm Elections

The November 2026 midterm elections could shift the political landscape for cannabis policy. If Democrats gain control of Congress, pressure for comprehensive federal reform would likely increase. If Republicans maintain or expand control, the pace of reform may depend more heavily on Trump's personal engagement with the issue and his willingness to expend political capital on cannabis policy.

International Developments

Cannabis policy developments in other countries, particularly Canada, Mexico, and Germany, may influence U.S. policy debates. Canada's experience with federal legalization since 2018 provides data on public health outcomes, tax revenue, and market structure that informs U.S. policy discussions. Mexico's ongoing implementation of cannabis legalization following a 2021 Supreme Court decision creates pressure for cross-border policy coordination.

Further Reading

• Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. - https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title21/html/USCODE-2021-title21-chap13.htm
• Cole Memorandum (August 29, 2013) - https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
• Sessions Memorandum Rescinding Cole Memo (January 4, 2018) - https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1022196/download
• Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Farm Bill) - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2
• HHS Recommendation to Reschedule Cannabis (August 2023) - https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/08/30/hhs-recommends-rescheduling-marijuana.html
• FinCEN Guidance on Marijuana-Related Businesses (February 14, 2014) - https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statutes-regulations/guidance/bsa-expectations-regarding-marijuana-related-businesses
• United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016) - https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/16/15-10117.pdf
• Internal Revenue Code Section 280E - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/280E
• National Conference of State Legislatures Cannabis Overview - https://www.ncsl.org/health/state-medical-cannabis-laws
• Congressional Research Service: Marijuana Laws and the Cole Memorandum - https://crsreports.congress.gov
• DEA Diversion Control Division Cannabis Information - https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/
• NORML State Laws Database - https://norml.org/laws/
• Marijuana Policy Project State Policy Updates - https://www.mpp.org/states/