Could President Trump be the unlikely champion of cannabis reform, a cause often tied to the progressive agenda?
President Trump has signaled a surprising willingness to push forward with rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, a policy initially set in motion by the Biden administration but left unfinished, with a decision potentially coming in the next few weeks.
Let’s rewind a bit to set the stage. The Biden team aimed to downgrade cannabis to Schedule III, a classification that would ease some federal restrictions, though it fell short of full legalization. This move stalled before completion, leaving the door open for the current administration.
Fast forward to this month, and Trump has openly discussed rescheduling with donors, hinting at a policy shift that many on the right might find eyebrow-raising. It’s not every day you see a conservative leader flirting with an issue historically owned by the left.
At a press conference this week, Trump doubled down, promising a decision within weeks. That’s a bold timeline for a policy entangled in bureaucratic red tape and ideological divides. Could this be a rare moment of pragmatic governance?
Now, rescheduling isn’t a free-for-all. It won’t overhaul criminal justice reform—penalties for use and possession remain at the federal level—but it would lift a hefty tax burden on cannabis businesses by allowing deductions previously barred under stricter classifications.
Speaking of taxes, opponents like Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, aren’t thrilled, arguing, “It’s about money.” He’s not wrong to point out the financial windfall for the industry, but isn’t tax relief a conservative principle worth defending? Or are we cherry-picking values now?
Sabet also warns of “huge commercialization” and mixed public messaging if marijuana is downgraded. Fair point—headlines could easily spin this as a green light for broader use. But with Pew Research showing 87 percent of Americans backing legalization for medical or recreational purposes, isn’t the public already ahead of the curve?
Even some MAGA influencers are pushing back, urging Trump to abandon this path. Their concern seems rooted in principle, but ignoring overwhelming public support—1 in 10 Americans oppose any form of legalization—feels like swimming against a tidal wave.
Before any change happens, Trump’s team must tackle an appeal that delayed a key DEA hearing on rescheduling, an issue tied up just before the administration took office. As Jonathan Robbins of Akerman LLP noted, “Support from President Trump will absolutely facilitate the process.” With enough pressure, this knot could unravel in months.
Robbins also highlighted that congressional opposition often comes from the right, yet Trump’s backing could shift the dynamic. If he’s serious, this could be a masterclass in cutting through partisan gridlock—something conservatives often claim to champion.
DEA Administrator Terry Cole initially called rescheduling a top priority during confirmation, only to sideline it after being sworn in. That flip-flop raises questions about internal resistance, or perhaps a deeper strategy at play within the agency.
Adam Smith of the Marijuana Policy Project offers a counterpoint, stating, “Majorities of Americans from all parties support cannabis law reform.” He’s spot-on that this isn’t just a left-wing pet project—personal freedom should resonate with conservatives too. Why let ideology trump principle?
If rescheduling moves forward, states might feel emboldened to expand medical or recreational programs, while businesses could finally access traditional banking services. It’s not full descheduling, but it’s a step that could reshape the industry landscape. Opponents may cry “corporate handout,” yet isn’t fostering business growth a Republican staple?
Trump himself has a history of supporting regulation over prohibition, even stating on Truth Social, “It is time to end needless arrests.” That’s a powerful nod to reform, and while it won’t please everyone in his base, it shows a willingness to evolve on issues where the public has already made up its mind. Perhaps leadership means meeting people where they are, not where dogma demands they be.