Schedule III - Now What?

Last week, after months (and months) of “will he or won’t he,” President Trump signed an Executive Order instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi to "take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law.”

The order also instructed the Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Legislative, Political, and Public Affairs, James Blair, to “work with the Congress to update the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks.”

For an excellent rundown on what this Executive Order does and does not do, check out this breakdown from Americans for Safe Access, and this one from the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA). 

Now what?

Let us first acknowledge that moving cannabis to Schedule III would be historic, marking the first time that the federal government, and federal law, have recognized the medicinal value of a plant that humans have been using medicinally (and safely) for thousands of years.

But questions abound, including - Will the DOJ faithfully follow through on the President’s directive? How long will rescheduling take? Will lawsuits slow that process? Will there be a federal regulatory framework for its production and distribution that mirrors other Schedule III drugs? What limits and restrictions might be set? Will patient access to the cannabinoids they need in the formats they prefer truly increase? Will Congress revisit its new definition of hemp to protect CBD? What about THC? What is the government’s definition of  “full spectrum”? What powers will the states retain over their medical and/or hemp markets? Who will have an opportunity to participate in those markets?

Take a look through everything that’s been written about this over the past week, and you’ll see a wide range of opinions on each of those questions. 

But before we set off spending 2026 buried in the weeds of these and other questions, there is something we very much need to keep in mind.

None of this should be necessary. 

Because cannabis, and the cannabinoids that occur naturally in the plant, do not belong on the schedule at all.  

At MPP, we are hopeful that a move to Schedule III will ease the path to more and better research, that it will ultimately guarantee safe and readily available access for patients, that the President’s declaration will give Republican-controlled state legislatures the political cover they need to ensure access under state law, and that the regulated industry - both medical and adult-use - will finally get out from under the suffocating weight of 280e and be treated fairly under the federal tax code.  

We’ll have to wait and see.

But whatever happens, all of us, whether in advocacy or industry, must look at the coming year as an opportunity. For the first time in nearly a decade, the nation’s attention will be focused on cannabis. Between the rescheduling process, Congress’ new hemp definition (and restrictions), and a growing prohibitionist tide pushing back against adult-use both legislatively and now via ballot initiatives filed in Massachusetts, Maine, and Arizona, 2026 will offer an opportunity to re-ignite the debate - at both the state and national levels - of whether regulated markets are a better public policy choice than prohibition. And whether we’re talking about protecting public health and safety, limiting kids’ access and use, reducing arrests and law enforcement costs, creating legitimate jobs and economic activity, growing state tax revenues, or standing up for personal freedom, it is a debate that we can win - and have been winning for 30+ years.