In a pivotal move, congressional leaders have backed away from efforts to limit the executive branch’s authority to reschedule cannabis under federal law. This decision comes as part of a bicameral funding package released on January 5, which includes the fiscal year 2026 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Policy Shift in Rescheduling Cannabis
The original House version of the CJS appropriations bill, advanced in September by the Republican-controlled Appropriations Committee, included language explicitly prohibiting the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using funds to alter cannabis’s classification under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). However, this provision - meant to reserve rescheduling authority solely for Congress - was removed during negotiations between the House and Senate committees. The final version of the CJS bill thus preserves the DOJ's ability to act on cannabis rescheduling.
This development follows less than three weeks after President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi to "expedite completion" of a proposal to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I drug to Schedule III, a critical step under the CSA. The CSA explicitly grants the attorney general authority to "schedule, reschedule or decontrol drugs" (21 U.S.C. 811(a)). A previous attempt to reschedule cannabis under the Biden administration stalled after a proposed rule by former Attorney General Merrick Garland was delayed by an administrative law judge’s hearing.
sbb-itb-3a0b05a
Bipartisan Agreement on Funding Package
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., emphasized the collaborative nature of the final funding package, which combines measures for Energy and Water Development, Interior and Environment, and CJS appropriations. "This bipartisan, bicameral package reflects steady progress toward completing FY26 funding responsibly", he said, adding that it focuses on priorities such as public safety, energy affordability, and resource management.
The CJS bill allocates $78 billion in discretionary spending, including $37 billion for the DOJ. Of that, $2.6 billion is directed to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to combat drug cartels, and another $2.6 billion goes to U.S. Attorneys’ offices for prosecuting violent criminals and drug traffickers.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, described the package as "fiscally responsible", asserting that it would bolster law enforcement and improve scientific research.
Notably, the bill continues to include a long-standing provision preventing the DOJ from using funds to interfere with state medical cannabis laws. However, this rider excludes protections for Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, and American Samoa - jurisdictions with some of the nation’s most restrictive cannabis laws.
Political Pushback on Rescheduling
Despite the removal of the rescheduling-blocking language, resistance to cannabis rescheduling persists among some lawmakers. On December 17, 22 Senate Republicans sent a letter to President Trump urging him to reconsider his executive order. "The only winners from rescheduling will be bad actors such as Communist China, while Americans will be left paying the bill", the senators wrote. However, the majority of Senate Republicans - 31 members, or 58% - did not sign the letter.
In the House, 26 Republicans - representing 12% of the caucus - sent a similar letter the day Trump signed the order. Led by Texas Rep. Pete Sessions and Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, the letter argued against rescheduling, with Harris stating, "We don’t need rescheduling to do medical research on marijuana – all we are doing is exposing more of our youth to an addictive drug."
Even within the House Appropriations Committee, only six of its 35 Republican members signed the letter opposing Trump’s decision. This minority effort lacked the influence to keep the rescheduling-blocking provision intact in the final bill.
Implications for the Cannabis Industry
The decision to maintain the DOJ’s authority over cannabis rescheduling signals the potential for further action under the Trump administration. For cannabis industry stakeholders, the removal of the rescheduling-blocking provision and the continuation of protections for state medical programs largely preserve the existing federal approach to cannabis policy. However, the exclusion of certain states from medical cannabis protections underscores ongoing regional disparities.
Ultimately, the funding package reflects a significant shift in federal cannabis policy, opening the door for the Trump administration to follow through on its stated goal of rescheduling cannabis under the CSA framework.