Trump’s unexpected nod toward rescheduling marijuana has sent ripples through both political camps, hinting at a rare crossover on a hot-button issue.
As reported by Axios, the former president raised the topic at a donor event in Bedminster, New Jersey, following hefty contributions from cannabis companies to his political groups. This move, while not full legalization, could redefine marijuana’s federal status and boost an industry struggling with tight margins.
Rescheduling would shift marijuana from a Schedule I drug, deemed highly dangerous with no medical value, to a category acknowledging its therapeutic potential. Such a change would ease tax burdens on cannabis businesses and loosen research restrictions, a practical win for an industry that’s been lobbying hard with millions in donations.
Polls, including data from the Pew Research Center, show a striking 88% of Americans now support marijuana for medical or recreational use, cutting across party lines. This growing consensus might explain why even a figure like Trump, historically lukewarm on the issue, is entertaining a policy shift.
The cannabis industry has poured hundreds of millions into swaying opinion, from fundraisers to inaugural events, as noted by Kevin Sabet of Smart Approaches to Marijuana. Their push for tax breaks and legitimacy seems to be gaining traction, even in a political sphere often skeptical of such reforms.
Yet, as Sabet told Axios, “They are going all out because they want this tax break.” That blunt focus on profit over principle raises questions about whether this is truly about public good or just another business deal dressed up as progress.
Within Trump’s circle, opinions vary, with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. standing out as a supporter of legalization for research purposes, though he’s cautioned about “catastrophic impacts” on users. This mixed messaging reflects the broader tension between innovation and caution that defines the debate.
Rescheduling isn’t legalization, a point often lost in the hype, and past state ballot initiatives for full recreational use have stumbled repeatedly. The slow grind of political change means any federal shift, even a modest one, still faces steep hurdles.
Jonathan Caulkins, a Carnegie Mellon professor, summed it up to Axios: “Biden didn’t want to legalize, so he suggested rescheduling, which will make some think we’ve made a big change, but it isn’t really.” That’s a sharp reminder that symbolic gestures often outpace real reform, leaving the core issues unresolved.
Rescheduling would place marijuana under the Food and Drug Administration’s watch, a move that could snarl the agency in regulatory knots. Caulkins pointed out the FDA would be “between a rock and a hard place,” forced to either bend its strict standards or clamp down on a thriving multibillion-dollar market.
The botanical nature of cannabis, lacking the uniformity of typical pharmaceuticals, complicates this further. Official recognition of medicinal use sounds noble, but without consistent quality, it risks becoming a bureaucratic mess rather than a health breakthrough.
Even some in Trump’s base, like Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, are pushing back, with Kirk posting on X, “I hope this doesn’t happen.” His frustration over public spaces already reeking of weed echoes a broader unease among conservatives about normalizing use without clear guardrails.
Trump’s vague timeline, confirmed on Monday with a casual “we’re only looking at that,” keeps everyone guessing about his commitment. His follow-up, “some people like it, some people hate it,” hardly clarifies whether this is a serious policy pivot or just donor appeasement.
The MAGA wing’s embrace of marijuana policy as a business opportunity, rather than a social justice crusade, flips the script on what’s traditionally been a progressive cause. Yet, with state GOP lawmakers in places like Ohio and Wisconsin voicing concerns, and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary warning of health risks, internal friction could stall any momentum.
In the end, this flirtation with rescheduling may prove more about political optics than lasting change, much like Trump’s earlier enthusiasm for IVF coverage that failed to stick with key supporters. While the cannabis industry celebrates a potential lifeline, the deeper clash of values and priorities ensures this debate is far from settled.
