Connect with us

News

Marijuana rescheduling would bring some immediate changes, but others will take time

Published

on

Marijuana rescheduling would bring some immediate changes, but others will take time

Michael Stonebarger sorts young cannabis plants at a marijuana farm in Grandview, Mo., in 2022. President Trump set the process in motion to ease federal restrictions on marijuana. But his order doesn’t automatically revoke laws targeting marijuana, which remains illegal to transport over state lines.

Charlie Riedel/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Charlie Riedel/AP

President Trump’s long-anticipated executive order to loosen U.S. restrictions on marijuana promises to bring immediate relief for cannabis businesses — but only in some respects. And although rescheduling it as a lower-risk drug is touted as opening a new era for cannabis research, experts say it’s not as simple as flipping a light switch.

“It’s hard to see the big headlines of, ‘Marijuana rescheduled to [Schedule] III; marijuana research will open,’” says Gillian Schauer, executive director of the nonpartisan Cannabis Regulators Association, which includes agencies from 46 states. “You know, those things are not true as of now.”

That’s because on its own, Trump’s Dec. 18 order isn’t enough to rewrite federal drug policy that has stood for more than 50 years.

Advertisement

“The Controlled Substances Act [of 1970] does not grant any president the authority to unilaterally reschedule a drug,” Schauer says. Such changes are historically made through either a rulemaking process, or an act of Congress.

Many details will shape how the administration enacts Trump’s order, affecting the timeline and scope for easing marijuana restrictions. But when it does happen, rescheduling won’t automatically revoke federal laws targeting marijuana, and interstate marijuana commerce would remain illegal, Schauer says.

It’s not yet known how other policies might change.

“We don’t know what will happen to federal drug testing requirements,” Schauer says, until agencies issue guidance.

Here’s a rundown of other key questions raised by the rescheduling order:

Advertisement

The time frame depends on which path the DOJ takes

Trump’s order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to “take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III” of the Controlled Substances Act “in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law … “

The directive evokes the process that started under former President Joe Biden. Under his administration, both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department advanced a proposal to reclassify pot from Schedule I, meaning it has no medical use and a high potential for abuse, to the lower-risk Schedule III, which includes ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

The Trump administration could resume the process that was already underway under Biden. But the new executive order’s mention of the Controlled Substances Act’s Section 811 hints at a potential shortcut.

“That allows the attorney general to move a drug to whatever schedule they deem is best, without going through the usual steps that are needed to reschedule a drug,” Schauer says.

The streamlined process was meant to ensure the U.S. can do things such as complying with international drug treaty obligations. But a historic precedent also links it to cannabis: In 2018, it was used to schedule the CBD epilepsy drug Epidiolex, months after it became the first U.S.-authorized purified medicine derived from marijuana. The drug was placed in Schedule V, the least restrictive schedule.

Advertisement
President Trump displays an executive order reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the Oval Office on Dec. 18.

President Trump displays an executive order reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the Oval Office on Dec. 18.

Evan Vucci/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Evan Vucci/AP

Advertisement

Will the DOJ call for public comment?

The Trump administration’s approach to administrative hearings and public comment periods would also help determine the pace of rescheduling.

“I would anticipate, if they use that [expedited] option, that we would not see a comment period,” shortening the process, Schauer explains.

But rescheduling could take longer if the Justice Department follows the traditional, and lengthy, notice-and-comment process.

Again, Bondi has options that could speed things up. She could choose to issue a final rule after a public comment period, for instance, or do so without a comment period.

Advertisement

“Some of the calculation for that may be on the legal end,” Schauer says. Noting that some anti-marijuana groups are vowing to file legal challenges to block rescheduling, she adds that the DOJ will likely have to balance Trump’s call for expedience with the need to defend its actions in court.

If the rule is published for comment, interest would likely be intense: In 2024, the DEA’s earlier proposed rescheduling rule for marijuana attracted more than 43,000 comments.

Cannabis firms would get tax relief, but credit cards remain forbidden

Sam Brill, CEO of Ascend Wellness Holdings, a multistate dispensary company, says rescheduling could bring a cascade of positive changes to his industry. But one benefit could come immediately, he says.

“The biggest thing that happens overnight is the 280E, the restrictive punitive tax code that is set on us,” would no longer apply to marijuana businesses, he says.

Like other businesses, Brill’s company is obligated to pay taxes on income. But because their core product is a Schedule I drug, the IRS says that under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, they’re blocked from claiming common tax deductions, exposing them to a higher effective tax rate.

Advertisement

Section 280E “does not allow us to basically deduct normal expenses that everyone else can deduct,” Brill says. “I can’t deduct the rent for my stores, the cost of my employees in those stores, my interest expense.”

Brill says that some cannabis companies, including his, say 280E should not apply to them — but the IRS disagrees. As a result, Brill says, his company sets aside a large reserve fund in case the IRS comes after them.

“For 2024 alone, the value of this reserve” was about $38 million, Brill says, “which includes interest and penalties.”

Brill hopes marijuana’s changing status might also eventually lead to other restrictions falling, especially the inability of cannabis operations to accept credit cards. Most financial institutions refuse to provide basic banking services to state-authorized marijuana businesses, due to potential liability.

“The lack of the use of a credit card is really one of the biggest challenges for customers,” he says. Citing the importance of payday, Brill says: “For us, Friday by far is the biggest day every single week because this is a cash business.”

Advertisement

Medical research 

Scientists welcomed news in 2023 that the Biden administration was moving toward reclassifying marijuana, and Trump says his move will boost medical research. But both then and now, there are caveats.

One benefit of the new rules is that they wouldn’t require marijuana researchers to go through the onerous process of obtaining a Schedule I license, and they would also ease rigorous laboratory regulations.

“You have very stringent requirements, for example, for storage and security and reporting all of these things,” neuroscientist Staci Gruber, of McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and Harvard Medical School, told NPR last year.

But another obstacle promises to be more stubborn: finding marijuana to study. The U.S. requires researchers to obtain marijuana from a handful of sources, which is itself an improvement over decades in which they were compelled to use one facility based at the University of Mississippi.

And, as Schauer notes, federal rules about sourcing marijuana have been decided separately from the controlled substances schedule.

Advertisement

“This does a little to make research easier,” Schauer says of the current rescheduling effort. “But there’s a lot that will still be challenging in researching cannabis unless we see a lot of agency policies change and adjust.”

News

Video: Investigators Say Doorbell Camera Was Disconnected Before Nancy Guthrie’s Kidnapping

Published

on

Video: Investigators Say Doorbell Camera Was Disconnected Before Nancy Guthrie’s Kidnapping

new video loaded: Investigators Say Doorbell Camera Was Disconnected Before Nancy Guthrie’s Kidnapping

More details and a timeline were released on the kidnapping of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of the NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie.

By McKinnon de Kuyper

February 5, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Republicans pan Democrats’ demands for ICE reform in DHS funding, with little time to reach deal

Published

on

Republicans pan Democrats’ demands for ICE reform in DHS funding, with little time to reach deal

Washington — Senate Republicans criticized Democrats’ list of demands to rein in Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Thursday, further reducing the odds of reaching a deal to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded beyond next week’s deadline.

“As of right now, we aren’t anywhere close to having any sort of an agreement that would enable us to fund the Department of Homeland Security,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on the Senate floor Thursday.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a list of policies to impose “guardrails” on DHS on Wednesday night, including by restricting immigration agents from wearing masks and requiring them to display an ID and use body cameras. The Democrats also demanded agents be banned from entering private property without judicial warrants, along with requiring agents to verify that someone is not a U.S. citizen before holding them in immigration detention, among other things.

“The American people rightfully expect their elected representatives to take action to rein in ICE and ensure no more lives are lost. It is critical that we come together to impose common sense reforms and accountability measures that the American people are demanding,” Schumer and Jeffries wrote. 

The Democrats also said there are steps the administration can take immediately to “show good faith,” including removing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem from her position and fully ramping down the immigration operation in Minneapolis. 

Advertisement

Thune, a South Dakota Republican, called Democrats’ demands “unrealistic and unserious,” while saying they aren’t “even willing to engage in a negotiation and discussion to try and reach a result.”

“This is not a blank-check situation where Republicans just agree to a list of Democrat demands,” Thune said. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 5, 2026.

Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images

Advertisement


Off the Senate floor, Thune told reporters that there are a number of things on Democrats’ list of demands that appear to be designed as “messaging” priorities, but he acknowledged that “there’s some room there.”

“There’s some things that could get done,” Thune said. “But, you know, you have to have people at the table to do that.”

Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama, who’s leading the negotiations for Senate Republicans, quickly responded to Democrats’ demands on X Wednesday night. She called the proposal a “ridiculous Christmas list of demands for the press.”

“This is NOT negotiating in good faith, and it’s NOT what the American people want,” Britt said. “They continue to play politics to their radical base at the expense of the safety of Americans. DHS, FEMA, Secret Service, and the Coast Guard run out of money in 9 days. Democrats don’t seem to care one bit.”

Earlier in the day Wednesday, Schumer and Jeffries held a news conference where they outlined some of the demands. They encouraged Republicans to “get serious” about negotiations on reforming the nation’s immigration enforcement operation. 

Advertisement

“This is turning America inside out in a way we haven’t seen in a very long time,” Schumer said. 

The back and forth comes after the House voted to fund the bulk of the government earlier this week, following a four-day partial shutdown. The package extended funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and Customs and Border Protection, through Feb. 13. The move was meant to give lawmakers time to negotiate long-term funding and reforms to ICE and CBP. 

Thune pointed to the tight timeline Thursday. He noted that Democrats insisted that DHS only be funded for two weeks. 

“We have one week and one day left to pass the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill,” Thune said. “The onus is on Democrats to negotiate in good faith and reach an agreement quickly.”

Thune argued that Democrats have “reopened” negotiations, which means “taking up ideas and priorities from both sides.” He pointed to the need for a “serious discussion” about the “climate of harassment — and worse — that law enforcement has been facing, simply trying to do their jobs.” 

Advertisement

He said the issue of cooperation between federal and local law enforcement must also be discussed, saying “too many jurisdictions prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” in an apparent nod to so-called sanctuary city policies that Republicans have widely opposed. 

“I hope my Democrat colleagues are ready to have some conversations with the White House about these and other issues,” Thune said. 

The majority leader argued that “the White House has demonstrated that it’s taking things seriously,” pointing to a recent move to require all agents in Minneapolis to wear body cameras and the administration’s move to withdraw some personnel from the city.

“I want to see my Democrat colleagues take things seriously as well,” he added.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

The Long Goodbye: A California Couple Self-Deports to Mexico

Published

on

The Long Goodbye: A California Couple Self-Deports to Mexico

Enrique Castillejos and his wife stopped at a Winchell’s Donut House. It was part of their after-church routine on Friday nights.

That evening’s sermon had been about finding peace in God in turbulent times, and they felt it spoke directly to them. Enrique, 63, and his wife, Maria Elena Hernandez, 55, were undocumented immigrants. Like millions of others in Southern California, they had been looking over their shoulders as federal agents conducted immigration sweeps.

Advertisement

Freedom, they felt, had become impossible in the land of the free. They had made a decision: Leave America and move back to Mexico.

The process has the sterile, bureaucratic name of self-deportation. For Enrique and Maria Elena, it resembled a long, slow-motion goodbye. It took an emotional, spiritual and logistical toll on everyone around them, including their three children and two grandchildren. They had to decide what to do with their old, beloved dog and their trucking business. They had to suddenly cut ties with their church and their neighbors. Visitors bearing gifts dropped by unannounced.

Advertisement

Maria Elena had suggested to Enrique that he leave for Mexico first, while she waited for her broken foot to heal. “No,” she recalled Enrique telling her. “Together we came and together we go.”

Their decision to go came long before the Trump administration’s crackdown in Minneapolis, and long before federal operations intensified in their own San Bernardino County neighborhood. Returning to Mexico had always been in the cards. But they had wanted to go on their own terms, retiring there someday. The Trump administration’s crackdown had prompted them to make that “someday” now.

The couple’s departure hit the family hard. They watch the news now with conflicting emotions, as Enrique and Maria Elena start their lives over in Mexico and their adult children struggle to carry on without them. None of the couple’s friends or relatives tried to change their minds, and there were few heated debates over the decision. In their community, the federal immigration raids made such an extreme move seem entirely reasonable.

Advertisement

“It’s a mixture of all those feelings — being grateful for knowing that they’re safe, and at the same time, hating that this is the way it has to be,” said Lizbeth Castillejos, 29, the couple’s oldest daughter.

Back at the coffee shop, Maria Elena and Enrique could feel the clock tick. It was Aug. 8. They had just two weeks left. Their nearly 30 years in the United States were coming to an end.

Advertisement

“Ya casi,” Enrique told her: Almost time.

Maria Elena set down her coffee cup. “Ya casi,” she repeated.

Advertisement

Maria Elena had to squeeze her belongings into just a few suitcases. She insisted on taking a little piece of home with her: her curtains.

Some were thin and delicate, others thick to dampen sound. Gold, red, green — a color for every season. They had rented the house in Bloomington, an unincorporated community some 50 miles east of Los Angeles, for more than 10 years. It was semirural, with dirt sidewalks and residents on horseback. Outside, Enrique kept chickens in the backyard. Inside, Maria Elena had her curtains.

To make room in the luggage for them, Maria Elena took out all the socks. Her younger daughter, Helen, 23, a schoolteacher, told her not to worry because they could get new things in Mexico.

Advertisement

Eventually, Maria Elena gave up. Leaving America meant leaving her curtains, too.

It was lunchtime. Maria Elena and Enrique had just sat down at the kitchen table, plates of bistec, white rice, black beans and diced cactus spread out before them.

Advertisement

There was a sudden pounding at the door. For a moment, the conversation grew quiet.

For months, masked immigration agents had seemed to appear everywhere in Southern California, and fear gripped entire communities. Except for doctor’s appointments for her broken foot and strategically timed trips to the market, Maria Elena had stopped leaving the house.

Advertisement

One day, Enrique had called his daughter Lizbeth, who works for a local immigrant rights group. A white sedan was tailing him. He thought it might be ICE.

Nothing had come of it, but it was another sign that life as they knew it in the United States was over.

They were afraid of being picked up by agents, not so much because of the threat of deportation but because of the uncertainty of detention. One goal of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign is to effectively scare people into self-deporting while dangling financial incentives to leave. Enrique and Maria Elena had decided not to accept the administration’s offer of $1,000 and a flight home to migrants who deport themselves because they did not trust the government to honor the arrangement.

Advertisement

Ultimately, there had been no dramatic incident that spurred their departure; they had simply grown weary, day after day, of watching their world shrink to fit only the bounds of their home.

“He said he would go after criminals, and we don’t consider ourselves criminals,” Maria Elena said of the president, adding, “We consider ourselves working people. It turns out, for him, we’re all criminals.”

Advertisement

Although they were living in America illegally, the couple saw no contradiction in that: Undocumented immigrants were part of the fabric of everyday life in Southern California. Over time, it didn’t seem especially risky.

Still, they expressed regret that they had never obtained legal status. In 2006, Maria Elena and her children had joined protests in Los Angeles demanding amnesty for undocumented immigrants. The family had also discussed another pathway: If one of their children joined the military, Maria Elena and Enrique could get the right to stay. Each of their three children had seriously considered signing up when they turned 18. But the couple never wanted their children to set aside their dreams and careers for their parents.

Were immigration agents now at the front door? Responding to the pounding, Enrique and Maria Elena’s son, Joaquin, 26, bolted to open it. It was their close friend, Kiké, dropping by to say hello.

Advertisement

Everyone was anxious about Rex, the family’s scruffy 14-year-old dog. Maria Elena and Enrique had decided to put Rex down before they left. He was ailing, could hardly walk and was in constant pain.

Rex had seen Joaquin and Helen grow from children to adults. One day, when Joaquin was away in college, he learned his parents were giving the dog to a family friend because Rex had been killing chickens in the backyard. Joaquin raced home. He took Rex in himself.

Advertisement

This time, Joaquin was not stepping in to save him. Everyone had agreed that Rex was suffering. Still, saying goodbye to the dog was like saying goodbye to a member of the family. Rex was a “constant,” as Helen put it, and those constants were ending as the family prepared for self-deportation.

“It needs to be done soon,” Helen told her dad over dinner as they discussed when to put down Rex. But she didn’t want it done this soon.

Advertisement

“Right now, there’s too much loss,” she added. “I can’t do both.”

A nervous Enrique stood at the front of the church and clutched the microphone. He was telling the congregation, with Maria Elena standing at his side, that they were leaving for Mexico.

Advertisement

To Enrique, it wasn’t so much the president’s will, but God’s.

He saw self-deportation as an opportunity to spread the word of God to his family back in his hometown of Mapastepec, near the plot of land in rural Chiapas where they had decided to move. He found comfort in Psalms 37, which says that God does not forsake those who believe.

Every Sunday, Enrique carried a composition book with notes on Scripture and a Bible with his name scrawled on the side. Maria Elena brought a tambourine for the hymns. And in the house, Enrique led prayers before meals.

Advertisement

For Maria Elena, leaving the United States was a way for her to come clean with God. For years, the couple said, Enrique had been using another person’s identity — a common but illegal way for undocumented immigrants to get the paperwork they need to work in the country. They said that not long after arriving in the United States, a friend had helped Enrique use the identity of a Honduran who had work authorization. Last year, the Trump administration moved to end that type of work authorization, making it harder for Enrique to keep using that identity.

Guilt weighed on Maria Elena. “We got tired of living in a lie,” she said, adding, “We have to be good before God. You can’t be a child of God and lie with two names.”

Advertisement

She already had a name for the plot of farmland awaiting them in their native Chiapas: Rancho La Promesa de Dios. God’s Promise Ranch.

At the church, a long line formed before them. For half an hour, one by one, congregants gave them tearful hugs.

Advertisement

Michael, 2, bounced around the living room, his brightly colored toys scattered all over the tiled floor. Olivia, 4, was fixated on a cartoon on the television.

Maria Elena was on grandmother duty.

Grandma and Grandpa’s house was where the little ones learned Spanish, and where Enrique cut up fruit to feed them one piece at a time. It was days like these that the grandparents cherished. It was days like these that made Maria Elena cry.

Advertisement

“It’s only when I look at my grandchildren and say to myself, ‘Who is going to take care of them?’”

Enrique grabbed his belongings from the old turquoise Toyota. His longtime friend who had dropped by to say hello that one day, Kiké, was there to pick it up. For Enrique, it meant the old clunker was one less thing he had to get rid of.

Advertisement

Kiké and Enrique had much in common, including their names. Kiké is short for Enrique. The two men are from the same town in Mexico, and they ended up here in the same place in America.

Kiké was sad to see them go, but he, too, was contemplating leaving because of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Advertisement

“A lot of fellow paisans are wanting to leave,” he said. “It doesn’t look like this thing is going to get resolved. It’s going from bad to worse.”

Each sibling took turns on the mic.

Advertisement

It was Enrique and Maria Elena’s farewell party, at a nearby property. Earlier that day, the family had said goodbye to Rex before putting him down. At the party, a mariachi belted out Christian ballads. Butterflies — a symbol of migration — decorated a towering fruit spread.

Joaquin said he would miss the little things, like stopping by on his lunch break for his mom’s beans.

Helen, the youngest, talked about how there was always mom and dad. When her older siblings had moved out, she had remained. Now, for the first time, the unit of three — Helen, Maria Elena and Enrique — would be apart.

Advertisement

Lizbeth tried to focus on the positive.

She said this was a fresh chapter. Their parents’ legacy in America would live on. Three college-educated children with dignified careers. And two grandchildren, one old enough to express her wish to spend every summer in Chiapas.

Advertisement

On the party invitation cards Lizbeth had sent out weeks earlier, there was nothing that suggested the gravity of self-deportation. The occasion was simply titled “New Beginnings.”

It was Aug. 24. Sixteen days had passed since that stop at the donut shop after church.

Advertisement

At the house in Bloomington, after instant coffee and pan dulce, the family huddled in the living room and bowed their heads. This was the day Maria Elena and Enrique were self-deporting.

“This morning, our father, we’re grateful to you because you have kept us here in this land, in this country for 29 years,” Enrique said. “And we thank you because you never abandoned us.”

Then they squeezed into the van and set course for the two-hour trip to the border crossing in San Diego.

Advertisement

In the blink of an eye, as they crossed into Mexico, 29 years reset to zero. This was the couple’s first time returning to Mexico together. It was their home country, but a sense of wonder seemed to overtake Maria Elena and Enrique. They had entered the United States nearly three decades ago, crossing that same border on foot. They had initially intended to stay for a few years, save up money and return to Mexico, but after they had children, their plans changed.

“Saliendo del sueño Americano y ahora entramos al sueño Mexicano,” Maria Elena told her family in the van: Leaving the American dream and now entering the Mexican dream.

Advertisement

A bright day greeted them in Tijuana as they strolled through downtown. Maria Elena ambled around on a scooter for her broken foot, feeling out of place. Joaquin put his arms around her, trying to cheer her up. They planned to stay at a relative’s house until their flight to Chiapas.

In the months to come, Maria Elena and Enrique would try to adjust to life in Mexico. They would stay with relatives, and make slow progress fixing up a small dwelling on their plot of land. They would find themselves at times overwhelmed and homesick.

Advertisement

But before all of that, on this first bright day in Tijuana, Enrique pulled out his Mexican I.D. and smiled. It might have felt like any other family trip. The political forces and fears that had forced them to leave went unspoken.

After the siblings had dropped off their parents in Mexico and headed back home in the van, they felt a sense of optimism as they waited in the long line at the port of entry. Vendors selling churros, chips and religious ornaments paced between cars.

Advertisement

Joaquin lamented that there was no time for a final Dodgers game with his dad or a family trip to the beach.

Lizbeth assured him there would plenty of memories for them to make in Chiapas.

Helen, the schoolteacher, was anxious to get home and prepare her lesson plan for the week. She read aloud a list her mom had given her. It had all of the things she had forgotten to pack but wanted from home the next time she saw them.

Advertisement

“No. 1,” Helen read aloud in the van, “look for my earrings.”

Hours had passed when a customs agent finally waved them into the United States. Soon, everyone except the driver slipped into a slumber, and the road home was quiet.

Advertisement

They slowly woke up as the car rolled up to the house in Bloomington.

Olivia, 4, realized she was at Grandma and Grandpa’s house. Then, it dawned on her. Grandma and Grandpa were not there. She cried out for them.

Advertisement

The siblings embraced in the middle of the driveway. Their parents had once described what it felt like to leave life behind in America. They said it felt like a kind of death.

Lizbeth, surrounded that night with her loved ones on the driveway of her parents’ empty house, felt the same way, too. She called it grief.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending