GOP Congressman Says Trump ‘Technically’ Can’t Reschedule Marijuana On His Own, But Reversing It In Congress Would Be A ‘Heavy Lift’

Trump marijuana rescheduling authority is the latest political hot potato, and everyone’s fingers are already singed.

Out in the raw daylight of federal power, the question is blunt: how far does presidential authority stretch when it comes to moving cannabis to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act? A Republican congressman—battle-tested in the drug war trenches—says not far enough for a solo act. The president can nudge agencies, yes, but he can’t just sign an executive order and poof, rescheduling happens. Meanwhile, even critics admit that if the executive branch kicks paperwork into gear, undoing it in Congress would be a heavy lift, especially with margins as tight and temperaments as jagged as a bartender’s thumbnail after a double shift. The stakes are not theoretical. Rescheduling wouldn’t legalize cannabis, but it would acknowledge medical value, ease research choke points and—crucially—remove the 280E tax boot from the industry’s neck, a real-world shift with immediate cash-flow consequences. That’s the greasy, high-intent center of the debate: presidential power, Schedule III mechanics, and the cascading cannabis industry impact that follows.

Process, not magic: how rescheduling actually works

Here’s the brass tacks. Under federal law, rescheduling is a bureaucratic relay race, not a one-man sprint. Health agencies make recommendations, the DEA weighs in, and final rulemaking winds through the federal register’s sausage machine. A longtime prohibitionist from Maryland argued on a recent webinar that a presidential signature alone won’t move marijuana from Schedule I to III. He also insisted rescheduling won’t meaningfully expand research, which, depending on your vantage point, is either a sober warning or a convenient fiction. Researchers working on Schedule I substances still need DEA approvals and layers of reporting that have long been called excessively burdensome; anyone who’s filed those forms knows the sensation of a slow-motion migraine. The congressman’s own words were blunt: “He can tell any agencies to make every effort, but I’m not sure that it’s legal for the president to do it.” You can hear the skepticism yourself in the recorded session, if you like to fact-check your late-night punditry: webinar recording. Strip away the theater and what’s left is familiar Washington choreography—letters, notices, comment periods, lawsuits, and more letters. Progress, measured not in headlines, but in footnotes.

What Schedule III would actually change—and what it wouldn’t

Let’s talk outcomes. Schedule III status wouldn’t legalize cannabis or erase the federal-state split, but it would send a signal as bright as a neon OPEN sign at 2 a.m.: medical value recognized, abuse potential lower than the truly hard stuff. The immediate domino likely to fall is tax relief. Section 280E stiffs Schedule I and II businesses on deductions that every other storefront takes for granted. Move cannabis to Schedule III and, in theory, normal accounting returns. That’s not pocket change; that’s survival math for operators drowning in compliance costs and razor-thin margins. Banking won’t magically fix itself, but momentum matters. The conversations on Capitol Hill about whether to normalize financial services for the industry have been building, as reflected in Bipartisan Senators Discuss Marijuana Industry Banking Issues As Trump ‘Strongly’ Considers Rescheduling. Of course, every step forward draws a counterpunch. Drug-testing groups warn that rescheduling could upend workplace safety policies and muddle transportation rules—a tidy argument with the ring of “think of the liability” that corporate counsel can recite in their sleep. The point isn’t that they’re wrong; it’s that this is the messy middle where policy gets real.

The backlash machine: prohibition’s last mile

Familiar voices are leading the pushback, and they’ve got the receipts. The same congressman pridefully notes his decade-long crusade against letting Washington, D.C. sell cannabis despite a voter mandate—proof that appropriations riders can neuter a law more effectively than any stump speech. Elsewhere on the right, the “gateway drug” trope staggers on like a barfly who won’t take the hint. The argument is simple, seductive, and unsupported by the broader literature—but simplicity is a hell of a drug in politics. If you want the flavor of that lane, see Trump Would Be ‘Wrong’ To Reschedule ‘Gateway Drug’ Marijuana, GOP Congressman Says As Reform Rumors Spread. Meanwhile, reformers to the left grumble that Schedule III is a whimper when what’s needed is full-throated legalization and expungement. In the states, equity and consumer protections are getting stress-tested in real time; local regulators are trying to keep doors open for small operators without letting predatory contracts turn the promise of opportunity into a shell game, as seen in Missouri Marijuana Officials File Proposed Rules Targeting ‘Predatory’ Contracts For Equity Businesses. Federal ambiguity doesn’t pause that grind—it amplifies it.

Hemp, loopholes, and the future nobody ordered

There’s a whole other front in this fight: hemp-derived THC products. That world exists because Congress cracked the door with the Farm Bill, and chemistry kicked it wide open. Now, headlines about a looming federal ban on certain hemp THC products have the sector on edge, with some Republicans drawing a line in the sand to protect farmers, retailers, and consumers who’ve built lives around it. The split-screen is wild: cannabis operators craving 280E relief, hemp businesses bracing for federal whiplash, and politicians triangulating between public health, public revenue, and public opinion. You can taste the tension in scenes like a senator’s promise to oppose a sweeping crackdown, captured in GOP Senator Attends Hemp Business Ribbon Cutting Ceremony, Vowing To Fight To Stop Looming Federal THC Product Ban. Here’s the forecast: if the administration initiates rescheduling, expect lawsuits, hearings, new agency guidance, and lots of lobbyists polishing talking points about youth prevention, lab standards, interstate commerce, and tax parity. That’s the real work—less glamorous than a podium moment, more consequential than any tweet. And if you’ve read this far, you’re hungry for the substance; when you’re ready to explore what’s next on your own terms, step into our world here: our shop.