In mid-December 2025, reports emerged that President Donald Trump is preparing to issue an executive order directing federal agencies to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.
This move would acknowledge marijuana's accepted medical uses and lower abuse potential compared to drugs like heroin or LSD. It would ease barriers to research, provide tax relief to state-legal cannabis businesses by ending IRS Section 280E penalties, and potentially open doors for prescription access.
However, multiple sources emphasize that rescheduling would ‘not’ legalize or decriminalize marijuana federally, recreational use would remain illegal under federal law, and enforcement conflicts with states could persist.
This development marks a notable shift for a Republican president, aligning with Trump's campaign statements supporting states' rights on cannabis and his personal vote in favor of Florida's (ultimately failed) recreational legalization ballot measure. But it stops well short of full legalization. The bigger question now is: Should Trump push further and legalize weed at the federal level?
The case for yes is strong and multifaceted. First, public opinion has decisively shifted. Around 70% of Americans now support legalization, cutting across party lines, with even majorities of Republicans in favor in recent polls. Ignoring this would be politically tone-deaf, especially as younger voters and libertarians—key demographics Trump courted in 2024—overwhelmingly back reform.
Economically, federal legalization could be a boon. The legal cannabis industry already generates billions in state tax revenue and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. Removing federal prohibitions would allow full banking access (via reforms like the SAFE Banking Act), attract more investment, and shrink the illicit market, which still dominates in many areas. Trump's pro-business instincts and "America First" agenda should favor unleashing this homegrown industry rather than letting it operate in legal gray zones.
From a criminal justice perspective, the War on Drugs has been a costly failure. Millions have been arrested for marijuana offenses, disproportionately affecting minority communities and clogging courts with nonviolent cases. Full legalization, paired with expungement, would address these injustices something Trump has nodded to in the past with first-step criminal reform efforts.
Trump's emphasis on states' rights also supports legalization. Twenty-four states plus D.C. have already legalized recreational marijuana, and more are moving toward it. Federal prohibition creates unnecessary conflicts: raids on state-compliant businesses, banking restrictions, and research hurdles. De-scheduling marijuana entirely or at minimum, fully deferring to states—would resolve this tension without imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate.
On the other side, opponents argue legalization sends the wrong message, especially to youth. Evidence shows increased adolescent use in legalized states, alongside rises in cannabis-related ER visits and impaired driving incidents. Critics, including some in Trump's own party, call marijuana a "gateway drug" and worry about mental health links, particularly psychosis in heavy users. Big Cannabis could mirror Big Tobacco, pushing potent products for profit.
These concerns are valid but overstated. Alcohol and tobacco—both legal—pose greater public health risks, yet are regulated successfully. A federal framework could impose age limits, potency caps, and DUI standards, mitigating harms better than prohibition ever did. International treaties complicate full de-scheduling, but rescheduling (Trump's current path) already bends those rules, and legalization could follow with diplomatic adjustments.
Ultimately, Trump should legalize weed federally, ideally by supporting congressional de-scheduling while respecting state variation. His planned rescheduling is a pragmatic step forward—pro-business, pro-research, and politically savvy—but it's half a measure. Full legalization would deliver economic growth, justice reform, and consistency with the public will, without forcing anyone to use it. In an era of divided government, Trump has a rare chance to claim bipartisan wins on an issue ripe for resolution. He should seize it.
Final Word: Is this a good move for President Trump and America?
Please give your opinion in the comment section below.
Replies