By Brian Vicente

As the world waits for an announcement from the Trump Administration regarding rescheduling, alternatives arise. The path forward on federal marijuana policy may come from executive actions on anything from banking to Tribal sovereignty.

After a years-long process, the rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) looks promising but remains uncertain.  

As is true in most circumstances, understanding what comes next requires a clear picture of where we have been. So, how did we get to this point, and what’s next for cannabis under Trump?

Rescheduling: A Storied History and an Uncertain Future

It’s hard to believe, but rescheduling has been championed as a strong policy position for the federal government’s approach to marijuana for nearly three years now. Starting in October 2022 with an executive order by then-President Biden, the rescheduling process officially began with a mandate to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to review the classification of marijuana under federal law. Nearly a year later, the HHS officially recommended that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reschedule marijuana from Schedule I under the CSA. By the beginning of summer 2024, the DEA had published a proposed rule and submitted it for public comment. Hearings were scheduled and participants were selected, but by January of this year, the entire process had halted indefinitely.

As of late August 2025, Trump publicly stated his administration was “looking at” rescheduling and would decide the issue within the coming weeks. In the time since, rumors have been swirling around how the Trump administration will approach cannabis policy. Even if the rescheduling efforts initiated during President Biden’s term end up perishing in the flames of partisan politics, this is not the end of the story on federal marijuana policy reform. Most media coverage has focused on whether cannabis lands in Schedule III. This piece intentionally looks beyond that to examine four other federal policy shifts that could prove just as consequential. Moving forward, there are several possible avenues for the federal government to come up to speed with the public consensus on the need for national cannabis policy changes. Here are the top four new cannabis policies that we might see from the Trump administration as we await an announcement on rescheduling. 

Top 4 New Federal Cannabis Policies Shifts Trump Could Push Forward Without Congress

Many cannabis industry advocates remain skeptical regarding the future of rescheduling under Trump. Rescheduling marijuana may or may not be a realistic outcome under this administration, but this does not imply that no changes are under consideration. The executive branch holds significant authority to reshape federal cannabis policy, even without Congress. These four policy moves represent the most likely shifts in federal cannabis policy that we will see under Trump aside from a rescheduling announcement.

Policy #1: New Federal Enforcement Memorandum

One of the most straightforward moves the Trump administration could make is to revive or update the Cole Memorandum. This Department of Justice (DOJ) guidance document had previously set enforcement priorities, ensuring federal prosecutors steer clear of targeting state-compliant medical cannabis programs. Reinstating this memo and expressly applying its updated terms to state-regulated recreational markets would give states, medical marijuana patients, and adult-use recreational cannabis consumers much-needed clarity without requiring congressional action. 

Policy #2: Improving Banking Access Through Executive Action

In the absence of a new Cole Memorandum, a standalone executive order could explicitly direct federal resources and scrutiny away from banks that service state-regulated cannabis operators. In effect, an executive order could establish a safe harbor for financial institutions and other financial service providers that choose to support cannabis businesses but are deterred from doing so under the current regime. Any protection that could shield banks from federal prosecution or regulatory overreach would relieve some of the compliance pressures financial providers feel when serving clients in the cannabis space. In addition to helping integrate cannabis businesses into the mainstream financial system, this would help lend greater regulatory certainty to a constantly evolving patchwork of state and local policies.

Policy #3: Tribal Cannabis Policy Clarification

The Trump administration could take steps to reinforce Tribal sovereignty in cannabis markets by reissuing the Wilkinson Memo, which recognizes Tribal authority over cannabis programs. The 2014 memorandum had extended the guidance of the earlier Cole Memo to Native American Tribes, ultimately deprioritizing enforcement of federal cannabis prohibitions on sovereign Native American lands. It was rescinded during the first Trump administration in 2018, but federal enforcement policy remains in line with the Cole and Wilkinson memoranda. Even so, the risk of a federal raid looms over Native American communities that are considering regulated cannabis programs, and an updated policy would greatly mitigate risk and bolster operational certainty. Vicente LLP, in partnership with the Indigenous Cannabis Industry Association (ICIA), released a first-of-its-kind map highlighting 56 Tribal cannabis and hemp initiatives across the United States in order to help contribute to the expanding narrative on Indigenous cannabis and hemp operations. 

Policy #4: Shift the Federal Narrative Away from Prohibition

Perhaps the most powerful step the administration could take is not legal, but rhetorical. If President Trump formally acknowledges cannabis’s undeniable medical value, we will have witnessed the first break in federal prohibitionist rhetoric in a generation. Any statement regarding the legitimacy of state and Tribal medical and recreational cannabis programs could begin to erode the decades of harmful stigma. Framed within the long-term vision of eventual descheduling, even a small narrative shift would help normalize cannabis in national discourse and pave the way for future reforms.

Conclusion

Hope remains for an imminent announcement regarding rescheduling. As the world watches and the cannabis industry waits, stakeholders hold out hope for intermediate reforms. 

Even if cannabis remains a Schedule I substance, executive action alone could reshape banking, enforcement, and state and Tribal sovereignty in ways that bring federal policy more in line with the public consensus regarding cannabis. Even if the only change we see in this presidential administration is a shift in the failed rhetoric of federal prohibition, we can count this achievement as an incremental win in the long and hard-fought battle towards responsible cannabis regulation. 

Brian Vicente is a founder of the leading cannabis law firm Vicente LLP.

This article is from an external, unpaid contributor. It does not represent High Times’ reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy. 

The Trump White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

<p>The post Four Ways Trump Could Change Weed Laws Without Congress first appeared on High Times.</p>

The post Four Ways Trump Could Change Weed Laws Without Congress appeared first on Paradise Found.

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Mississippi medical marijuana dispensary owner challenging the state’s ban on cannabis advertising. In the legal action, Clarence Cocroft II, the owner of Tru Source Medical Cannabis, argued that Mississippi’s regulations prohibiting cannabis advertising in any media amounted to unconstitutional censorship of the industry.

But U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills disagreed with Cocroft and dismissed the lawsuit on Monday. In his ruling, Mills wrote that because the possession of marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, it is not a “lawful activity” that is protected by the U.S. Constitution like some other forms of commercial speech.

Cocroft opened his dispensary in Olive Branch, Mississippi after the state legislature legalized medical marijuana in 2022. In his lawsuit, he argues that he has faced difficulty reaching potential customers because of the state’s ban on advertising by cannabis businesses. 

The judge, however, said that overturning Mississippi’s ban on cannabis advertising would be a “drastic intrusion upon state sovereignty.”

“This is particularly true considering the fact that, by legalizing marijuana to any degree, the Mississippi Legislature has gone further than Congress itself has been willing to go,” Mills wrote in his ruling, according to a report from the Associated Press. “In light of this fact, on what basis would a federal court tell the Mississippi Legislature that it was not entitled to dip its toe into the legalization of marijuana, but, instead, had to dive headfirst into it?”

State Sued Over Advertising Ban

Cocroft is represented by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit libertarian law firm. The lawsuit names the Mississippi Department of Health, Department of Revenue and Alcoholic Beverage Control Bureau as defendants in the legal action.

In the suit, Corcroft maintains that Mississippi’s ban on cannabis advertising prevents him from reaching out to customers via television, radio or print ads. He is even forbidden from placing ads on billboards that he owns. 

The judge ruled that the state cannot prohibit cannabis businesses from displaying products on their websites or from using “appropriate signs” on their businesses. The authority to enact other restrictions, however, lies with the state Health Department, which bans dispensaries from advertising or marketing “in any media.” Corcroft’s legal team says the ban amounts to unconstitutional censorship.

“When Mississippi legalized medical marijuana, it relinquished its power to censor speech by medical marijuana businesses,” said Ari Bargil, an Institute for Justice attorney. “If a product is legal to sell, then it is legal to talk about selling it.”

Corcroft’s suit argues that a current review of cannabis policy by the Biden administration and presidential pardons for low-level federal marijuana offenses constitute a de facto legalization of cannabis. But while the president has pardoned thousands of people who have been federally convicted of marijuana possession, cannabis remains illegal under federal law. As long as marijuana remains a federally controlled substance, the judge ruled, the states are free to pass laws that restrict advertising by cannabis businesses.

“Plaintiffs thus argue that Congress and President Biden have ‘all but’ made the possession of marijuana lawful, which strikes this court as a tacit admission that it still remains illegal under federal law,” Mills wrote.

In a statement released after the judge’s ruling and dismissal of the case, Corcroft said that Mississippi’s ban on cannabis advertising is a violation of the First Amendment rights of legal businesses. He added that he plans to appeal the judge’s ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I’m prepared to fight this fight for as long as it takes,” Cocroft said. “This case is bigger than me and my dispensary – it is about defending the right of everyone to truthfully advertise their legal business in the cannabis industry.”

Although Mississippi’s regulated medical marijuana businesses still face the state’s ban on advertising, Brian Vicente, founding partner of the cannabis and psychedelics law firm Vicente LLP, noted that some states with similar policies have later modified the restrictions.

“Mississippi’s marijuana laws are still new. In most states, we see advertising restrictions lessen over time as states realize that marijuana, including medical marijuana, is a legitimate product that is not only highly regulated but also legal and safe for sale in the state,” Vicente wrote in an email to High Times. “Mississippi needs to consider that, by severely restricting medical marijuana advertising, they are hurting their medical marijuana patients who need access to this important medication. These restrictions significantly impact patients’ accessibility to information about the program and their medication.”

The post Federal Judge Upholds Mississippi’s Ban on Weed Advertising appeared first on High Times.

The post Federal Judge Upholds Mississippi’s Ban on Weed Advertising appeared first on Paradise Found.