EO-14370
Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research
- Signed
- Dec 18, 2025
- Published
- Dec 23, 2025
Federal Register: 2025-23846
Source: Federal Register.
Directs Faster Rescheduling of Marijuana and More CBD Research
Impact7/10
What it does
This order directs the Attorney General to complete the rulemaking process to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act as quickly as possible. It also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the FDA Commissioner, and the NIH Director to develop research methods using real-world evidence to study medical marijuana and hemp-derived CBD products. Additionally, it calls for working with Congress to update the legal definition of hemp-derived cannabinoid products and develop a regulatory framework for them, including THC limits per serving.
Who benefits
Chronic pain patients (roughly 1 in 4 U.S. adults) who use or may use medical marijuana or CBD. Veterans who report reducing opioid use through medical marijuana. Seniors using marijuana or CBD for pain and quality-of-life improvements. Researchers who have faced barriers to studying Schedule I substances. Licensed medical marijuana businesses and hemp-derived CBD product manufacturers. Patients in the 40 states and D.C. with existing medical marijuana programs. Doctors seeking clearer clinical guidance on prescribing and dosing. Opioid-dependent patients seeking alternative pain management options.
Who is affected
Pharmaceutical companies whose opioid or pain-management products could face reduced demand. Drug enforcement agencies and personnel whose enforcement priorities may shift. Organizations opposed to any loosening of marijuana restrictions on public health or moral grounds. Consumers of mislabeled CBD products who may face continued uncertainty during the regulatory transition period. Hemp-derived CBD product sellers whose products may be reclassified or newly regulated under the THC-per-container limits set by Public Law 119-37. Adolescents and young adults, identified as a vulnerable population requiring focused long-term research on health effects.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that keeping marijuana on Schedule I — a classification reserved for substances with no accepted medical use — is contradicted by the FDA's own finding of credible scientific support for its use in treating pain, nausea, and anorexia, as well as HHS's formal recommendation to reschedule it. They contend that accelerating the rescheduling process and expanding research infrastructure closes a dangerous gap between widespread patient use and medical knowledge, reducing risks like drug interactions for seniors and enabling doctors to give evidence-based guidance rather than leaving millions of patients to self-manage without clinical support.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that rescheduling marijuana by executive directive risks short-circuiting the deliberative administrative law process — including the pending administrative law hearing — that exists to ensure rigorous safety and efficacy review before changing a substance's legal status. They contend that the order's emphasis on "real-world evidence" as a research model may lower the evidentiary bar compared to controlled clinical trials, potentially exposing patients to inadequately studied risks, and that the major-questions doctrine under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) may require explicit congressional authorization before an agency makes a scheduling change of this economic and social significance.
Constitutional basis
Executive orders rest on constitutional authority or statutory delegation. This summary describes the legal grounding cited or implied by the order.
The order invokes the president's Article II authority under the Take Care Clause (Art. II, §3) to direct executive branch agencies in implementing existing law. The specific statutory authority is the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §811), which delegates scheduling authority to the Attorney General, and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. §1639o), which governs hemp-derived cannabinoid definitions. The order does not itself reschedule marijuana — it directs the Attorney General to complete the existing notice-and-comment rulemaking process under the CSA.