New Attorney General Could Reshape the Future of Cannabis Rescheduling

The cannabis industry is holding its breath. As Attorney General Pam Bondi transitions out of her role and speculation swirls around her successor—EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin appears to be Trump's leading candidate—one critical question looms: How much will leadership change at the Department of Justice impact the timeline and trajectory of federal cannabis rescheduling?

This isn't academic posturing. At stake is a $2.3 billion tax break for cannabis businesses, accelerated research access, and the broader question of whether the federal government will finally align its cannabis policy with the will of voters and state legislatures. The answer may depend entirely on who sits in the attorney general's chair.

The Bondi Departure: A Shift Away From Opposition

Pam Bondi's tenure as attorney general lasted less than four months—a short window that nonetheless signaled a concerning direction for cannabis reform advocates. Her appointment raised immediate red flags: as Florida's attorney general, Bondi had been a reliable voice against cannabis liberalization, opposing efforts to expand medical cannabis access and resisting state-level legalization initiatives.

However, Bondi's brief time at the DOJ was cut short, preventing her from becoming a sustained obstacle to rescheduling efforts already in motion. With her departure, cannabis advocates lose an entrenched opponent—but the bigger question remains unresolved: who takes her place, and where do they stand on cannabis policy?

Enter Lee Zeldin: A Complicated Cannabis Record

The Trump administration is reportedly considering Lee Zeldin, currently serving as EPA administrator, as Bondi's successor. Zeldin's congressional voting record on cannabis presents a decidedly mixed picture—one that defies simple categorization and offers both hope and concern to different segments of the cannabis movement.

The Opposition: Federal Legalization Votes

Zeldin's most significant position against cannabis reform came in 2020, when he voted against the MORE Act, which would have decriminalized marijuana at the federal level and removed it from the Controlled Substances Act entirely. This vote aligned him with federal opponents of legalization and signaled skepticism about moving too quickly on cannabis policy.

In 2022, Zeldin was absent for another federal legalization vote, leaving his position on full decriminalization unclear. This absence suggests either ambivalence or strategic positioning—hard to interpret without direct commentary from the congressman-turned-administrator.

The Support: Medical Cannabis and State Protections

Yet the picture becomes more nuanced when examining Zeldin's votes protecting state cannabis programs. In 2015, Zeldin voted in favor of protecting state medical cannabis programs from federal interference—a position that acknowledges the sovereign right of states to set their own cannabis policy within their borders. This vote placed him alongside pragmatists who may oppose full federal legalization but respect state experimentation.

Similarly, Zeldin voted to support CBD policy protections, indicating openness to cannabis-derived products and recognition that not all cannabinoids pose the same policy considerations as whole-plant cannabis.

The Recreational Limitation

Where Zeldin drew a clear line was on recreational cannabis. He explicitly opposed extending federal protections to recreational cannabis programs, suggesting that while he may accept state-level medical access, he is not prepared to embrace full legalization for adult recreational use.

Trump's Executive Order: The Rescheduling Directive

The broader context for this transition comes from President Trump's December 2025 executive order, which explicitly directed the attorney general to move forward with cannabis rescheduling from Schedule I to Schedule III. This order wasn't a suggestion—it was a mandate to the DOJ to act.

Schedule III classification would represent a seismic shift in federal cannabis policy:

• Research Access: Schedule III allows researchers to conduct controlled studies with relative ease, potentially unlocking decades of scientific inquiry currently blocked by Schedule I's research restrictions
• Tax Relief Through 280E Elimination: The removal of IRC Section 280E would enable cannabis businesses to deduct ordinary business expenses, potentially saving the industry $2.3 billion in taxes
• Interstate Commerce Implications: While not legalizing cannabis, Schedule III opens pathways for more normalized commerce and banking relationships
• Medical Recognition: The reclassification implicitly acknowledges cannabis has medical utility, a concession the federal government has resisted since prohibition

The Zeldin Question: Will He Expedite or Obstruct?

If Zeldin becomes attorney general, the critical question becomes his approach to Trump's rescheduling directive. Will he treat it as a binding executive order requiring swift implementation? Or will he interpret it more narrowly, delaying and minimizing the scope of rescheduling?

Several factors suggest potential expedited action:

Factor 1: Executive Loyalty Zeldin's appointment itself signals Trump's confidence in him. Refusing or significantly delaying a direct presidential order would risk his political standing and credibility with the administration.

Factor 2: The Medical Cannabis Track Record Zeldin's 2015 vote protecting state medical cannabis programs suggests he's not ideologically opposed to cannabis policy flexibility. His support for medical access, even within a federalist framework, may extend to accepting rescheduling's medical implications.

Factor 3: Regulatory Pragmatism As EPA administrator, Zeldin has operated within a highly technical, regulation-driven agency. If he brings that pragmatic approach to cannabis rescheduling, he may view it as administrative execution rather than policy controversy.

However, several factors could slow implementation:

Factor 1: Historical Opposition to Legalization Zeldin's 2020 vote against the MORE Act wasn't casual—it reflected a genuine policy preference. His appointment to AG wouldn't erase this history, and Schedule III could become a rhetorical battleground over whether rescheduling constitutes "legalization in disguise."

Factor 2: Conservative Constituencies As a conservative administrator, Zeldin may face pressure from social conservatives opposed to cannabis normalization. He could interpret the rescheduling mandate narrowly, implementing it in form while limiting its practical impact.

Factor 3: Bureaucratic Delays A new attorney general focused on other priorities—criminal justice reform, white collar enforcement, civil rights—might treat cannabis rescheduling as a lower priority, allowing procedural reviews and analysis to delay implementation.

What Schedule III Actually Means (And What It Doesn't)

Understanding Zeldin's potential impact requires clarity on what Schedule III accomplishes—and crucially, what it doesn't:

What Changes:

• DEA restrictions on research ease significantly, enabling pharmaceutical development and clinical trials
• The 280E tax provision exclusion would be eliminated, generating immediate tax relief for cannabis businesses
• Banking and financial services relationships normalize somewhat, as banks can more easily work with Schedule III businesses
• Medical applications become explicitly lawful, even if marijuana itself remains federally controlled

What Doesn't Change (Yet):

• Cannabis remains illegal for adult recreational use under federal law
• Interstate commerce and interstate shipping remain prohibited
• State-law legal cannabis businesses remain technically operating in violation of federal law (though prosecution becomes less likely)
• State medical cannabis programs operate in a gray zone—legal under state law but technically violating federal law if Schedule III includes marijuana

This distinction matters for assessing Zeldin's likely impact. He could support Schedule III rescheduling as a compromise position: recognition of cannabis's medical utility and benefits for state programs, without endorsing full legalization. This would align with his voting record.

The Timeline: How Fast Could Rescheduling Actually Happen?

The DEA's rescheduling process involves significant procedural requirements, including:

1. The attorney general formally directing rescheduling
2. DEA initiation of a rulemaking process
3. Notice and comment period (typically 60-90 days minimum)
4. Scientific and medical evaluation
5. Legal assessment

Even with expedited processing, the full rescheduling could take 6-18 months. A Zeldin-led DOJ could accelerate this through prioritization and streamlined review—or slow it through additional analysis and stakeholder consultation.

The Trump administration's executive order mandate suggests the administration expects faster movement than the traditional timeline would allow. Zeldin's willingness to break procedural logjams could be the make-or-break factor.

Industry Reaction: What Cannabis Advocates Are Watching

The cannabis industry's response to a potential Zeldin appointment is cautiously divided:

Optimists focus on his medical cannabis protection votes and his pragmatic regulatory background. They argue a Zeldin DOJ could move rescheduling quickly and effectively, treating it as technical implementation of presidential directive rather than cultural warfare.

Skeptics emphasize his 2020 legalization vote and his explicit opposition to recreational cannabis. They worry he'll use his authority to constrain Schedule III's practical impact, narrowing research access or complicating 280E implementation through regulatory interpretation.

Pragmatists simply note that Zeldin is considerably more advanced on medical cannabis than Pam Bondi ever was—even if he's not the reform advocate some would prefer.

What Could Go Wrong: The Worst-Case Scenarios

Several concerning scenarios could emerge with a Zeldin-led DOJ:

Scenario 1: The Narrow Rescheduling Zeldin could reclassify pharmaceutical cannabinoids (like CBD and THC extracts) while leaving whole-plant marijuana at Schedule I or only partially reclassifying it. This would provide research access and some 280E relief but fall far short of full industry transformation.

Scenario 2: The Delayed Timeline Rather than actively impeding rescheduling, Zeldin could simply deprioritize it, allowing the process to languish in bureaucratic review cycles. By the time 2028 rolls around, the political landscape could shift entirely.

Scenario 3: The State Programs Exclusion Zeldin could support rescheduling while explicitly excluding Schedule III protections for state-legal recreational cannabis programs. This would provide research and medical benefits while maintaining federal prohibition on state recreational markets—a compromise he might find politically comfortable.

Scenario 4: The Recreational Resurrection A conservative backlash to cannabis rescheduling could emerge, with Zeldin caught between Trump's executive order and pressure from social conservative constituencies. Even with rescheduling, he could support increased enforcement against state recreational programs.

What Cannabis Advocates Should Be Watching

As the Zeldin nomination develops, several key indicators will signal his true intentions:

1. Confirmation Hearing Statements: How Zeldin discusses cannabis during Senate confirmation will be revealing. Does he defend rescheduling as executive implementation or begrudgingly accept it?

2. DOJ Personnel Appointments: Who Zeldin places in leadership positions at the Office of Legal Counsel, Criminal Division, and DEA liaison roles will signal whether cannabis rescheduling will be a priority or an afterthought.

3. Timeline Signals: Early statements about when rescheduling will begin indicate whether a DOJ prioritizes the issue or allows procedural delays to accumulate.

4. 280E Implementation Guidance: How quickly DOJ guidance clarifies the tax relief implications will reveal whether the administration intends practical benefits to flow to businesses immediately or face years of IRS interpretation battles.

5. State Program Enforcement: Any indication that DOJ intends to increase enforcement against state legal cannabis programs would be a major red flag that Zeldin interprets his mandate narrowly.

The Bigger Picture: Beyond Zeldin

It's worth noting that while the attorney general's role is significant, cannabis rescheduling ultimately depends on multiple moving parts: presidential commitment, DEA cooperation, scientific review bodies, and congressional tolerance for the action. Zeldin alone cannot kill or guarantee rescheduling—but his approach will substantially determine whether it happens quickly or slowly, broadly or narrowly.

The cannabis industry's best outcome would be a Zeldin-led DOJ that interprets Trump's executive order as a binding mandate for swift, comprehensive Schedule III reclassification. The worst outcome would be procedural delays and narrow interpretation that preserve federal prohibition's substance while reclassifying its form.

The truth, as with most policy outcomes, will likely fall somewhere in between—with Zeldin's legacy as attorney general partly defined by how he manages this politically fraught but directive-mandated transformation of cannabis's legal status.

Conclusion: A Critical Moment

The transition from Pam Bondi to Lee Zeldin at the Department of Justice represents a potential inflection point for federal cannabis policy. With Trump's rescheduling mandate on the books, the question is no longer whether rescheduling will happen, but how completely and how quickly—and on that question, the attorney general's record, priorities, and interpretation of presidential authority will loom large.

For the cannabis industry and its advocates, the next few months will be crucial. The confirmation process, early signals from Zeldin's team, and the administration's demonstrated commitment to the December 2025 executive order will tell a much fuller story than any vote from his congressional past.

The $2.3 billion tax break, the future of cannabis research, and the broader normalization of federal cannabis policy hang in the balance. Lee Zeldin's approach to his role as attorney general could determine whether that balance tips toward reform or remains precariously suspended.