Roger Stone: Someone in Trump Admin Holding Up Cannabis Rescheduling

The Bottleneck: Why Trump's Cannabis Order Still Hasn't Been Implemented

President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Justice to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III months ago. It's a move that could reshape the entire cannabis industry, eliminate federal tax barriers, and unlock billions in legitimate business opportunities. Yet as of April 2026, the rescheduling hasn't happened—and Roger Stone is publicly questioning why.

Stone, the longtime political operative and Trump ally, took to social media last week asking the pointed question: "Who is holding up President Trump's order to reschedule marijuana?" The query cuts to the heart of a frustration shared by cannabis industry leaders, entrepreneurs, and legalization advocates who expected swift action on one of the administration's more straightforward directives.

What Trump's Executive Order Actually Directed

To understand the current impasse, we need to be clear about what happened and what should happen next.

In a move that surprised many observers, Trump signed an executive order explicitly directing the Department of Justice to begin the process of moving cannabis from Schedule I (defined as having no medical use and high abuse potential) to Schedule III (drugs with accepted medical use and moderate abuse potential).

This isn't a trivial distinction. Schedule III classification would:

• Allow cannabis to be prescribed by doctors in medical contexts
• Permit pharmaceutical companies to conduct federally-funded research
• Enable cannabis businesses to deduct ordinary business expenses under IRS Rule 280E
• Establish a legal framework for interstate commerce
• Legitimize banking relationships for compliant operators

The executive order was clear. The directive was unambiguous. According to Roger Stone, the president made his intentions known without equivocation. Yet somewhere between the Oval Office and implementation, the order appears to be stuck.

The DOJ's Vague Timeline and Non-Committal Responses

When asked about the timeline for implementing Trump's cannabis rescheduling order, a Department of Justice spokesperson offered a response that satisfied no one: the DOJ is "working to implement" the order but provided no specific timeline.

That's bureaucratic speak for "we'll get around to it eventually." No deadline. No milestones. No accountability measures.

The DEA, meanwhile, maintains an even more opaque stance. The agency states that the rescheduling appeal "remains pending"—a holding pattern that could mean anything from weeks to years.

This is where frustration sets in. The executive branch has the authority to move forward. The machinery exists to conduct the administrative rulemaking process. The pathway is established. Yet nothing is happening.

Roger Stone's public questioning suggests that the holdup isn't bureaucratic incompetence (though that's always possible in any large government agency). Instead, Stone's framing implies deliberate obstruction—someone in the administration actively or passively blocking implementation of the president's own order.

The Political Urgency: "Before the Next Election"

Stone emphasized to Marijuana Moment that getting cannabis rescheduling done is "vitally important to get this done before the next election." This adds another layer to the timeline question.

Political windows close quickly. Midterm elections shift power dynamics. Administration priorities shift. What seems urgent today becomes deprioritized tomorrow in the machinery of government.

For the cannabis industry and its stakeholders, the window matters enormously. A rescheduling completed in 2026 allows businesses to plan, recapitalize, and expand with the understanding that federal barriers have been removed. A rescheduling delayed into 2027 or beyond creates uncertainty that discourages investment.

Stone's timeline concern isn't merely political—it's practical. The cannabis industry has waited decades. Every month of delay costs operators millions in unnecessary compliance costs, prevented growth, and lost banking relationships.

The IRS Rule 280E Factor: Billions at Stake

For cannabis businesses, the most immediate impact of Schedule III rescheduling would be the potential elimination of IRS Rule 280E.

This rule, specific to Schedule I and II controlled substances businesses, prevents cannabis companies from deducting ordinary business expenses like rent, utilities, employee salaries, marketing, and supplies. The result is that cannabis businesses effectively pay federal taxes on gross revenue rather than net profit.

A cannabis retailer generating $2 million in annual revenue might actually clear only $400,000 in taxable profit after legitimate business expenses. Under Rule 280E, the IRS taxes the full $2 million at corporate rates. The cumulative effect across the industry is billions in overcharges.

Rescheduling to Schedule III would eliminate this provision, instantly improving profitability for every compliant operator in the country. It's not growth through market expansion—it's breathing room through tax normalization.

Where's the Holdup?

So who, as Roger Stone asked, is holding up the order?

Several possibilities exist:

DEA Bureaucracy: The DEA has institutional reasons to move slowly on cannabis. The agency's funding, authority, and mission have been built around drug enforcement. Rescheduling represents a reduction in the DEA's jurisdiction and influence. Internal resistance is plausible.

Competing Administration Priorities: The Trump administration is managing multiple policy objectives simultaneously. Cannabis rescheduling, while significant, might have been deprioritized relative to other economic or political initiatives.

Banking/Financial Sector Concerns: Large banking institutions have historically lobbied against cannabis normalization, fearing regulatory complexity and political exposure. Quiet industry pressure could be slowing the process.

Selective Implementation: Some observers have speculated that certain administration figures might be selective about implementing pro-cannabis directives while advancing other priorities.

Procedural Requirements: Federal rescheduling requires compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, which includes public comment periods and other procedural safeguards. This could legitimately require additional time, though months should be sufficient.

Industry Reaction and Business Impact

Cannabis industry leaders are watching carefully. For licensed operators in states like California, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Washington, Schedule III rescheduling would be transformative. The competitive landscape would shift. Consolidation would accelerate. Access to capital would improve dramatically.

But inaction creates uncertainty. Operators with expansion plans are hesitating. Investors are holding back. The energy that should follow a clear presidential directive has instead dissipated into waiting and wondering.

Companies like Trulieve, Curaleaf, Cresco Labs, and smaller regional operators all have financial models that assume eventual federal normalization. Delay makes those models less predictable and less attractive to institutional investors.

What Happens Next?

The path forward depends on several variables:

• White House Pressure: If Trump and his team prioritize getting this done, it can happen relatively quickly through executive mechanism.
• Congressional Involvement: Some legalization advocates are calling for Congress to mandate the rescheduling, removing administrative discretion.
• Public Pressure: Roger Stone's public questioning is a form of pressure. Industry lobbying will likely intensify.
• Electoral Calendar: Stone noted the importance of completing this before the next election. That deadline creates urgency if the administration takes it seriously.

The Bottom Line

A presidential executive order directing cannabis rescheduling should be implemented as a matter of course. The fact that it hasn't been—months after issuance—suggests either remarkable administrative incompetence or deliberate obstruction.

Roger Stone's question deserves an answer. The cannabis industry deserves clarity. Operators and investors deserve a timeline.

For now, they're getting bureaucratic silence and vague commitments. In an industry where federal policy creates the entire operating environment, that's unacceptable.

The order is clear. The authority exists. The delay remains unexplained. Someone, somewhere, is holding this up—and the industry is counting the cost of that obstruction.