Trump DOJ & DEA in 2025: The New Marijuana Enforcement Reality

President Donald Trump’s second-term drug agenda is being felt in cannabis policy less through sweeping legalization moves and more through day-to-day enforcement signals from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The administration’s stated drug policy framework is centered on overdose deaths—particularly fentanyl—supply chain disruption, and border interdiction, rather than marijuana reform. That strategic focus shapes how federal agencies allocate resources and set priorities, and it has direct consequences for how cannabis is treated at the federal level.

Because fentanyl and trafficking dominate the agenda, marijuana is often treated as a secondary issue unless it intersects with federal jurisdiction, border enforcement, or organized crime concerns. This has produced a familiar “two-track” reality: state-legal cannabis markets continue to operate and expand, while federal agencies retain broad authority to intervene selectively. For operators and consumers, that duality creates ongoing uncertainty rather than clarity.

One of the clearest signals from DOJ in 2025 has come through the U.S. attorney system. In late 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Wyoming formally rescinded prior marijuana charging guidance. That move was widely interpreted as part of a broader DOJ posture emphasizing stricter enforcement discretion, including the potential for charges related to simple possession. The impact is most pronounced on federal land, where state legalization provides no protection. National parks, federal buildings, military installations, and other federally controlled spaces remain areas where marijuana enforcement can be swift and uncompromising.

The DEA’s role is less visible but equally influential. As the agency responsible for administering the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA controls marijuana’s federal scheduling status, which affects research access, medical use, criminal exposure, and taxation. In early 2025, the agency postponed hearings related to proposed marijuana rescheduling, underscoring how administrative processes can slow or stall reform even when political momentum exists. Appeals and procedural challenges have continued to keep the issue in limbo, frustrating advocates and industry leaders alike.

At the same time, President Trump has publicly signaled openness to limited reform. Reports in late 2025 indicated he was considering an executive order tied to reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III substance. Such a move would stop well short of federal legalization but could have major policy implications. Most notably, rescheduling could remove the application of IRS Section 280E, a tax provision that prevents cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary expenses, dramatically improving financial viability for compliant operators.

Taken together, DOJ enforcement discretion and DEA administrative control define the current federal cannabis landscape. State markets may continue to grow, but federal risks remain real—especially on federal property or in jurisdictions with aggressive prosecutors. Any progress through rescheduling would offer targeted relief rather than comprehensive reform, reinforcing a policy environment where cannabis remains legal in practice for many, but still illegal in principle under federal law.