Why a Trump Executive Order on Marijuana Rescheduling Would Withstand Legal Scrutiny

OG article by Anthony Martinelli

December 18, 2025

President Trump is anticipated to sign an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to finalize the federal rescheduling of marijuana, raising questions about its legal validity. Legally, this method is robust and rooted in current laws and administrative norms.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, the attorney general, through the Drug Enforcement Administration, holds power to classify, declassify, or transfer substances among schedules. This is an administrative function, not a legislative one. The president may not alter the law directly but can guide executive departments to expedite or finish actions permitted by statute. An order directing the DOJ to complete rescheduling aligns precisely with this scope.

This step would continue an ongoing process started in the previous administration, advancing through various stages. Such an order to Attorney General Pam Bondi would represent ongoing executive efforts, not evasion of rules. Courts typically show deference to administrations finishing or adjusting regulatory steps initiated by prior ones.

Legality worries often stem from the false idea that executive rescheduling skips Congress. In truth, Congress granted this power via the Controlled Substances Act, a delegation affirmed by courts in cases with sensitive substances. Provided the agency adheres to protocols like notification, rationale, and scientific backing, it is protected from challenges.

From administrative law, pushing to finish a pending rule might lower lawsuit chances. Dropping it could trigger Administrative Procedure Act claims, especially with evidence favoring rescheduling. Proceeding matches the record.

Detractors claim Congress should handle it, but that's a policy view, not legal. Congress built this framework, and presidents across parties have influenced scheduling via executive means. Thus, Trump's order to finalize rescheduling is authorized, not excessive.

Handled properly, it would implement swiftly and survive court scrutiny, offering clarity within precedents.