Will marijuana be rescheduled?

Expiration: January 20, 2029 Updated: April 23, 2026 Politics Trump

Short Answer

Both the model and the market expect marijuana to be rescheduled from Schedule I before Jan 20, 2029, with no compelling evidence of mispricing.

1. Executive Verdict

DEA's ongoing rescheduling process garners significant public support.
Congressional Republicans are actively legislating to block federal rescheduling.
Anti-legalization groups are expected to legally challenge the DEA's decision.
Future Attorney General candidates may oppose further marijuana liberalization.

Who Wins and Why

Outcome	Market	Model	Why
Before July 2026	46.0%	40.0%	DEA's ongoing rescheduling process faces strong, active legislative opposition from Republicans.
Before 2027	73.0%	66.7%	Legislative opposition from Republicans actively challenges the DEA's ongoing rescheduling process.
Before 2028	84.0%	79.4%	The DEA's ongoing rescheduling process is supported by public input, despite Republican legislative opposition.
Before Jan 20, 2029	88.0%	84.3%	Judicial deference typically supports agency decisions like the DEA's rescheduling, despite political hurdles.

2. Market Behavior & Price Dynamics

Historical Price (Probability)

Outcome probability

Date

This analysis reviews the price action for the prediction market "Will marijuana be rescheduled?". The market has an overall upward trend, starting at a 20.0% probability and currently trading at 38.0%. Over its history, the price has been volatile, trading within a wide range from a low of 9.0% to a high of 67.0%. The most significant price movement detected was a sharp 16.0 percentage point spike on April 22, 2026, which saw the probability jump from 19.0% to 35.0% in a single day. The specific catalyst for this abrupt re-pricing is not apparent from the provided context, but such a move typically corresponds to a major news event or a significant development perceived to increase the odds of rescheduling.

Trading volume appears to correlate with major price swings, suggesting trader conviction behind the movements. For instance, the volume on April 23, immediately following the spike, was substantially higher than in previous periods, indicating a surge in market activity and interest. The historical low of 9.0% may serve as a potential support level, while the peak of 67.0% has acted as a significant resistance point that the market has so far failed to surpass. Overall, the price chart indicates that while market sentiment has been inconsistent, the prevailing belief in the likelihood of marijuana rescheduling has grown over time. The current price of 38.0% suggests traders see a meaningful, but not yet probable, chance of the event occurring.

3. Significant Price Movements

Notable price changes detected in the chart, along with research into what caused each movement.

📈 April 22, 2026: 19.0pp spike

Price increased from 46.0% to 65.0%

Outcome: Before 2027

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

📉 April 19, 2026: 8.0pp drop

Price decreased from 53.0% to 45.0%

Outcome: Before 2027

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

4. Market Data

View on Kalshi →

Contract Snapshot

Here is a summary of the contract rules:

1. What exactly triggers a YES resolution The market resolves to YES if marijuana is legally rescheduled from Schedule I to a lower drug schedule, or its schedule is ended entirely, under the Controlled Substances Act before July 1, 2026. This requires the legal change to have taken actual effect, not just an announcement or published rule.

2. What triggers a NO resolution The market resolves to NO if marijuana is not legally rescheduled from Schedule I to a lower schedule by July 1, 2026. Rescheduling only specific cannabis derivatives or cannabinoids without reclassifying marijuana as a whole would also result in a NO resolution.

3. Key dates/deadlines The event must occur before July 1, 2026, for a YES resolution. The market closes early if the event occurs, or by June 30, 2026, at 11:59 PM EDT if the event does not happen.

4. Any special settlement conditions Resolution is based on the actual legal status of the schedules under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning a rule must have taken legal effect. Various public news outlets and the United States Congress are listed as accepted sources for verification. Trading is prohibited for individuals employed by source agencies or those holding material, non-public information.

Available Contracts

Market options and current pricing

Outcome bucket	Yes (price)	No (price)	Last trade probability
Before July 2026	$0.48	$0.54	46%
Before 2027	$0.74	$0.34	73%
Before 2028	$0.84	$0.17	84%
Before Jan 20, 2029	$0.87	$0.17	88%

Market Discussion

Traders in this market are actively debating the timeline for marijuana rescheduling, with probabilities indicating higher confidence in later deadlines. Those betting on "Yes" for earlier dates often cite political motivations, such as the Trump administration's desire for "easy wins," and a belief that current leadership might bypass typical legal obstacles. Conversely, "No" arguments highlight the extensive administrative and legal procedures involved, including rule issuance by the DEA, potential judicial challenges, and the market rule's clarification that mere announcements do not equate to legal rescheduling.

5. What Are the Key Legal Challenges to Marijuana Rescheduling?

Primary Argument Against Rescheduling	Lack of 'currently accepted medical use' under CSA ^{[^]}
Secondary Argument Against Rescheduling	Marijuana retains 'high potential for abuse' ^{[^]}
Historical Success Rate of Challenges	Largely unsuccessful, with courts deferring to DEA ^{[^]}

Anti-legalization groups will challenge the DEA's marijuana rescheduling based on CSA criteria. Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) is expected to contest the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) final rule on rescheduling marijuana in federal court, primarily arguing that whole-plant marijuana does not meet the Controlled Substances Act’s (CSA) criteria for Schedule III ^{[^]}. SAM specifically disputes the notion of "currently accepted medical use," differentiating it from the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) finding of "accepted medical use." They contend that the CSA's standard typically necessitates FDA approval, consistent dosage, and established efficacy and safety data, which they claim are currently absent for raw cannabis ^{[^]}. Furthermore, SAM plans to assert that marijuana retains a "high potential for abuse," a characteristic present even in Schedule III substances, suggesting that rescheduling does not fully address the concerns typically associated with its Schedule I classification ^{[^]}.

Legal challenges against DEA scheduling decisions have historically struggled to succeed. Historically, legal challenges against the DEA's scheduling decisions regarding marijuana have encountered significant obstacles, as courts have generally deferred to the agency's scientific and medical determinations ^{[^]}. Landmark cases such as Americans for Safe Access v. DEA (2013) and Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. Drug Enforcement Administration (1991) saw courts uphold the DEA's position, frequently citing the lack of "currently accepted medical use" as a crucial factor ^{[^]}. While the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did remand a petition for further explanation in Grinspoon v. Drug Enforcement Administration (1987), it stopped short of mandating rescheduling ^{[^]}. Over several decades, these legal attempts have consistently failed to compel the DEA to reschedule marijuana, thereby reinforcing the agency's interpretation that the "currently accepted medical use" criterion requires FDA approval ^{[^]}.

6. What are potential Attorney General candidates' stances on cannabis rescheduling?

Tom Cotton's Stance on Marijuana	Consistently opposed to marijuana liberalization, voting against medical marijuana and decriminalization initiatives ^{[^]}.
Mike Davis's Stance	No specific public statements or policy commitments found regarding DEA authority or cannabis rescheduling ^{[^]}.
Stephen Miller's Stance	No specific public statements or policy commitments found regarding DEA authority or cannabis rescheduling ^{[^]}.

Tom Cotton consistently opposed marijuana liberalization but lacks specific rescheduling comments. Senator Tom Cotton, a potential Attorney General candidate, has a public record reflecting strong opposition to the liberalization of marijuana laws. His voting history consistently demonstrates this stance, including a "NAY" vote in 2009 regarding allowing D.C. residents to use medical marijuana. He also cast "NO" votes in both 2015 and 2019 on establishing national medical marijuana policies, and a "NO" vote in 2019 on decriminalizing marijuana ^{[^]}. While these votes indicate a clear pattern against relaxing marijuana regulations, the available research does not contain specific public statements or policy commitments from Cotton directly addressing the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) authority or how he would approach the Biden administration's current cannabis rescheduling process as Attorney General.

Other potential Attorney General candidates have not specified positions on rescheduling. For other potential Attorney General candidates, such as Mike Davis and Stephen Miller, the provided web research results do not include any specific public statements or policy commitments. Therefore, no information is available within the given sources to detail their positions concerning the DEA's authority or the Biden administration's ongoing cannabis rescheduling process.

7. What Was Public Response to DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Proposal?

Total Public Comments	Over 30,000 submissions ^{[^]}
Support for Decriminalization	Nearly 70% of comments ^{[^]}
Medical Association Involvement	American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) submitted comments ^{[^]}

The public comment period for the DEA's proposed rescheduling of marijuana has generated substantial engagement, with over 30,000 submissions received thus far. Analysis reveals that nearly 70% of these comments advocate for federal marijuana decriminalization ^{[^]}. Among major medical associations, the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) has officially provided comments on the DEA's proposal ^{[^]}.

Past DEA scheduling decisions show similar stakeholder engagement patterns. This active participation aligns with engagement observed in previous controversial DEA scheduling decisions, such as the 2014 rescheduling of hydrocodone combination products. For that decision, the DEA received numerous comments from various stakeholders, including professional medical organizations, with a majority supporting the proposed stricter classification ^{[^]}. While specific submission volumes from all individual organizations are not detailed for either the current marijuana proposal or past cases, the consistent pattern indicates active involvement from professional medical bodies in such regulatory changes, often aligning with proposed actions when supported by clinical or public health rationales ^{[^]}.

8. Are Congressional Republicans Blocking Federal Marijuana Rescheduling Efforts?

House Appropriations Committee Action	Advanced FY26 CJS spending bill with language to block DEA marijuana rescheduling ^{[^]}
Senate GOP Amendment	GOP Senators filed an amendment to block marijuana rescheduling ^{[^]}
Past Congressional Actions	U.S. House rejected previous attempts to block rescheduling; Senate passed bill without anti-rescheduling provisions ^{[^]}

House and Senate Republicans are advancing riders to block DEA marijuana rescheduling. Legislative riders explicitly preventing the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from finalizing marijuana rescheduling by blocking funds are being advanced by House Republicans and proposed by Senate Republicans. The House Appropriations Committee, under Republican leadership, has successfully advanced its fiscal year 2026 (FY26) Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which incorporates specific language to prevent the DEA from utilizing funds for cannabis rescheduling ^{[^]}. This action demonstrates successful advancement of such a rider at the committee level, specifically targeting future appropriations. Additionally, members of the Senate Republican Conference have filed an amendment aimed at blocking the DEA from progressing with marijuana rescheduling ^{[^]}.

The ultimate success of these blocking provisions remains uncertain. While these measures are being pursued, the effectiveness of such blocking provisions is not guaranteed. The U.S. House has, in prior instances, passed legislation that rejected attempts to block rescheduling ^{[^]}. Furthermore, a bill protecting state medical marijuana laws, which was passed by the Senate and sent to the President, did not contain any anti-rescheduling provisions ^{[^]}.

Direct attribution of these riders to the House Freedom Caucus is not confirmed. Although the research does not directly link these specific riders to the House Freedom Caucus, the House Appropriations Committee's Republican leadership advanced the FY26 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies bill containing the blocking language ^{[^]}. The Freedom Caucus, a conservative legislative bloc, is recognized for its influence in appropriations debates and could potentially align with such policy riders given their broader agenda ^{[^]}.

9. How Long Does DEA Rescheduling Typically Take?

Median DEA Rescheduling Time	229.5 days (Derived from historical precedents) ^{[^]}
Shortest Rescheduling Duration (Hydrocodone)	176 days ^{[^]}
Longest Rescheduling Duration (Carisoprodol)	650 days ^{[^]}

The DEA follows a multi-stage process for rescheduling controlled substances. This structured approach begins with the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register to solicit public comments ^{[^]}. Following the public comment period, the proposed rule undergoes an inter-agency review process before the Drug Enforcement Administration issues a Final Rule ^{[^]}. This ensures public feedback and necessary regulatory adjustments are incorporated before implementing new scheduling classifications.

The median duration for DEA rescheduling rules is 229.5 days. This figure represents the time elapsed from the publication of an NPRM to the issuance of a Final Rule, based on historical instances of controlled substance rescheduling with similar public and political relevance. This median was derived from four specific cases: Hydrocodone Combination Products, which took 176 days (NPRM on February 27, 2014, Final Rule on August 22, 2014) ^{[^]}; Synthetic Dronabinol, taking 239 days (NPRM on November 5, 1998, Final Rule on July 2, 1999) ^{[^]}; Synthetic Cannabinoids, which was 220 days (NPRM on July 8, 2011, Final Rule on February 13, 2012) ^{[^]}; and Carisoprodol, with a duration of 650 days (NPRM on March 2, 2010, Final Rule on December 12, 2011) ^{[^]}.

10. What Could Change the Odds

Key Catalysts

Catalyst analysis unavailable.

Key Dates & Catalysts

Expiration: July 08, 2026
Closes: January 20, 2029

11. Decision-Flipping Events

Trigger: Catalyst analysis unavailable.

Get Real-Time Research Updates

Early Access →