The Daily Toke

April 13, 2026

# THC & POLITICS: Federal Rescheduling Stalls While States Push Forward

President Trump signed an executive order in December 2025 to federally reschedule marijuana, signaling what appeared to be a significant shift in federal drug policy. Yet four months later, the process has stalled. A Trump advisor recently told Marijuana Moment that someone is "holding up" the cannabis rescheduling effort, suggesting internal resistance or bureaucratic obstacles within the administration itself. The comment underscores a persistent tension: while Trump campaigned on rescheduling and took executive action to pursue it, the actual mechanics of moving cannabis from Schedule I remain complicated, and the political will to push it through appears weaker than initial announcements suggested. 💰 MONEY MOVES The delay matters enormously for the cannabis industry, which has been operating in legal limbo across states while federal prohibition technically remains intact—a contradiction that creates massive compliance costs, banking barriers, and tax disadvantages for legitimate businesses generating billions in tax revenue annually.

The rescheduling process itself has proven more complex than a simple executive order. Even with presidential support, moving marijuana requires navigating the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the broader regulatory apparatus built over 50 years of prohibition. An opinion piece in Cannabis Business Times warned in February 2026 that "the rescheduling of marijuana is not happening any time soon," reflecting the skepticism among industry observers who understand the depth of institutional resistance. The Dentons legal alert in March and subsequent reporting confirm that while the executive order exists on paper, translating it into actual Schedule II or III reclassification—with all the medical research, regulatory frameworks, and enforcement mechanisms that entails—remains a moving target with no clear timeline.

Meanwhile, states are moving faster than federal government. Pennsylvania's governor stepped up his legalization push in early April 2026, joining a growing number of states pursuing adult-use or medical cannabis frameworks entirely independent of federal action. This creates a peculiar legal landscape: cannabis is legal in numerous states for adults and patients, yet remains Schedule I federally, meaning interstate commerce is impossible, banking is complicated, and research remains constrained. 🚀 THIS IS COOL When federal rescheduling does happen—and the momentum suggests it eventually will—it will immediately unlock research pathways, reduce banking friction, and allow legitimate businesses to deduct ordinary business expenses on their taxes, which currently they cannot do. The immediate changes include research authorization and tax treatment; longer-term changes would involve potential descheduling, insurance coverage for medical cannabis, and the ability for state-legal businesses to operate without the federal sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.

The executive branch action also raises workplace questions. Legal analysis from Littler Mendelson showed that Trump's executive order on marijuana complicates employment law—employers across industries suddenly face unclear guidance on drug testing, workplace use policies, and liability. Some companies have already begun adjusting policies in anticipation of rescheduling, while others are waiting for clarity that may not come quickly. 🤔 THINK ABOUT IT We've spent 50 years enforcing a Schedule I classification that Nixon's own Shafer Commission in 1970 recommended against—and in that same period, zero people have died from cannabis overdose, while alcohol kills roughly 95,000 Americans annually and prescription opioids kill 16,000-plus. Yet one of those remains a beverage industry product, one remains a pharmaceutical backbone, and one sits locked in Schedule I, awaiting bureaucratic approval to change status.

The pattern is clear: executive action exists, political alignment exists at the top, but institutional momentum and perhaps quiet internal opposition are slowing the actual implementation. Pennsylvania and other states aren't waiting for Washington. By the time federal rescheduling finally clears the bureaucratic hurdles, state-level normalization will likely already be well-established across most of the country. The question becomes less "if" federal rescheduling happens and more "will federal action catch up to the states, or will states have already solved the problem on their own?"

April 13, 2026

Target is expanding its footprint in the hemp-derived THC beverage market, even as federal legislation looms to ban the products later this year. The Minnesota-based retailer has obtained licenses from state regulators to sell lower-potency hemp edibles—including THC drinks—at all 72 of its Target locations across Minnesota, up from a pilot program that involved just 10 stores last year. 💰 MONEY MOVES According to data from Minnesota's Office of Cannabis Management, Target now holds more lower-potency hemp edible licenses in the state than any other company. The new licenses, obtained on April 1, will remain valid for one year, allowing Target to sell beverages containing up to 10 milligrams of THC per container, well within Minnesota's regulatory framework that caps packages at 50 milligrams of THC total. The initial pilot launch included brands like Cann, Wynk, Indeed, and Surly—a diverse portfolio suggesting Target is treating this as a serious market segment rather than a novelty.

The timing reveals a calculated business decision. Congress passed and President Trump signed legislation that will recriminalize hemp-derived products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container, with enforcement set for November 2026. Despite bipartisan efforts in both chambers to delay the ban, leadership has not prioritized the delay. Yet Target is moving forward anyway, signaling confidence that either the legislation will face legal challenges, enforcement will be delayed, or the company sees enough runway in the next seven months to justify the expansion. 🚀 THIS IS COOL Consumer response has been measurable—a NuggMD poll found that 50.5 percent of respondents said they'd be more likely to shop at Target after learning about THC beverage sales, with over one-third specifically saying they'd visit stores that carry the products. This suggests Target identified a real demand signal and is capitalizing on it.

Meanwhile, federal health officials are fighting back against legal challenges to a different hemp initiative. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Director Mehmet Oz filed a brief asking a court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by anti-marijuana groups, including Smart Approaches to Marijuana, challenging a new Medicare coverage program that provides up to $500 annually in hemp-derived products—primarily CBD but including some THC—for eligible beneficiaries. The government's legal argument is straightforward: the plaintiffs lack standing. The brief notes that anti-cannabis advocacy organizations face no regulatory obligation from CMS and that the individual plaintiff, anti-marijuana lawyer David Evans, "opposes hemp products and will not use them." The filing argues that mere objection to a voluntary program does not constitute legal injury under Supreme Court precedent. This represents a notable shift in how the Trump administration is approaching cannabis policy compared to prior administrations.

State-level turbulence continues. A Texas judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of new state rules that would restrict access to hemp-derived products like smokable THCA flower, pausing what would have been one of the most aggressive state-level crackdowns on the hemp market. The ruling came amid active litigation from industry groups challenging the restrictions. Simultaneously, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed legislation allowing patients to use medical cannabis in hospices and other healthcare facilities, and the Hawaii Senate passed resolutions calling on Congress to federally legalize marijuana while supporting state efforts to expunge cannabis conviction records and improve banking access for cannabis businesses. These competing state actions—Texas moving to restrict while Oregon and Hawaii move to expand—illustrate the fractured regulatory landscape cannabis businesses currently navigate.

🤔 THINK ABOUT IT The hemp industry now faces a peculiar moment. Target's aggressive expansion suggests market participants believe the federal ban won't be enforced uniformly or will face legal resistance, yet the November timeline creates genuine uncertainty. Federal officials are defending hemp coverage in Medicare, positioning it as a therapeutic option alongside more traditional pharmacological interventions. Meanwhile, some states are aggressively restricting hemp while others are expanding medical access and pushing federal legalization. For consumers—particularly Medicare beneficiaries and veterans who rely on THC products for chronic pain and PTSD—the coming months will determine whether these products remain accessible or become restricted again, and whether major retailers like Target continue carrying them or retreat from the category.

April 13, 2026

Federal lawmakers are intensifying pressure to crack down on hemp-derived THC products, with Congress pushing restrictions that would reshape a $28 billion industry and send companies scrambling to adjust their business models. The push comes after months of pressure from state governments and the marijuana industry itself, which has lobbied hard for federal intervention to eliminate what many see as a regulatory loophole. Federal officials are specifically targeting the gap that allows hemp producers to sell intoxicating THC products—including delta-8, delta-10, and other cannabinoids—under the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp cultivation while supposedly limiting THC content to 0.3 percent. The Missouri Times reported that the federal government is looking to close this loophole entirely, and Reuters noted that the crackdown represents the next phase in an escalating federal and state battle over intoxicating hemp products.

💰 MONEY MOVES The potential congressional restrictions threaten to destabilize a rapidly growing market that has quietly become one of cannabis's most accessible segments. Companies across the hemp space are scrambling to prepare for possible bans, facing the prospect of inventory losses, supply chain disruptions, and the sudden obsolescence of business models built over the past few years. The industry has grown specifically because hemp-derived THC products offered a legal workaround in states where cannabis remains prohibited—allowing consumers to purchase intoxicating products in gas stations and convenience stores nationwide. A federal ban would eliminate that entire access point at once, potentially forcing consumers in non-legalized states back toward unregulated markets or toward nothing at all.

State governments have split on the issue in unexpected ways. Some states have pushed for federal restrictions, seeing the hemp market as an unregulated competitor that undercuts their licensed cannabis operations and tax revenue. South Carolina is considering state-level restrictions that could effectively end the industry within its borders, according to Greenville Online. But the coalition pushing for federal action is revealing: legal cannabis operators want the competition gone, and they've successfully mobilized lawmakers to address it. 🤔 THINK ABOUT IT The irony is sharp—the legal cannabis industry is calling for federal intervention to ban a federally legal product, because that product is outcompeting their own operations in open markets.

Cannabis & Tech Today reported that a federal THC crackdown could restore what the industry calls "order and pricing power," meaning that eliminating hemp-derived alternatives would allow licensed cannabis operations to raise prices without competition. That's not accidental language—it's explicit acknowledgment that the hemp market has been undercutting licensed cannabis by offering cheaper, more accessible products. The economics are straightforward: if you remove a product category entirely, suppliers of competing products can adjust pricing upward. For consumers currently using hemp-derived products because they're affordable and available in their state, a federal ban means either higher costs, reduced access, or both.

Veterans and chronic pain patients represent a significant portion of hemp-derived THC users, particularly in states where cannabis remains illegal. These populations have limited alternatives if hemp products disappear—they face the choice between seeking illegal market products, relocating, or managing their conditions without access to the cannabinoid treatments they've found effective. The ban would not expand access to legal cannabis in non-legalized states; it would simply remove one of the few legal options currently available. Federal lawmakers have not proposed concurrent legalization or expanded medical access programs as alternatives, meaning the crackdown would create a coverage gap rather than redirect patients toward regulated sources.

The timeline remains unclear, but momentum is building. If Congress moves forward with restrictions, the hemp industry will face the fastest transition from legal to banned products in recent cannabis history—faster than the 2018 Farm Bill legalization itself. Companies currently operating legally would have to pivot or close, and a product category that emerged specifically to serve consumers in prohibition-heavy states would simply disappear from the legal market. 🤔 THINK ABOUT IT The federal government is moving faster to ban a zero-overdose product than it has ever moved to restrict alcohol, which kills 95,000 Americans per year, or prescription opioids, which kill over 16,000 annually. The contrast between urgency and actual public health threat is worth sitting with.

April 13, 2026

Scientists and clinicians are confronting an uncomfortable gap between marijuana's widespread medical use and the evidence supporting it. Recent comprehensive reviews have found little robust data backing cannabis for most conditions, even as millions of patients and two new studies suggest real benefits for back pain. The disconnect reflects a decades-old research bottleneck: THC and CBD remain Schedule I controlled substances federally, making large-scale clinical trials expensive, slow, and difficult to fund—a regulatory catch-22 that leaves patients, doctors, and researchers operating partly in the dark.

The NPR-reported back pain studies offer a rare bright spot. Two separate trials found cannabis significantly reduced chronic back pain in patients, marking some of the clearest positive evidence yet for a specific condition. 🚀 THIS IS COOL These findings represent exactly the kind of rigorous clinical validation that the field needs, and they've motivated researchers at institutions like UCHealth to expand clinical trial programs aimed at sorting which cannabis applications actually work and which are placebo or wishful thinking. Yet the New York Times review and Newswise reporting on evidence gaps suggest these back pain wins are exceptions rather than the rule—most other proposed medical uses still lack sufficient clinical backing.

The real issue isn't whether cannabis *can* help patients. It's that federal prohibition has strangled the research pipeline for fifty years. 💰 MONEY MOVES Pharmaceutical companies and research institutions can't easily secure federal funding, institutional review board approval, or consistent supply chains for cannabis studies the way they can for FDA-approved drugs. Universities and private research groups have to navigate a maze of DEA paperwork just to run basic trials. Meanwhile, patients seeking cannabis for PTSD, nausea, anxiety, or pain have to rely on anecdotal evidence, state-level programs with minimal oversight, and the lived experience of communities like veterans—who often turn to legal THC products when prescription alternatives fail or carry their own risks. The Schedule I classification remains unchanged since Nixon's 1970 Controlled Substances Act, despite his own Shafer Commission recommending decriminalization over five decades ago.

🤔 THINK ABOUT IT If the scientific standard for medical approval requires large, well-funded clinical trials, but federal law makes those trials nearly impossible to run, how do we actually answer whether cannabis is medicine? Researchers and patients alike are caught in a loop: we can't generate the evidence without research access, and we can't get research access without stronger evidence that it's worth studying. The back pain trials show what's possible when resources align. The evidence gaps show what's lost when they don't.

The path forward likely requires federal rescheduling or at minimum research-specific exemptions that let scientists work without the current bureaucratic friction. Some states have moved faster than the feds, running their own cannabis research programs and monitoring real-world outcomes. But until federal policy catches up with state-level reality and scientific curiosity, the gap between what patients report and what clinical trials can prove will remain a defining tension in cannabis medicine. The question isn't really whether marijuana works. It's whether we'll ever have enough research to know for sure.

April 13, 2026

A Texas judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of new state rules that would restrict access to hemp-derived products including smokable THCA flower, marking the latest legal challenge to state-level crackdowns on the booming hemp market. The temporary restraining order pauses what would have been a significant tightening of regulations in the nation's second-largest state, even as federal legislation signed by President Trump moves toward recriminalizing hemp products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC per container—a ban scheduled to take effect in November.

The Texas decision comes amid a broader pattern of legal and regulatory turbulence surrounding hemp products. 💰 MONEY MOVES Target, the major Minnesota-based retailer, just expanded its footprint in the hemp-derived THC beverage market by securing 72 new licenses from Minnesota regulators to sell lower-potency hemp edibles across all of its stores in the state. Target now holds more lower-potency hemp edible licenses in Minnesota than any other company, a dramatic expansion from its pilot program at just 10 stores last year. The move is notable precisely because it's happening in direct defiance of the clock—Target is expanding retail hemp operations even though Congress has already passed legislation that will effectively ban these products nationwide in months.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is simultaneously doubling down on hemp access through a different pathway: the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced a program covering up to $500 worth of hemp-derived products annually for eligible Medicare patients, focusing largely on CBD but also allowing certain THC quantities. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Director Mehmet Oz are actively defending this policy in court against anti-cannabis advocacy groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which filed suit to block the program. Federal lawyers argued in a brief Thursday that the plaintiffs lack legal standing because they haven't actually been harmed—the program is voluntary for providers and patients alike. As the brief noted pointedly: the complainants' alleged injury "is that he might be offered a product he will decline. That is not an Article III injury. It is an offense to his sensibilities."

🚀 THIS IS COOL The Medicare hemp coverage initiative represents a genuine recognition that cannabis-derived compounds have therapeutic applications—particularly for seniors managing pain, anxiety, and other chronic conditions without the overdose risks associated with prescription opioids. 🤔 THINK ABOUT IT The federal government is simultaneously moving to criminalize hemp while also creating pathways for vulnerable populations to access it through Medicare, which suggests the policy conversation is fracturing along practical versus ideological lines.

The contradictions are sharp: Target is betting that hemp beverages will remain on shelves and consumer palates through November; state judges are blocking restrictions on hemp access; and the federal administration is creating new coverage pathways even as Congress legislates a ban. What emerges is a snapshot of an industry and regulatory framework in genuine flux, where major corporations, federal agencies, state courts, and Congress are all operating from different playbooks simultaneously. Whether this represents a transition period before the federal ban takes full effect, or the beginning of yet another reversal in cannabis policy, remains to be seen—but the market clearly isn't waiting for clarity.