Federal Marijuana Enforcement Just Turned a 180

 

On July 4, President Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1)” into law. Buried amid the tax and spending headlines is a structural change that matters enormously for cannabis: Congress created a multi-year Department of Justice appropriation that sits outside the annual Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) bill that traditionally carries the medical-marijuana appropriations rider. In plain English, the dollars H.R. 1 gives DOJ are not fenced in by the medical-marijuana “no-funding” limit tied to CJS. The enrolled text makes it explicit: §100054 appropriates $3.33 billion through Sept. 30, 2029 for hiring immigration judges, “combating drug trafficking (including fentanyl and precursor chemicals),” and investigating and prosecuting immigration matters. That is rider-free money available nationwide.

How we got here

The medical side of the cannabis industry has leaned for nearly a decade on a single sentence Congress tucked into DOJ’s annual spending bills—often called the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer rider—prohibiting the Department from using that act’s funds to interfere with state medical-marijuana programs. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. McIntosh gave that sentence bite, holding that DOJ could not spend covered appropriations to prosecute fully state-compliant medical operators. But the protection was always narrow and temporary: it only constrained “funds made available in this Act,” and it had to be renewed each fiscal year. H.R. 1 didn’t repeal the rider; it routed around it by giving DOJ a separate pot of money with no rider attached.

 

The new money—and why it changes enforcement risk

 

Section 100054 of H.R. 1 is crystal clear about purposes and the time horizon. It funds drug-trafficking enforcement and immigration prosecutions through 2029, and it lives in H.R. 1’s appropriations, not in CJS. Appropriations law does the rest: the rider binds only the funds in the act where it appears. Where Congress appropriates elsewhere—and does not carry the rider—the shield doesn’t follow. That is why, for the first time in years, federal prosecutors have a rider-free stream large enough to matter.

 

Signals from Main Justice, DEA, and the FBI

 

The Department of Justice has spotlighted drug enforcement wins throughout 2025, with Attorney General Pam Bondi emphasizing DEA’s fentanyl operations and broader enforcement tempo. That drumbeat has continued even as the marijuana rescheduling process idled. Meanwhile, DEA formally postponed its rescheduling hearing on January 15, 2025, and has yet to reset a merits calendar. The combined message is hard to miss: the rulemaking lane is idling; the enforcement lane is accelerating.

 

On the White House side, there is no signed policy that legalizes marijuana. In fact, a March White House fact sheet knocked D.C.’s decriminalization as part of a “failed” public-safety approach—an unmistakable cue about the administration’s posture. Yet today’s reporting says the President is considering reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III after donor pressure at a high-dollar fundraiser. That is a political signal, not law. Until a final rule posts in the Federal Register, marijuana remains Schedule I.

 

A concrete example: the Glass House raids

 

If you want to see how a DOJ with fresh, rider-free funding might operate, look at California. On July 10, ICE/HSI and partners executed sweeping raids tied to facilities associated with Glass House on the Central Coast. The operation focused on immigration and labor allegations—not the niceties of state marijuana compliance—with hundreds detained and one fatality reported. Glass House disputes key DHS claims and says only a handful of its own employees were detained, but the lesson for the industry is the same: federal badges moved quickly and publicly around cannabis-adjacent conduct. That’s a different tone than the “hands-off if you’re state-compliant” era the rider once encouraged.

 

Does H.R. 1 change the Controlled Substances Act?

 

No. The CSA still makes marijuana illegal under federal law. DOJ kicked off a Schedule-III rulemaking in May 2024, but the administrative hearing was postponed, and there’s no final rule. As of today, Schedule I still applies. Banks, insurers, landlords, and public companies will interpret H.R. 1’s new DOJ funding as incrementally higher federal risk for state-compliant medical operators—especially outside the Ninth Circuit, where McIntosh guided practice.

 

Texas: Hemp is on firm ground—by law and by politics

 

Hemp is a different story. The 2018 Farm Bill carved hemp out of the CSA if delta-9 THC stays at or below 0.3% dry weight and protected interstate commerce in compliant hemp. Texas followed with HB 1325 (2019), authorizing production and retail sale of consumable hemp products within that federal definition. Those foundations still stand. That is precisely why Governor Greg Abbott vetoed SB 3 on June 22 and immediately called lawmakers back to regulate rather than ban; his veto proclamation even cited a June 20 Travis County lawsuit as proof a ban would be enjoined on day one. The Texas Tribune and others captured the shift: regulation yes, prohibition no.

 

And credit where it’s due. The Texas hemp community kept the lights on during the political storm—from policy advocates like Heather Fazio and litigants like Bret Worley whose legal strategy the Governor explicitly anticipated in his veto analysis. However you apportion it,those efforts are why hemp remains legal in Texas while the medical-marijuana risk profile worsens nationally.

Reasons to believe enforcement has changed direction

First, Congress re-wired DOJ money. H.R. 1’s §100054 pours billions into DOJ for drug-trafficking and immigration cases through 2029, outside the CJS bill that carries the rider. That’s a durable shift.

 

Second, the federal posture is visible on the ground. The Glass House operation unfolded in days and centered on non-CSA authorities, a reminder that marijuana’s federal illegality lets other statutes do the work.

 

Third, DOJ and DEA signals favor enforcement over reform. DOJ touts drug cases; DEA’s rescheduling hearing is postponed without a reset. Momentum is on the enforcement side.

 

Fourth, the White House is sending mixed but not dispositive signals. A March fact sheet blasted local decriminalization; reporting in WSJ last week says the President is weighing Schedule III. Until a rule is final, none of that changes the CSA.

 

Bottom line for operators

 

If you run a medical-marijuana business, you have more federal exposure today than you did on July 3. The rider may still appear in a future CJS bill, but H.R. 1’s DOJ stream isn’t fenced by it, and prosecutors can spend those dollars anywhere, subject to ordinary priorities. If you run a hemp business and stay within federal limits, your footing is far more stable—federally and in Texas—though real regulation is coming, as it should.