Could marijuana soon shed its notorious label as a top-tier dangerous drug under a Trump-led policy shift? That’s the buzz coming out of a recent high-stakes fundraiser, where former President Donald Trump reportedly floated the idea of reclassifying this controversial substance.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, Trump is considering moving marijuana from its current Schedule I status—reserved for drugs deemed highly dangerous with no medical use—to the less restrictive Schedule III category.
That change was previously proposed but not implemented by the Biden administration and could transform the legal landscape for the multibillion-dollar cannabis industry.
Let’s rewind to earlier this month at Trump’s New Jersey golf club, where a $1 million-a-plate fundraiser drew big names and bold ideas. Unnamed sources familiar with the event revealed that Trump expressed genuine interest in this reclassification. It’s a setting where policy meets privilege, and apparently, pot got a seat at the table.
Among the attendees was Kim Rivers, CEO of Trulieve, a heavyweight in the marijuana business. Rivers reportedly urged Trump to push forward with the reclassification and to boost medical marijuana research. Here’s a business leader not just asking for a handout, but for a hand in reshaping a stigmatized industry.
If marijuana moves to Schedule III, the implications are massive. Buying and selling would become far easier, potentially turning legal cannabis into an even bigger cash cow.
But let’s not ignore the cultural clash—while some cheer the economic boost, others worry about normalizing a drug still seen as a societal risk.
Trump’s interest in marijuana policy isn’t entirely new, though the context has shifted. Back in 2018, during his first term, he was approached by two Soviet-born Republican donors, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, with their own cannabis ambitions. Their pitch? Help us sell in states where recreational use is legal.
Parnas and Fruman didn’t stop at business proposals; they secretly recorded a dinner conversation with Trump that year.
In it, Trump remarked that marijuana “does cause an IQ problem; you lose IQ points.” Well, there’s a soundbite that cuts through the haze—straight from the man himself, questioning the drug’s safety even as he’s now considering easing restrictions.
That same 2018 chat took a bizarre turn when Parnas claimed the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was badmouthing Trump, saying, “telling everybody, 'Wait, he's gonna get impeached.'”
That’s a wild accusation with zero evidence, tossed into a dinner discussion about weed, no less. It’s the kind of political mudslinging that distracts from the real policy debate.
Parnas and Fruman’s story doesn’t end at the dinner table. They later teamed up with Rudy Giuliani to dig for dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine. Their actions paint a picture of political operatives using marijuana business dreams as a stepping stone for broader influence.
The duo’s ambitions came crashing down when they were indicted and convicted of campaign finance violations. They funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Russian oligarch into Republican campaigns, including Trump’s, allegedly to secure favors for their planned legal marijuana venture.
Now, circling back to Trump’s recent musings at the fundraiser, the reclassification idea isn’t just about economics—it’s a cultural lightning rod.
For conservatives, it’s a chance to champion free-market growth while wrestling with traditional values that frown on drug use. The progressive agenda often pushes for full legalization, but isn’t there a middle ground worth exploring?
Schedule III status wouldn’t mean a free-for-all; it would still regulate marijuana, just with less severity. Think of it as acknowledging medical potential without handing out joints at the corner store. That’s a balance many on the right could stomach, even if it means holding their noses.
The presence of industry leaders like Kim Rivers at Trump’s event signals that the legal cannabis sector sees a friend in him, or at least a potential ally. Her push for research alongside reclassification suggests a desire to legitimize the industry through science, not just profit. It’s a smart play—appeal to data over dogma.
Yet, Trump’s own past words about IQ loss linger in the background. They hint at a personal skepticism that could temper any policy shift. Will he lean into the economic argument or stick to caution rooted in old-school concerns?