Trump Administration Creates Conflicting Drug Policies: Looser Rules for Cannabis and Psychedelics, but Tougher Enforcement on Fentanyl and Cuts to Harm Reduction

Introduction

On April 18, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an order to speed up approval for psychedelic drugs. This followed a December 2024 order to reclassify cannabis to a less strict category (Schedule III). These are the biggest changes to federal drug rules since the war on drugs began in 1971. At the same time, the administration has increased enforcement against fentanyl, called it a weapon of mass destruction, and cut funding for harm reduction programs and addiction treatment.

Main Body

In December 2024, an executive order instructed the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to finish moving medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, a change that was later put into effect. The April 2025 order for psychedelics, specifically drugs like psilocybin and LSD derivatives, included three special vouchers from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that shorten the review time from months to weeks. Companies studying psilocybin for depression and methylone for PTSD received these vouchers. The stock price of Compass Pathways, a synthetic psilocybin maker, rose by 42 percent after the announcement. These actions are different from past administrations: Jimmy Carter's attempt to decriminalize in 1977 was blocked by Congress; Barack Obama's memos reduced federal enforcement but did not reclassify cannabis; and Joe Biden's reclassification effort stalled in legal challenges before he left office. The reclassification of medical marijuana only applies to FDA-approved products and state-licensed medical marijuana businesses, not recreational cannabis. This change has major implications for research, especially in Colorado, where medical marijuana has been legal since 2001. Shannon Donnelly, a professor at Metropolitan State University of Denver, noted that the federal government had previously limited researchers to a single federally licensed source for cannabis. Under the new rules, state-licensed medical marijuana growers in Colorado can supply research-grade cannabis directly to scientists. This expanded access allows investigation into specific cannabinoids and terpenes for conditions such as anxiety, insomnia, and cancer. The Institute of Cannabis Research, a state-funded organization, can now pursue a wider range of studies. Donnelly stated that the reclassification effectively signals federal recognition of medical claims made by consumers. At the same time, the administration has pursued a very different set of policies. In July 2025, an executive order banned federal grants for harm reduction programs, including syringe services and naloxone distribution. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) lost about half its staff, and the team that conducts the National Survey on Drug Use and Health was eliminated. The Department of Health and Human Services cut roughly $2 billion in SAMHSA grants before reversing course after opposition from both parties. Illicit fentanyl was designated as a Weapon of Mass Destruction, which brought military and intelligence agencies into enforcement. The HALT Fentanyl Act imposed 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for possessing 100 grams or more. Military strikes were authorized on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Overdose deaths had been declining—87,000 in the 12 months ending September 2024—a trend that started before these cuts and reflects earlier public health investments. Different views on this policy contradiction were expressed. Jeffrey Singer, a physician and drug-policy analyst, stated that while the reclassification and psychedelics orders represent real progress, the administration is also intensifying the war on drugs, including targeting traffickers at sea. He noted that from a libertarian viewpoint, the government should not fund harm reduction but should not block private efforts either. Maritza Perez Medina of the Drug Policy Alliance argued that the contradiction is intentional, saying the administration uses fentanyl as an excuse for military escalation while cutting access to lifesaving care. Kevin Sabet of Smart Approaches to Marijuana criticized the permissiveness, stating that policy is being influenced by podcasters and active addicts. Dimitri Mugianis and Ross Ellenhorn of Cardea warned that the administration's tax and spending plans would cut over $1 trillion from Medicaid and food assistance, undermining recovery resources. The selective nature of the policy is historically notable. No president since Richard Nixon has moved so far to make controlled substances accessible, yet the administration has also adopted the most militarized enforcement posture in modern history. Singer noted that previous federal retreats, such as Carter's decriminalization attempt and Obama's Ogden memo, were limited compared to formal reclassification. The political calculation seems to reflect public opinion: support for marijuana legalization has risen from 23 percent in 1985 to 64 percent currently, according to Gallup. Psychedelics are associated with treating PTSD and are viewed favorably. Singer pointed out that many drugs classified as 'hard' are already used medically, and that prohibition often leads to more dangerous black-market products. Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, argued that legalization would not dramatically increase use but would make use safer through regulation. The future direction remains uncertain. If the DEA finalizes the Schedule III rule and the FDA approves at least one psychedelic by late 2027, the administration will have opened a door that predecessors only discussed. However, the window appears limited to politically popular substances. Miron emphasized that execution matters more than rhetoric, and that Trump's orders were directives rather than requests for review. The real test is whether cannabis and psychedelics become a proof of concept for broader reform, or remain a narrow exception.

Conclusion

The current drug policy under the Trump administration is a mix of permissiveness for cannabis and psychedelics and military-style enforcement for fentanyl, along with cuts to harm reduction and addiction treatment. While the reclassification of medical marijuana has opened new research opportunities in states like Colorado, the simultaneous reduction of public health programs and increase in enforcement creates a contradictory situation. The long-term effects will depend on future regulatory decisions and whether this selective approach leads to broader reform or stays limited to substances with public support.

Vocabulary Learning

decriminalize (v.)
make something no longer illegal / to remove criminal penalties for an action非刑事化;合法化(但非完全合法)
Example:Jimmy Carter's attempt to decriminalize in 1977 was blocked by Congress.
enforcement (n.)
the act of making sure laws are obeyed / implementation of rules執行;實施(法律)
Example:The administration has increased enforcement against fentanyl.
mandatory (adj.)
required by law or rule / compulsory強制性的;必須的
Example:The HALT Fentanyl Act imposed 10-year mandatory minimum sentences.
psychedelic (adj.)
relating to drugs that affect perception and mood / describing substances that alter mental state迷幻的;致幻的
Example:In April 2025, Trump signed an order to speed up approval for psychedelic drugs.
reclassify (v.)
change the classification of / to put something into a different category重新分類;重新歸類
Example:The December 2024 order aimed to reclassify cannabis to a less strict category.

Sentence Learning

The April 2025 order for psychedelics, specifically drugs like psilocybin and LSD derivatives, included three special vouchers from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that shorten the review time from months to weeks.
Relative clause with 'that' The clause 'that shorten the review time' defines the vouchers, specifying their function. It helps organize the idea by adding essential information about the vouchers without starting a new sentence.關係從句 'that' 從句 'that shorten the review time' 定義了這些憑證,說明了它們的功能。這有助於組織想法,在無需另起新句的情況下添加關於憑證的關鍵信息。
Illicit fentanyl was designated as a Weapon of Mass Destruction, which brought military and intelligence agencies into enforcement.
Passive voice + non-defining relative clause 'was designated' is passive, focusing on the action rather than the doer. The clause 'which brought...' adds extra information about the result, using a comma to separate it.被動語態 + 非限制性關係從句 'was designated' 是被動語態,強調動作而非施動者。從句 'which brought...' 添加關於結果的額外信息,並用逗號分隔。
Overdose deaths had been declining—87,000 in the 12 months ending September 2024—a trend that started before these cuts and reflects earlier public health investments.
Relative clause with 'that' and parenthetical dash The clause 'that started...' defines 'a trend', linking the decline to previous investments. The dashes set off a specific statistic, making the sentence clearer.關係從句 'that' 及破折號插入語 從句 'that started...' 定義了 'a trend',將下降與先前的投資聯繫起來。破折號分隔出具體統計數字,使句子更清晰。
While the reclassification of medical marijuana has opened new research opportunities in states like Colorado, the simultaneous reduction of public health programs and increase in enforcement creates a contradictory situation.
Linking word 'While' for contrast 'While' introduces a contrasting idea: the positive reclassification versus the negative cuts. This structure clearly shows the contradiction between two policies.連接詞 'While' 表示對比 'While' 引入一個對比觀點:正面的重新分類與負面的削減。這種結構清楚顯示了兩項政策之間的矛盾。
No president since Richard Nixon has moved so far to make controlled substances accessible, yet the administration has also adopted the most militarized enforcement posture in modern history.
Linking word 'yet' for contrast 'Yet' connects two opposing facts: unprecedented permissiveness and extreme enforcement. It highlights the irony and contradiction in the policy.連接詞 'yet' 表示對比 'Yet' 連接兩個相反的事實:前所未有的寬容與極端的執法。它突出了政策中的諷刺和矛盾。