Senate Democrats Press DEA Nominee Terry Cole on Cannabis Rescheduling, But Clear Answers Remain Elusive

Trump’s DEA Pick Offers Vague Commitment as Senate Democrats Seek Clarity on Cannabis Reform and Drug Policy Direction

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Terry Cole, has stopped short of committing to a definitive stance on federal cannabis rescheduling in his responses to two Democratic U.S. senators following his April 30 nomination hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As the cannabis industry and reform advocates await the final outcome of a long-anticipated rescheduling review initiated by the Biden administration, Cole’s position could be pivotal. Yet, in his written responses submitted this week, Cole reiterated a neutral position, stating only that he would offer “careful consideration” to the matter if confirmed.

Cole’s nomination comes during a high-stakes moment in federal cannabis policy, as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the DEA deliberate whether to finalize a proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—a shift that would recognize the drug’s medical use and reduce regulatory burdens on cannabis research and business operations.

Terry Cole Echoes Non-Committal Position in Follow-Up to Senate Hearing

During his April 30 confirmation hearing, Cole acknowledged that he did not yet fully understand the current status of the cannabis rescheduling process. He indicated a need to further explore the issue before taking a definitive stance.

In response, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) submitted detailed written questions for the record (QFR) to clarify Cole’s understanding of the rescheduling process and to prompt a clearer articulation of his policy direction. Booker outlined the timeline of the reform effort, starting with the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) August 2023 recommendation to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III. That recommendation was grounded in medical and scientific evaluations, which concluded cannabis has currently accepted medical use in the United States.

In May 2024, the DOJ proposed a rule aligning with that recommendation—a proposal still pending finalization. But delays continue, in part due to an interlocutory appeal granted by DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney. The appeal stemmed from allegations of ex parte communications between the DEA and participants opposed to the rescheduling initiative, which paused the process until the new DEA administrator sets a briefing schedule.

Despite Booker’s detailed framing of the issue, Cole repeated a cautious and broad response: that, if confirmed, he would consult with DEA personnel, assess the regulatory landscape, and follow DOJ policies in his decision-making. He stopped short of directly endorsing the HHS recommendation or clarifying whether he believed cannabis should be rescheduled at all.

Longtime DEA Veteran Cites Need for Familiarization With Reform Process

Cole, a 22-year veteran of the DEA, has previously expressed views reflective of a traditional anti-drug stance. In 2024, he indicated support for Nancy Reagan’s 1980s “Just Say No” campaign—a cornerstone of the U.S. war on drugs, which has long been criticized for its punitive approach to drug use, particularly cannabis.

During his confirmation process, Cole has shown no indication of breaking with those historical attitudes. Instead, his responses reflect a deep hesitancy to signal any commitment to reform, even as the broader legal and political landscape shifts toward more lenient cannabis policies.

Booker specifically asked Cole to affirm whether drug scheduling decisions should be based on scientific factors like a substance’s potential for abuse and accepted medical use. Cole did not provide any elaboration and referred back to his earlier answer, indicating again that he needs to “familiarize” himself with the current regulatory status.

Sen. Alex Padilla Presses Cole on Scientific Criteria for Cannabis Scheduling

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), another member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also sought greater clarity on Cole’s position. During the April 30 hearing, Padilla asked if Cole was committed to seeing the proposed Schedule III rule through to “fruition.” Padilla followed up with written questions asking Cole to specify whether he believes marijuana has currently accepted medical use in the U.S.—a central legal threshold in determining whether a substance can be classified as Schedule I under the CSA.

Padilla stressed that the role of DEA administrator would be “critical” in aligning DEA enforcement priorities with an evolving federal legal framework for cannabis. He also asked Cole what criteria the DEA should consider when evaluating medical and scientific evidence during the scheduling process.

As with Booker, Cole gave Padilla the same vague response. He declined to provide any personal judgment on whether cannabis has accepted medical use, nor did he suggest what weight the DEA should assign to existing scientific data, including HHS’s review. Instead, Cole once again emphasized his intention to consult internal personnel, review the record, and follow DOJ policy.

Cannabis Remains in Legal Limbo as Regulatory Uncertainty Persists

The lack of clarity from Cole comes at a time when the cannabis industry is seeking certainty. The current Schedule I classification of cannabis—a designation shared with heroin and LSD—continues to impose significant legal, financial, and research restrictions on cannabis-related businesses and medical institutions.

Moving cannabis to Schedule III would not legalize it federally but would represent a major shift. It would acknowledge accepted medical use, allow broader access to federal research, and remove certain tax barriers under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E.

However, critics argue that Schedule III does not go far enough. Many reform advocates, including some Democratic lawmakers, argue that descheduling cannabis entirely—or legalizing it federally—is necessary to align federal law with state-level legalization and to address the disproportionate harms of cannabis prohibition, especially in communities of color.

Cole’s appointment, if confirmed, may therefore shape the trajectory of federal cannabis policy, but his cautious and opaque responses suggest he is unwilling to stake out a position on an issue with growing political, economic, and medical significance.

Rescheduling Timeline Now Awaits DEA Leadership Decision

For now, the regulatory process remains stalled. The interlocutory appeal filed by Judge Mulrooney—based on alleged inappropriate communication between the DEA and anti-rescheduling stakeholders—requires the next DEA administrator to determine the procedural path forward, including setting a schedule for legal briefings and next steps.

In that context, Cole’s reluctance to offer any policy guidance raises concerns among reform advocates that the DEA could delay or dilute the proposed changes. With cannabis rescheduling potentially hinging on Cole’s approach to the issue, his responses thus far offer little insight into how quickly or robustly the DEA may act if he assumes office.

Policy Direction on Cannabis Still Hangs in the Balance

The Senate confirmation process for Terry Cole is likely to remain under scrutiny from lawmakers, industry stakeholders, and the public, as the Biden-era cannabis reform enters its most consequential phase.

Though President Trump has shown limited interest in cannabis reform in the past, Cole’s nomination represents a key decision point for how the federal government will treat cannabis in the coming years.

As the rescheduling proposal remains in bureaucratic limbo, Cole’s unwillingness to commit to a clear stance suggests the DEA’s approach to cannabis under his leadership could either maintain the status quo or proceed cautiously if at all toward change.