President Trump’s Cannabis Rescheduling Order: Implications for employment law and workplace practice

On December 18, President Trump issued an Administrative Order directing the Attorney General to complete the rulemaking process to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Although the Order focuses primarily on expanding medical marijuana and cannabidiol research, its language—and the federal findings it endorses—have potentially significant implications for employment law and workplace practices across the United States.

The Order does not legalize marijuana under federal law or mandate changes to employer drug policies. However, it represents a meaningful shift in how the federal government formally characterizes marijuana. That shift is likely to influence litigation, agency enforcement priorities, accommodation requests, and employer decision-making in the years ahead.

A federal acknowledgment of accepted medical use

The Order adopts and relies upon key determinations by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse that marijuana has a “currently accepted medical use” and a lower potential for abuse than Schedule I substances. These findings are supported by the following:

• Authorization of more than 30,000 licensed health care practitioners across 43 jurisdictions to recommend medical marijuana.
• Registration of more than 6 million patients using marijuana to treat at least 15 medical conditions.
• Findings by the FDA of credible scientific support for the use of marijuana in treating pain, anorexia related to medical conditions, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

From an employment law perspective, this formal recognition is noteworthy. Courts, arbitrators, and administrative agencies often look to federal classifications when assessing whether employer policies are reasonable, whether accommodation requests are legitimate, and whether disciplinary actions are proportionate.

What the Order does not do for employers

It is critical for employers to understand the Order’s limits. Most importantly, marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law. Here are additional caveats:

• The Order expressly states that it creates no enforceable rights by any party against the United States and its departments and agencies (in other words, federal employees do not have a private right of action under the Order).
• Federal safety-sensitive regulations—such as U.S. Department of Transportation drug-testing rules—are unaffected.
• Employers retain authority to maintain drug-free workplace policies consistent with federal and state law.

Impact on workplace drug testing and discipline

A move to Schedule III strengthens employee arguments that the use of off-duty, state-law-compliant medical marijuana should be treated differently from use of Schedule I substances. Employers may increasingly face challenges to zero-tolerance policies that do not distinguish between impairment and lawful off-duty use; scrutiny of adverse employment actions based solely on positive marijuana tests without evidence of on-the-job impairment; and increased pressure to adopt frameworks for impairment-based or safety-sensitive testing, particularly in non-regulated roles.

The Order does not require such changes, but it may influence how courts assess whether employer practices align with evolving federal policy.

Disability accommodation and medical marijuana

The Order emphasizes chronic pain, chemotherapy side effects, and other serious medical conditions for which marijuana is used therapeutically. This focus may strengthen employee requests for accommodation under:

• State disability discrimination statutes.
• State medical marijuana laws with anti-discrimination provisions.
• Interactive-process obligations, even where marijuana use remains prohibited in the workplace.

Employers should expect employees to argue that it is not consistent to refuse to consider accommodations related to the use of medical marijuana in light of federal findings recognizing its medical utility. Employees may make this argument even if the accommodation was denied for safety or operational reasons.

Hemp-derived CBD and hidden compliance risks

The Order also highlights widespread CBD use and acknowledges serious regulatory gaps, including inaccurate labeling and varying concentrations of THC. For employers, this raises a number of practical concerns:

• Employees may test positive for THC while using ostensibly lawful CBD products.
• Full-spectrum CBD products may fall back under the Controlled Substances Act once statutory THC thresholds change.
• Inconsistent product regulation increases the risk of unintentional policy violations by employees.

Employers should ensure that supervisors, Human Resources teams, and compliance personnel understand the distinction between hemp-derived products, marijuana, and THC exposure—and how company policies apply to each. This may require training or other forms of company-wide communication to educate workers about which products are legal for off-duty use, and a reminder that employees are ultimately responsible for what they put into their bodies (especially over-the-counter CBD products with suspect labeling). 

Multi-state compliance challenges will intensify

With 40 states and the District of Columbia already operating medical marijuana programs, the Order underscores the widening gap between federal acknowledgment of medical use and inconsistent state employment protections. Employers with multi-state operations should anticipate continued expansion of employee protections at state levels, increased reliance by employees on federal medical findings when asserting state-law claims, and more complex policy-drafting requirements to address obligations in all applicable jurisdictions.

Practical steps for employers

In light of the Order, employers should consider taking the following steps:

• Review drug and alcohol policies for clarity, consistency, and defensibility.
• Evaluate whether testing protocols are consistent with job-related and safety-based concerns.
• Train managers to recognize and document impairment rather than relying solely on test results.
• Reassess reasonable accommodation procedures to ensure compliance with applicable state laws.
• Monitor developments in the rulemaking process and related agency guidance from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Conclusion

President Trump’s Administrative Order does not compel employers to change existing workplace drug policies. However, by formally endorsing federal findings that marijuana has accepted medical use and by directing completion of the Schedule III rulemaking process, the Order reshapes the legal context in which those policies operate.

Employers should expect increased scrutiny of marijuana-related employment decisions and should proactively review policies and practices to ensure they remain legally defensible as the regulatory environment evolves.