The Brief

President Donald Trump's long-anticipated executive order to loosen U.S. restrictions on marijuana promises to bring immediate relief for cannabis businesses — but only in some respects. And although rescheduling it as a lower-risk drug is touted as opening a new era for cannabis research, experts say it's not as simple as flipping a light switch.

"It's hard to see the big headlines of, 'Marijuana rescheduled to [Schedule] III; marijuana research will open,'" says Gillian Schauer, executive director of the nonpartisan Cannabis Regulators Association, which includes agencies from 46 states. "You know, those things are not true as of now."

That's because on its own, Trump's Dec. 18 order isn't enough to rewrite federal drug policy that has stood for more than 50 years.

"The Controlled Substances Act [of 1970] does not grant any president the authority to unilaterally reschedule a drug," Schauer says. Such changes are historically made through either a rulemaking process, or an act of Congress.

Many details will shape how the administration enacts Trump's order, affecting the timeline and scope for easing marijuana restrictions. But when it does happen, rescheduling won't automatically revoke federal laws targeting marijuana, and interstate marijuana commerce would remain illegal, Schauer says.

It's not yet known how other policies might change.

"We don't know what will happen to federal drug testing requirements," Schauer says, until agencies issue guidance.

Here's a rundown of other key questions raised by the rescheduling order:

The time frame depends on which path the DOJ takes

Trump's order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to "take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III" of the Controlled Substances Act "in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law … "

The directive evokes the process that started under former President Joe Biden. Under his administration, both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department advanced a proposal to reclassify pot from Schedule I, meaning it has no medical use and a high potential for abuse, to the lower-risk Schedule III, which includes ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

The Trump administration could resume the process that was already underway under Biden. But the new executive order's mention of the Controlled Substances Act's Section 811 hints at a potential shortcut.

"That allows the attorney general to move a drug to whatever schedule they deem is best, without going through the usual steps that are needed to reschedule a drug," Schauer says.

The streamlined process was meant to ensure the U.S. can do things such as complying with international drug treaty obligations. But a historic precedent also links it to cannabis: In 2018, it was used to schedule the CBD epilepsy drug Epidiolex, months after it became the first U.S.-authorized purified medicine derived from marijuana. The drug was placed in Schedule V, the least restrictive schedule.

President Donald Trump displays an executive order reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the Oval Office on Dec. 18.

(

Evan Vucci

/

AP

)

Will the DOJ call for public comment?

The Trump administration's approach to administrative hearings and public comment periods would also help determine the pace of rescheduling.

"I would anticipate, if they use that [expedited] option, that we would not see a comment period," shortening the process, Schauer explains.

But rescheduling could take longer if the Justice Department follows the traditional, and lengthy, notice-and-comment process.

Again, Bondi has options that could speed things up. She could choose to issue a final rule after a public comment period, for instance, or do so without a comment period.

"Some of the calculation for that may be on the legal end," Schauer says. Noting that some anti-marijuana groups are vowing to file legal challenges to block rescheduling, she adds that the DOJ will likely have to balance Trump's call for expedience with the need to defend its actions in court.

If the rule is published for comment, interest would likely be intense: In 2024, the DEA's earlier proposed rescheduling rule for marijuana attracted more than 43,000 comments.

Cannabis firms would get tax relief, but credit cards remain forbidden

Sam Brill, CEO of Ascend Wellness Holdings, a multistate dispensary company, says rescheduling could bring a cascade of positive changes to his industry. But one benefit could come immediately, he says.

"The biggest thing that happens overnight is the 280E, the restrictive punitive tax code that is set on us," would no longer apply to marijuana businesses, he says.

Like other businesses, Brill's company is obligated to pay taxes on income. But because their core product is a Schedule I drug, the IRS says that under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, they're blocked from claiming common tax deductions, exposing them to a higher effective tax rate.

Section 280E "does not allow us to basically deduct normal expenses that everyone else can deduct," Brill says. "I can't deduct the rent for my stores, the cost of my employees in those stores, my interest expense."

Brill says that some cannabis companies, including his, say 280E should not apply to them — but the IRS disagrees. As a result, Brill says, his company sets aside a large reserve fund in case the IRS comes after them.

"For 2024 alone, the value of this reserve" was about $38 million, Brill says, "which includes interest and penalties."

Brill hopes marijuana's changing status might also eventually lead to other restrictions falling, especially the inability of cannabis operations to accept credit cards. Most financial institutions refuse to provide basic banking services to state-authorized marijuana businesses, due to potential liability.

"The lack of the use of a credit card is really one of the biggest challenges for customers," he says. Citing the importance of payday, Brill says: "For us, Friday by far is the biggest day every single week because this is a cash business."

Medical research 

Scientists welcomed news in 2023 that the Biden administration was moving toward reclassifying marijuana, and Trump says his move will boost medical research. But both then and now, there are caveats.

One benefit of the new rules is that they wouldn't require marijuana researchers to go through the onerous process of obtaining a Schedule I license, and they would also ease rigorous laboratory regulations.

"You have very stringent requirements, for example, for storage and security and reporting all of these things," neuroscientist Staci Gruber, of McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and Harvard Medical School, told NPR last year.

But another obstacle promises to be more stubborn: finding marijuana to study. The U.S. requires researchers to obtain marijuana from a handful of sources, which is itself an improvement over decades in which they were compelled to use one facility based at the University of Mississippi.

And, as Schauer notes, federal rules about sourcing marijuana have been decided separately from the controlled substances schedule.

"This does a little to make research easier," Schauer says of the current rescheduling effort. "But there's a lot that will still be challenging in researching cannabis unless we see a lot of agency policies change and adjust."
Copyright 2025 NPR

If you're online, anywhere adjacent to the World Cup, you'll see that the Argentina team, which will play England in the semifinals Wednesday, is attracting a lot of criticism.

It can be largely grouped into two categories: soccer and culture. In soccer, Argentina’s comeback win against Egypt last week prompted accusations, including from Egypt’s head coach, that the FIFA referees in that match favored Argentina.

Meanwhile, cultural clichés online accuse Argentines of being arrogant and looking down on other Latin Americans.

“I get sad,  I must say, that when I see that, it hurts me a little bit, to be honest,” said San Fernando Valley resident Roxana Lissa. She was born and raised in Argentina and moved to the U.S. more than 30 years ago.

But she's used to it.

“The thing about Argentines is we have such thick skin,” Lissa said.

California’s Argentine population has grown in the past couple of decades. The state is now home to the second-largest concentration of Argentines in the U.S. after Florida.

Exclusion by other Latinos

The negative comments are not new, but social media has fueled them into a firestorm.

Some Argentines in Southern California say they’ve not seen negativity this bad against their culture before.

Mariana Ferrero, who moved to the U.S. from Argentina when she was 13 years old, said the comments are opening old wounds of exclusion by other Latino immigrants in Southern California.

“What bothers me is [the criticism] goes beyond soccer. It's more of saying, "Oh, you're Argentinian. You're not a real Latina,'” Ferrero said.

She says many Latinos assume she’s privileged because she’s lighter skinned.

But Ferrero says her background is not like that at all. Argentina’s struggling economy led Ferrero’s parents to leave their home, their language and their country.

“We packed up. We came here. We lived with nothing in a tiny one-bedroom apartment, worked really hard, odd jobs,” she said.

Ferrero has some explanation for the hostility, however.

“I think some of it is just a perception that we come from a country that tends to be proud and tends to be loud and tends to be boisterous about our wins and about our accomplishments. And let me tell you, there's not many of them,” Ferrero said.

Since soccer prowess is one of those few wins, she says she and other Argentines are going to take this World Cup as an opportunity to be loud and proud.

IRL people love Argentines

Ferrero and Lissa say people who’ve visited Argentina gush to them about the warmth and hospitality of its people and the country’s beauty. And few people question that Argentina soccer star Lionel Messi is one of the greatest soccer players of all time.

“I was wearing my Argentina jersey,” Lissa said of a visit during the World Cup to L.A.’s Guelaguetza Oaxacan restaurant to watch Mexico play.

“People were coming to me and saying, 'I love Messi. I love Messi.' And I felt for the first time, 'Damn, I'm not being criticized,'” she said.

Pablo Baler, a professor of Latin American literature at CSU L.A., says the disconnect during this World Cup may be that people don’t believe Argentina represents the underdog soccer nations of Latin America anymore.

“At times, [the team] can feel more like a corporation than a national team, but the country it represents was in many ways the victim of the same imperial powers now competing for the title: France, England and Spain,” he said.

Baler grew up in Argentina and has many Latin American friends. He doesn’t believe the negativity against his homeland will tarnish its reputation. He said a Nicaraguan friend said to him this week that he’s proud Argentina made it to the World Cup semifinals because the team is “one of us.”

Topline

The background: In June, the City Council voted to establish the moratorium as city staff drafted a proposal for a permanent citywide ban. At the time, the moratorium was authorized for 45 days.

The issue first made its way to city hall earlier this year after a group of neighbors raised concerns that a proposed new In-N-Out in Culver City could hurt air quality and create safety issues for pedestrians.

Status of the proposed ban: Culver City staff wrote in a report to City Council this week that they’ve begun drafting a potential permanent ban on new drive-thrus citywide.

The proposal will first go to the city’s planning commission, a five-person body that makes recommendations to the City Council on development and zoning matters in the city, then head to the City Council for a final vote. Those dates have not yet been set.

One councilmember left door open for a different approach: At Monday’s meeting, Councilmember Albert Vera, who was among the four votes supporting the moratorium extension, said he would be open to seeing recommendations from the planning commission that don’t ban drive-thrus citywide outright.

The contractor building the long-awaited LAX People Mover project has filed a lawsuit alleging the city of L.A. breached its contract in several disputes.

In the suit, filed with the L.A. County Superior Court on July 9, LINXS alleges the city is misplacing blame in construction-related disputes and refusing to extend contract deadlines. LINXS also alleges it’s owed additional payment for the work as a result of the delays.

The project, a 2.25-mile-long elevated train designed to transport riders between airport terminals and local transit, is currently undergoing testing. Work on the train is scheduled to be complete “in a few months,” according to a June interview with Los Angeles World Airports CEO John Ackerman on the L.A. in a Minute podcast.

Chief among the disputes detailed in the lawsuit is one involving repairs to faulty electrical equipment in the system that powers the train, resulting in testing delays last year. LAist reported on this dispute last November and in April.

A spokesperson for LINXS said it has attempted to engage in “extensive good-faith efforts over the past two years” to resolve the ongoing contractual disputes.

A spokesperson for Los Angeles World Airports, the city agency that manages LAX, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. They added that the agency remains committed to “delivering a safe, durable and reliable” train as soon as possible.

The L.A. City Attorney’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In its lawsuit, LINXS said that by not granting the contractor’s compensation and time-extension requests, the city is attempting to evade accountability for the delayed train, which was once expected to open in 2023 and is nearly a billion dollars over budget.

The contractor warned in its lawsuit that without an extension of contract deadlines, it might be forced to repay lenders who financed the project as soon as this fall. In that case, the contractor said in its lawsuit that it could become “insolvent and unable to perform,” adding that possibility would have “catastrophic consequences.”

Dispute over metering cabinet

Last February, staff from Los Angeles World Airports and the city’s Department of Water and Power directed LINXS to repair equipment in a metering cabinet that had degraded due to moisture and debris, as LAist previously reported.

LINXS completed the repair work, which required power to be partially shut down between February and July 2025. That temporary power disruption delayed critical testing of the technology that allows for central control of the People Mover’s systems.

LINXS said last year, and also in the current lawsuit, that the repair work is not in its scope of work. As a result, the contractor has said it's owed compensation and a minimum of a 141-day extension to complete construction.

“Since then, [Los Angeles World Airports] has stonewalled the discussions of [LINXS’] compensation and a time extension,” the contractor alleges in its lawsuit.

LINXS, citing information it received from a public records request, alleges the issue stemmed from an instance where LADWP opened the metering cabinet in September 2024 to rectify design issues with the equipment contained in it.

Whereas past disputes between LINXS and the airport were resolved through settlements that have so far totaled hundreds of millions of dollars and resulted in schedule extensions, the dispute over maintaining electrical equipment has been uniquely contentious.

“Other relief events that we’ve dealt with up to this point … we could agree there were some things that were not totally within LINXS’ control,” Jake Adams, an airport executive who is overseeing $5.5 billion in LAX upgrades, said in an interview with LAist in April. “This relief event is very different. We believe there is absolutely no merit to this claim.”

The lawsuit also alleges that the contractor is owed additional time and money for several other ongoing disputes, including that Los Angeles World Airports is refusing to sign a power agreement with LADWP for solar panels installed as part of the People Mover project and that workers on separate airport projects have “demolished” work LINXS completed for the train.

What’s the status of the People Mover?

The People Mover is operating in a testing phase where it simulates how the train will operate when it begins shuttling travelers between airport terminals and the L.A. Metro system.

The testing of the train won’t be impacted by the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Los Angeles World Airports told LAist.

A hearing on the case filed last week has been scheduled for December, according to the L.A. County Superior Court’s website.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will pause non-urgent vehicle stops after two deadly shootings in less than a week, Maine Sen. Angus King's office tells NPR.

King spokesman Matthew Felling says the Department of Homeland Security confirmed the policy shift. Maine Sen. Susan Collins also posted Tuesday on X that she had called for change.

"I spoke with DHS Secretary [Markwayne] Mullin last night and urged him to cease all non-urgent vehicle stops," she wrote.

DHS told NPR in a statement that it will not "disclose or discuss law enforcement tactics," and it's unclear what this change will look like in practice.

The most recent death happened Monday in Biddeford, Maine, where ICE agents tried to pull over the car of 26-year-old Joan Durán Guerrero, a Colombian national.

"The vehicle attempted to flee the scene, and fearing for public safety, an officer discharged his weapon," DHS said in a statement. However, the agency has not provided any evidence to back the claims. The agents were not wearing body cameras.

Last week, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo was shot by agents in Houston after they attempted to pull him over. The Department of Homeland Security says Salgado Araujo tried to use his van as a weapon, prompting an agent to fire their weapon. But passengers in the van have disputed this account.

Paul Hunker, the former chief counsel of ICE in Dallas, told NPR the standards and principles of when to discharge a firearm are clear.

"I was an attorney for the officers — the person has to pose an imminent threat of harm to use deadly force," Hunker said.

He said whether the person poses an imminent threat is always from the perspective of the officer.

DHS policy

The Department of Homeland Security's policy says deadly force cannot be used solely to prevent someone from fleeing … unless the person poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the agent or others.

DHS accused Salgado Araujo of weaponizing his car against the ICE officer. In Maine, the agency said Durán Guerrero posed a public safety threat.

But in these cases, there hasn't been video evidence to back up those allegations.

The latest development has been welcomed by former DHS officials who said a reset is needed in order to regain the trust of the public and ensure no more lives are lost.

"That person could flee and present a big danger to people around them … that's one of the reasons I think there are few vehicle chases because of the danger and the harm that could happen if one of those goes bad." Hunker said.

He said in the past, ICE's preference has been to assume custody of the undocumented immigrants who were already in jails, making it safer for the agents.

Sarah Saldaña, a former ICE acting director under President Barack Obama, said the shift in policy is a good start.

"I think it's a very practical thing to do until the agency can get its officers more properly trained and attuned to what their effort is," Saldaña said. "Immigration enforcement should not be a deadly endeavor — it should be a method by which to make sure that people are complying with the law."

Despite the shift in policy, there are a lot of outstanding questions about what led to the fatal shootings of Salgado Araujo in Houston last week, and of Durán Guerrero in Maine this week.

None of the federal immigration agents were wearing body cameras, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

After the shooting of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis in January, DHS vowed to quickly deploy body cameras to federal immigration agents nationwide.

But that hasn't happened.

The agency is blaming Democrats in Congress and the partial government shutdowns for this. But it is, again, vowing to deploy body cameras for all agents in the next 60 days.

That footage would have been key to knowing whether the agents followed protocol or not, and to hold the agents accountable, said Lauren Bonds, the executive director of the nonprofit National Police Accountability Project.

"Luckily in both instances there were witnesses, independent witnesses, that observed some things and were able to share some information," Bonds said. "But it's really hard to be able to hold ICE agents accountable in any manner if all we're getting from DHS right now is kind of vague statements about the car being used in a way that was either threatening the ICE agents or, in the case of Maine, threatening the public."

Bonds said the public needs to keep demanding answers and independent investigations to create a change in policy — like the pause on traffic stops made public Tuesday.

NPR's Meg Anderson contributed reporting.