The DEA Released the Full Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing Transcript. Here's What the Witnesses Actually Said.

The DEA just released 2,533 pages of sworn testimony from its 11-day marijuana rescheduling hearing — and the corrected transcript rewrites the factual record in ways that matter.

On August 25 and 26, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration published the full, corrected official transcript of the cannabis rescheduling hearing — the last major record milestone before Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Derek Julius issues his non-binding recommendation to the DEA Administrator. Chief ALJ Julius had ordered 294 corrections to the original transcript, and several of those corrections are not minor typos. They change what witnesses actually said on the record.

For DC and Maryland medical cannabis patients, Virginia consumers, and anyone tracking the federal rescheduling fight: this transcript is the sworn-testimony record that Judge Julius will use to write his recommendation. Here is what the witnesses actually said, what the key corrections reveal, and what comes next.

What Is the DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing Transcript?

The DEA marijuana rescheduling hearing ran for 11 days in January and February 2025, presided over by Chief ALJ Derek Julius. It was a formal administrative proceeding — witnesses testified under oath, attorneys cross-examined them, and every word was transcribed.

This hearing is the centerpiece of the DEA's administrative rulemaking process to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The transcript — now public — is distinct from the written post-hearing briefs the parties filed in August 2026, which argued their legal and scientific positions in writing after the fact. The transcript is the raw, sworn record of what happened in the hearing room itself.

At 2,533 pages, it is an enormous document. Chief ALJ Julius ordered 294 corrections before it was released, and the corrected version is now the official record on which he will base his recommendation.

The 294 Transcript Corrections — and Why Several of Them Change the Record

Most of the 294 corrections ordered by Chief ALJ Julius are routine: misspellings, name transcription errors, redactions. But several corrections are substantive — meaning the original transcription had captured a different word or phrase than what was actually said. Those corrections change what the sworn record says witnesses testified to.

Among the substantive corrections confirmed by Marijuana Moment's reporting on the corrected transcript:

• "Illegal" corrected to "legal" — a single word that reverses the meaning of a key passage in the testimony.

• "There's adulterants" corrected to "there's no adulterants" — a factual reversal on cannabis product safety testimony.

• Schedule I/III references swapped — corrections that clarify which schedule was being discussed at specific moments in testimony.

• "This is a medication" corrected to "This is a medication?" — a declarative statement changed to a question, altering the meaning of a witness's assertion about cannabis.

• "0.2" corrected to "0.02" — a tenfold difference in a numerical figure that appeared in scientific testimony.

• "Demonstrating increase in psychosis episode, yes" corrected to "Demonstrated increase in psychotic episodes, yes" — a tense and specificity correction in testimony about mental health risks.

• An "increase" corrected to a "decrease" — a directional reversal in scientific data testimony.

These corrections were ordered after the parties reviewed the original transcript and submitted requests to the ALJ. The corrected version is now the authoritative record — it is what Judge Julius will cite when he writes his recommendation.

What Proponents of Rescheduling Argued Under Oath

The DEA and Department of Justice, representing the government's position in favor of rescheduling, presented witnesses who argued that marijuana meets the legal standard for Schedule III. Their core arguments, as reflected in the hearing testimony:

• Marijuana has a "currently accepted medical use" (CAMU) — the government cited the HHS review, 43 jurisdictions with state-regulated medical programs, and more than 6 million patients currently using cannabis in state-legal medical programs.

• Cannabis's abuse potential is "more consistent with Schedule III" than Schedule I — government witnesses argued its risk profile, under medical supervision, is comparatively safer than alcohol and opioids.

• The breadth of state-level accepted use — proponents argued that the scale of existing state medical programs constitutes evidence of accepted medical use under the two-part CAMU standard the government applied.

The proponents' case is built around the idea that marijuana's extensive state-legal medical use — even without FDA approval for the plant itself — constitutes the "accepted medical use" that Schedule I status requires the DEA to prove does not exist.

What Opponents of Rescheduling Argued Under Oath

The opposition — led by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and joined by the attorneys general of Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, and other states — challenged both the process and the science:

• Wrong CAMU test — opponents argued the government improperly applied a "two-part" test for currently accepted medical use, rather than the traditional "five-part" test. This procedural argument could void the entire rulemaking if a reviewing court agrees.

• Cannabis is a "variable substance" — FDA scientist Dr. Dominic Chiapperino and DEA pharmacologist Dr. Luli Akinfiresoye testified that marijuana lacks "known and reproducible chemistry," making it scientifically difficult to treat as a defined Schedule III substance with consistent medical applications.

• Workplace drug testing concerns — opponents raised testimony about the potential for rescheduling to undermine federal workplace drug testing programs, particularly for safety-sensitive positions.

• Public health risks — SAM's witnesses pointed to testimony linking increased cannabis use to psychosis risk and mental health concerns, arguing rescheduling signals federal endorsement of a drug whose full risks are not yet understood.

SAM's legal challenge, currently before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, runs parallel to this DEA administrative proceeding. Even if Judge Julius recommends rescheduling and the DEA Administrator adopts that recommendation, the D.C. Circuit could reverse it. That case is still pending as of August 26, 2026.

What the Transcript Release Means for DC, Maryland, and Virginia Cannabis Consumers

For DMV-region cannabis consumers, the transcript release signals where this process stands — and what is at stake if the DEA Administrator ultimately follows the ALJ's recommendation.

Schedule III Would End the 280E Tax Burden on Cannabis Businesses

Moving marijuana to Schedule III would remove cannabis businesses from the scope of IRS Code Section 280E — the federal provision that prevents cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses. This single change would significantly reduce the effective tax burden on licensed dispensaries and delivery services in DC and Maryland, potentially lowering consumer prices over time.

DC and Maryland Medical Patients Are Already in Schedule III Territory

The April 2026 DEA Final Order already moved FDA-approved cannabis products and state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III — and that order is currently in effect, though it faces the SAM v. DOJ legal challenge in the D.C. Circuit. This ongoing DEA administrative rulemaking addresses the broader question of where bulk and adult-use cannabis falls in the schedule. For DC and Maryland medical patients already operating under the April 2026 framework, this rulemaking determines whether that status holds long-term.

What Happens Next: The ALJ Recommendation Process Explained

The transcript release is not a decision. It is the last major record milestone before Chief ALJ Julius writes his recommendation. Here is how the process works from here:

1. Chief ALJ Julius issues his initial recommended decision — a non-binding recommendation to the DEA Administrator. There is no statutory deadline for this step; it could come any day now that the corrected transcript is public.

2. 20-day exceptions window — after Julius issues his recommendation, the parties (DEA/DOJ, SAM, and state intervenors) have 20 days to file exceptions challenging specific findings or legal conclusions.

3. DEA Administrator final decision — DEA Administrator Terrance Cole reviews the ALJ recommendation, the exceptions, and the full record. The Administrator is not bound by Julius's recommendation and can agree, disagree, or modify it.

4. Judicial review — the final agency decision can be appealed to a federal court of appeals. The parallel SAM v. DOJ D.C. Circuit case is already in federal court and could affect this process at any stage.

The critical point: Chief ALJ Julius's recommendation is non-binding. The DEA Administrator makes the actual decision. Even a recommendation in favor of Schedule III does not guarantee rescheduling.

How This Transcript Is Different From the Post-Hearing Briefs

It is worth being precise about what was just released — and what was released earlier — because these are three distinct pieces of the rescheduling record:

• The post-hearing briefs (filed August 17, 2026) — written legal arguments each side submitted AFTER the hearing, arguing what the record means and what the ALJ should recommend. These were published and covered by Bud Lords Newsroom separately.

• The process explainer (what happens next after the hearing) — the procedural roadmap for how the ALJ recommendation, exceptions, and final DEA decision work. Also covered by Bud Lords Newsroom.

• The corrected hearing transcript (released August 25-26, 2026) — this is the sworn-testimony record itself: what witnesses said under oath during the hearing, now corrected and made public. This is what was just released.

The transcript is the foundation. The briefs argued over it. The ALJ recommendation will cite it. This is the primary source document at the center of the entire rescheduling proceeding.

What DMV Cannabis Consumers Need to Watch For

The transcript is public. The briefs are filed. Chief ALJ Julius is now writing his recommendation. There is no statutory deadline, so it could come this week or next month — but it is the next major milestone in this process.

When it drops, the Bud Lords Newsroom will cover it. In the meantime, here is what the rescheduling process — if it moves forward — could mean for you in DC, Maryland, and Virginia:

• Lower dispensary prices over time — ending 280E would reduce operating costs for licensed cannabis businesses, with potential downstream savings for consumers.

• Greater research access — Schedule III allows more federal research on cannabis, which benefits medical patients in DC and Maryland.

• Banking access for cannabis businesses — Schedule III removes one of the major barriers to traditional banking for licensed cannabis operators.

• Adult-use cannabis remains federally restricted regardless — Schedule III does not legalize adult-use cannabis. Sales outside state-licensed systems remain federally prohibited.

As of August 26, 2026, the Schedule III final order from April 2026 remains in effect and is being challenged in federal court. The ongoing DEA rulemaking — now in the ALJ recommendation phase — is a separate, parallel process. No final federal rescheduling decision has been made. This article will be updated as the ALJ recommendation and subsequent steps occur.

Shop Bud Lords While You Follow the Story

While federal policy catches up, Bud Lords delivers premium cannabis to DC, Maryland, and Virginia residents under current state and local law. Browse our full menu at budlords.com/shop for flower, pre-rolls, concentrates, edibles, and more — all from licensed, tested sources. Same-day delivery available in the DMV region.

Want to understand what the DEA's rescheduling process means from the beginning? Read our full explainer: What Happens After the DEA Rescheduling Hearing.

For the full legal challenge that could undo rescheduling even if the ALJ recommends it, read: SAM v. DOJ: The Lawsuit That Could Undo Cannabis Rescheduling, Explained.

Also on the Newsroom: What the DEA Hearing Post-Hearing Briefs Actually Argued and the companion article on how to buy cannabis legally in DC.

This article was researched and written with AI assistance by the Bud Lords AI Newsroom.