_edited.png)
GAO Flags Gaps as DEA Weighs Marijuana Rescheduling
America’s top federal watchdog says the drug scheduling system needs clearer rules right when cannabis is under the microscope. A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lack key internal policies for how they evaluate substances and make recommendations.
This scrutiny arrives as a DEA administrative law judge reviews whether marijuana should be moved to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), following a recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The GAO findings set the stage for a consequential decision that could reshape how federal authorities treat cannabis.
Marijuana Moment first reported the details and linked the timing to DEA’s ongoing review. You can read their coverage of the GAO report here: Marijuana Moment.
What GAO Found: Policy Gaps at DEA and FDA
GAO’s core message is blunt: “These policies have gaps.” The watchdog said DEA does not have written policies that assign roles or describe how staff conduct evaluations or schedule substances. FDA, likewise, lacks procedures directing staff on how to conduct eight-factor analyses or develop scheduling recommendations, including how they determine a substance’s “potential for abuse.”
GAO also flagged an outdated agreement between FDA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) at NIH. The memorandum of understanding is more than 40 years old and does not reflect current entities or procedures. GAO warned that missing or outdated procedures risk inconsistent operations if staff turn over or institutional knowledge erodes.
The report did highlight strong alignment between agencies in recent years. From 2020 through 2025, DEA took 208 scheduling actions. For 95 of those, DEA was required to consider HHS’s medical and scientific evaluations, and it did so every time. DEA’s final decisions matched HHS recommendations for all 84 substances with final actions, with 11 still under extended temporary orders.
GAO’s Recommendations and Agency Responses
GAO made three recommendations aimed at shoring up the drug scheduling process. First, DEA should craft comprehensive policies that define roles and procedures across administrative, new drug application, temporary, and international treaty scheduling. That includes steps for collecting and evaluating data and conducting the three-factor and eight-factor analyses used in scheduling determinations.
Second, FDA should develop center-level policies that guide staff on eight-factor evaluations and on how to determine a substance’s “potential for abuse,” including comparisons to other substances. Finally, FDA and NIH should update their MOU to reflect current structures, procedures and include a term clause so it is reviewed regularly.
According to the GAO, the Department of Justice, DEA, HHS, FDA and NIH agreed with these recommendations. That consensus could accelerate policy updates as the marijuana review proceeds.
How Federal Scheduling Works in Practice
Under the CSA, substances are scheduled through several paths, including administrative scheduling, new drug application scheduling, temporary scheduling, and scheduling triggered by international treaty obligations. HHS input is required in certain pathways, and DEA ultimately makes the final schedule placement.
The GAO report notes that DEA conducts three-factor or eight-factor analyses depending on the type of action, and that HHS’s medical and scientific evaluations can be central inputs. DEA and FDA officials told GAO that disagreements are rare, and when they arise, the agencies work to resolve them before DEA seeks public comment.
GAO also described a recent legal development: the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) sanctioned a two-part test for evaluating marijuana’s medical value. OLC determined that satisfying HHS’s two-part inquiry can establish a “currently accepted medical use” under the statute, even if FDA has not approved the substance and DEA’s prior five-part test is not met.
Why This Matters for Compliance and Delivery Businesses
GAO underscored that a substance’s schedule and the quantity involved help determine the extent of potential criminal penalties under the CSA. For cannabis operators, including delivery and courier services, clear, consistent federal processes reduce uncertainty around how the government evaluates risk and sets enforcement priorities.
Bud Lords works with readers who track cannabis delivery laws, marijuana delivery regulations, and weed delivery compliance across the DMV. While federal scheduling does not spell out state or local licensing rules, predictable federal processes influence how businesses think about transport, chain-of-custody practices, and courier licensing requirements over time.
To be clear, nothing in GAO’s report changes operational rules today. But when the process is transparent—especially around eight-factor and three-factor analyses—operators can better understand how DEA views substances and how future marijuana transport laws may be interpreted at the federal level.
What This Means for Washington DC, Maryland and Virginia Residents
For Washington DC residents and visitors, the GAO’s findings do not alter day-to-day cannabis access. The marijuana rescheduling question remains under DEA review. DC’s Initiative 71-era marketplace and local purchasing norms are a matter of local policy, and this federal step does not change them by itself.
Maryland consumers and medical patients should likewise expect no immediate shift. Whether you rely on pre-rolls, edibles with careful dosing, or concentrates from licensed channels, the federal process is still ongoing. Staying informed helps you navigate local Maryland rules while this federal review unfolds.
Virginia residents remain in a separate conversation shaped by that state’s evolving policy environment. Any change in federal scheduling would not by itself rewrite Virginia’s framework. Consumers and prospective delivery couriers should continue to follow existing Virginia guidance and watch for updates from state authorities.
How This Compares to Other States
GAO noted the broader national context: some states have legalized marijuana for medical use. That patchwork exists alongside the federal CSA schedule, which affects potential criminal penalties under federal law. The result is a layered system where federal scheduling and state-level cannabis programs operate in parallel.
For delivery operators, that means your compliance posture often spans both spheres. While federal policy addresses scheduling and related penalties, states define on-the-ground rules for delivery windows, vehicle standards, manifest practices, and driver protocols. The GAO push for clearer federal procedures could make the federal side more predictable, even as state rules continue to vary.
Timeline and Next Steps
Per Marijuana Moment’s reporting on the GAO document, a DEA administrative law judge has been considering testimony related to broader marijuana rescheduling. After the judge issues a recommendation, DEA Administrator Terrance Cole will make the final decision on comprehensive movement of cannabis to Schedule III.
There are also active lawsuits challenging the rescheduling effort that a federal appeals court has consolidated. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently declined a request to halt the administration from proceeding while litigation plays out.
The outcome remains unresolved, and the timing of the ALJ recommendation and Administrator decision has not been announced.
Key Legal Context Highlighted by GAO and DOJ
GAO’s appendix points to OLC’s opinion that HHS’s two-part inquiry can establish a currently accepted medical use even without FDA approval or DEA’s prior five-part test. OLC also concluded that moving cannabis to Schedule III would not violate U.S. international treaty obligations.
For compliance teams, those touchstones matter. They shape how federal agencies justify scheduling decisions and how they explain consistency with international commitments. That clarity can help delivery companies, couriers, and transport planners anticipate how federal actors may view cannabis products moving through regulated channels.
Bud Lords Take
Our read: the GAO’s call for written procedures is overdue. When DEA and FDA staff follow standardized steps—with roles, data collection methods and eight-factor analysis criteria spelled out—stakeholders get more predictable outcomes. That is good for compliance and good for consumers who rely on steady access pathways.
For the DMV market, a disciplined federal process reduces guesswork. Whether you are watching DC weed laws, Maryland program updates, or Virginia’s policy direction, predictable federal scheduling mechanics help businesses map risk and plan for transport compliance and courier training. None of this answers every question about delivery licensing, but it narrows the uncertainty window.
Does this GAO report make weed delivery legal federally?
No. The GAO report is an oversight document. It identifies policy gaps and recommendations but does not change law. DEA’s marijuana review is ongoing, and any decision has not yet taken effect.
Will rescheduling to Schedule III automatically change marijuana delivery regulations in my state?
There is no automatic change to your local delivery rules based on this report or the ongoing review. GAO emphasizes that federal scheduling affects how criminal penalties under the CSA may apply. State and local delivery frameworks remain separate policy arenas.
Who makes the final decision on cannabis rescheduling?
An administrative law judge considers testimony and then issues a recommendation. DEA Administrator Terrance Cole will make the final determination on whether to comprehensively move marijuana to Schedule III.
What are the “three-factor” and “eight-factor” analyses?
These are frameworks DEA and FDA use when evaluating substances for scheduling. GAO says DEA and FDA lack written procedures detailing how staff should conduct these analyses, and GAO urges both agencies to formalize them.
Does moving cannabis to Schedule III conflict with international treaties?
OLC concluded that a move to Schedule III would not violate U.S. international treaty obligations, according to the GAO appendix described in Marijuana Moment’s coverage.
What Delivery Operators Should Watch
Even though no rules change today, the process details matter for compliance teams. Watch for DEA and FDA to publish internal policies that define how they collect data, weigh abuse potential and align with HHS input. Those steps can clarify expectations for transport documentation and driver protocols as the federal position evolves.
DMV delivery planners should continue to track local guidance while monitoring DEA’s next moves. If you operate in Washington DC’s unique Initiative 71 landscape, follow District updates closely. Maryland businesses should keep an eye on program communications that affect manifests, inventory, and chain-of-custody. In Virginia, stay tuned to state announcements as the policy environment develops.
For consumers, the best move is to stay informed. If you prefer edibles, pre-rolls or concentrates, nothing in this federal report changes what you can buy today. But the more transparent the federal process becomes, the steadier the marketplace can feel tomorrow.
Attribution: Specific findings and quotations in this article are based on reporting by Marijuana Moment, which summarized the GAO report and the current DEA review.
Written by Market Maven AI
Bud Lords AI Cannabis News Writer
Business and finance expert voice. Covers dispensary news, MSO developments, market trends, and financial analysis with industry insight.
Expertise: business · finance
This AI-assisted article was created using the named Bud Lords newsroom personality and reviewed under Bud Lords editorial standards.
Comments