Introduction
In May 2025, Representatives Dina Titus (D-NV) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) introduced the Evidence-Based Drug Policy Act (EBDPA) of 2025, aiming to dismantle longstanding federal restrictions on researching Schedule I substances, notably cannabis. The bill seeks to repeal provisions that prohibit the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) from funding research or supporting legalization efforts for these substances, thereby aligning federal policy with the evolving landscape of state-level legalization and scientific inquiry.
“We need drug policy to follow the science and reflect the reality on the ground in states across the country,” stated Rep. Ilhan Omar, emphasizing the necessity for policies grounded in empirical evidence rather than outdated ideologies .
The EBDPA emerges amidst a complex interplay of legal, societal, and political dynamics. While over two-thirds of U.S. states have legalized cannabis for medical or recreational use, it remains classified federally as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), indicating a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. This classification not only hampers scientific research but also creates a discord between federal and state policies.
This article delves into the legal and historical context of the EBDPA, examines the current legislative proceedings, explores diverse perspectives, compares historical precedents, and analyzes the potential policy implications of this pivotal legislation.
Legal and Historical Background
The Controlled Substances Act and Schedule I Classification
Enacted in 1970, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) established a framework for regulating drugs based on their potential for abuse and medical utility. Schedule I substances, including cannabis, heroin, and LSD, are deemed to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, thereby subjecting them to the strictest regulations.
Despite mounting evidence of cannabis’s therapeutic benefits, its Schedule I status persists, creating significant barriers to research and development. Researchers face stringent approval processes, limited access to research-grade cannabis, and restrictions on funding, particularly from federal sources.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy and Research Restrictions
The ONDCP, established in 1988, is mandated to coordinate drug control efforts and advise the President on drug policy. However, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 imposes constraints on the ONDCP, prohibiting it from supporting any activities that might promote the legalization of Schedule I substances, including funding research.
“Statutory restrictions on what can be studied and a mandate to oppose any attempts to reschedule substances like cannabis make no sense,” remarked Rep. Dina Titus, highlighting the incongruity between federal mandates and scientific pursuits .
Previous Legislative Efforts and Judicial Precedents
Efforts to reclassify or deschedule cannabis have been ongoing for decades. Notably, the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MMCREA), signed into law in December 2022, aimed to streamline the research process for cannabis and its derivatives. However, its impact has been limited due to the persistent Schedule I classification.
Judicially, cases like Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA (1994) have challenged the DEA’s classification of cannabis, arguing for its medical utility. Nonetheless, courts have generally deferred to the DEA’s authority, citing insufficient scientific consensus.
Case Status and Legislative Proceedings
The EBDPA is currently under review in the House of Representatives, with discussions focusing on its potential to facilitate research and inform policy. The bill proposes to:
- Repeal sections of the ONDCP Reauthorization Act that restrict funding for Schedule I research.
- Allow the ONDCP to support evidence-based policies, including those that may favor legalization.
Supporters argue that the bill is a pragmatic step toward aligning federal policy with scientific evidence and state-level reforms. However, its passage faces challenges in a politically divided Congress, with opposition rooted in concerns over drug abuse and federal overreach.
Viewpoints and Commentary
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Advocates for the EBDPA emphasize the importance of evidence-based policy and the need to rectify the dissonance between federal restrictions and state-level legalization.
“The federal government cannot meaningfully learn from the experiences of the 24-plus states that have legalized cannabis,” noted Cat Packer, director at the Drug Policy Alliance, underscoring the necessity for federal engagement in research .
Katharine Neill Harris, a drug … described the bill as a “modest proposal” that could garner bipartisan support, highlighting its potential to advance scientific understanding without directly altering the legal status of cannabis.
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Opponents express apprehension about the implications of easing research restrictions, fearing it may signal federal endorsement of legalization and potentially exacerbate drug abuse issues.
Aaron Smith, CEO of the National … expressed skepticism about the bill’s prospects, stating that “the hyper-partisan times we … ” make the passage of such legislation unlikely .
Additionally, concerns persist about the potential for increased youth consumption and public health risks associated with broader cannabis accessibility.
Comparable or Historical Cases
Throughout modern U.S. history, federal drug policy has often struggled to keep pace with evolving medical research and state-level experimentation. Two key historical examples provide illuminating context for the current legislative effort to pass the Evidence-Based Drug Policy Act: the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (MMCREA) of 2022, and the federal-state dynamic resulting from early cannabis legalization initiatives in Colorado and California.
The MMCREA was signed into law in December 2022 with bipartisan support, designed to streamline the research process for marijuana and its constituents, including cannabidiol (CBD). Among other changes, it aimed to simplify DEA registration processes for researchers and ensure a more consistent supply of research-grade cannabis. Despite these improvements, it fell short of addressing broader systemic issues tied to cannabis’s Schedule I classification. The very act of studying marijuana still involves burdensome bureaucratic requirements and the potential loss of federal funding—barriers the EBDPA directly seeks to remove.
The historical evolution of state-level legalization also demonstrates how the federal government has lagged in adapting to public sentiment and emerging scientific consensus. Colorado’s Amendment 64 (2012) and California’s Proposition 64 (2016) legalized recreational cannabis within state borders, challenging federal prohibition and prompting a complex legal duality. Federal agencies, including the DEA and ONDCP, have retained authority to enforce the CSA, leading to inconsistent application of law and regulatory uncertainty for researchers, healthcare providers, and patients alike.
These examples underscore a recurring tension between innovation and institutional inertia. Despite a growing body of evidence supporting cannabis’s medical efficacy for conditions such as chronic pain, epilepsy, and PTSD, the federal government has historically been slow to adapt. This inertia is partially attributed to statutory restrictions on agencies like the ONDCP, which are legally prohibited from endorsing or researching legalization strategies—even when such strategies are already being tested in dozens of states.
As Professor David Nutt of Imperial College London observed, “The greatest hindrance to drug science is politics, not pharmacology.” The EBDPA attempts to sever that tether, allowing data—not dogma—to guide national policy. Its predecessors provide essential lessons: piecemeal reforms may help, but meaningful policy shifts require structural legal change that aligns federal mandates with contemporary realities.
Policy Implications and Forecasting
The passage of the Evidence-Based Drug Policy Act would constitute a substantive pivot in federal drug strategy, with both short- and long-term implications for law, science, public health, and economic development. Chief among the immediate impacts is the facilitation of federally funded research on Schedule I substances, removing statutory barriers that have long hindered rigorous scientific inquiry into marijuana, psilocybin, and similar compounds.
Short-term, the EBDPA could usher in a new era of federally coordinated cannabis research, allowing academic institutions, public health agencies, and medical providers to study the efficacy, risks, and societal effects of these substances without fear of losing federal funding. By empowering the ONDCP to support such efforts, the bill would catalyze a shift in institutional culture—transforming a policy arm of the Executive Branch from an enforcement-driven agency into a scientifically informed body capable of shaping evidence-based interventions.
Long-term effects could include significant changes to national drug classification frameworks. Data derived from ONDCP-supported studies might inform future rescheduling decisions under the CSA or lay groundwork for comprehensive drug policy reform. As Paul Armentano of NORML explained, “The research enabled by this bill may eventually form the empirical backbone needed to finally deschedule cannabis altogether.”
Economically, clearer guidance and increased research funding may spur innovation and investment in pharmaceutical applications of cannabinoids and psychedelics. Biotechnology firms and academic institutions alike stand to benefit from a regulatory environment that embraces scientific rigor over moral panic. This shift may also mitigate the economic inefficiencies created by the disjunction between state-legal industries and federal prohibition.
There are also implications for public trust and governance. When federal laws appear to contradict lived reality—especially in states where cannabis is legal—citizens may grow cynical of national institutions. Reinvigorating the legitimacy of federal drug oversight demands a framework that is adaptive, transparent, and informed by the best available evidence.
Policy experts from the Brookings Institution, the Cato Institute, and the Brennan Center have separately noted that the public increasingly expects data-driven governance, especially in areas like public health. “The EBDPA represents the kind of legislative pragmatism that could restore bipartisan confidence in Congress’s capacity to modernize outdated laws,” stated John Hudak, senior fellow at Brookings.
In the end, the success of the EBDPA may be judged not only by the studies it enables, but by whether it sets a precedent for removing ideological barriers to knowledge in federal policymaking.
Conclusion
The introduction of the Evidence-Based Drug Policy Act marks a watershed moment in the ongoing evolution of federal drug regulation. At its core, the bill seeks to resolve a central and increasingly unsustainable contradiction: that federal drug control policy is constrained from engaging with or learning from scientific inquiry, even as more than half the states have legalized cannabis in some form and public support for reform continues to grow.
This legal tension encapsulates a broader crisis of institutional legitimacy. Agencies like the ONDCP are, by law, prohibited from exploring or endorsing drug policy reforms that may prove to be beneficial or even necessary. This prohibition not only obstructs scientific discovery but undermines the Office’s credibility as a nonpartisan, evidence-driven policy advisor. The EBDPA endeavors to restore that credibility by removing statutory blindfolds and empowering federal entities to respond intelligently to shifting legal, medical, and social realities.
Yet the bill’s path forward remains uncertain. While progressive and centrist Democrats have largely rallied behind the legislation, Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns over what they perceive as a backdoor to broader drug liberalization. These concerns, though ideologically consistent with prior opposition to cannabis reforms, may be tempered by the bill’s emphasis on research rather than legalization.
Legal scholars on both sides of the aisle acknowledge the importance of uncoupling drug science from drug ideology. As Harvard Law professor I. Glenn Cohen notes, “You cannot legislate rational drug policy if you deny yourself the capacity to study the drugs in question.” The EBDPA is not a wholesale repudiation of prohibitionist frameworks, but a targeted dismantling of specific obstacles to evidence gathering and public policy evaluation.
Looking forward, the Act could lay the groundwork for broader reforms—not only in drug law, but in how science informs legislative priorities across the board. Whether in climate change, artificial intelligence, or public health, the principle that policy must be rooted in evidence is increasingly seen as essential to democratic governance.
The ultimate question becomes: Will Congress choose to re-empower itself with tools of inquiry, or continue to legislate in epistemic darkness? The fate of the EBDPA will help determine whether U.S. drug policy remains tethered to the politics of the past—or moves into a future illuminated by science and guided by rationality.
For Further Reading:
- The Guardian: “New bill would ease rules on … “
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/10/cannabis-medical-research-bill - Marijuana and the Law: “House Democrats Propose Bill to Empower White House Drug Policy Office on Cannabis Legalization”
https://marijuanaandthelaw.com/house-democrats-propose-bill-to-empower-white-house-drug-policy-office-on-cannabis-legalization/ - National Law Review: “Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act Signed”
https://natlawreview.com/article/new-law-eases-federal-restrictions-medical-marijuana-research-and-cultivation - Politico: “Democrats split on bill that could aid pot research”
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/future-pulse/2024/08/15/democrats-split-on-bill-that-could-aid-pot-research-00174119 - Drug Policy Alliance: “Statement on House Passage of HALT Fentanyl Act, Advocates Urge Senate to Oppose It and Support Lifesaving Health Solutions to Fentanyl and Overdose”
https://drugpolicy.org/news/statement-on-house-passage-of-halt-fentanyl-act-advocates-urge-senate-to-oppose-it-and-support-lifesaving-health-solutions-to-fentanyl-and-overdose/