Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What federal actions or bills in 2025 aim to recriminalize marijuana and who is sponsoring them?
Executive summary
Federal reporting and the advocacy trackers in the provided results show multiple 2025 proposals mostly aimed at decriminalizing or descheduling cannabis (for example, H.R.5068/MORE Act variants and the Veterans’ provision in appropriations), while some congressional and appropriations actions considered tighter hemp/THC restrictions or riders that could re-criminalize certain products (MPP notes Congress considered re-criminalizing hemp products with any THC during 2025 appropriations) [1] [2]. Available sources do not present a single, large 2025 federal bill whose explicit purpose is to broadly “recriminalize marijuana” nationwide; instead, reporting documents a mix of descheduling/legalization bills and separate appropriations riders or hemp restrictions that critics say could have the effect of tightening federal control [1] [2] [3].
1. Federal reform bills in 2025 were largely pro-reform — sponsors and aims
Major federal measures described in the sources seek to remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act or otherwise decriminalize it. Congress.gov lists H.R.5068 in the 119th Congress “to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis” [1]. Coverage also shows the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act was reintroduced in 2025 with Rep. Jerrold (Jerry) Nadler (D‑NY) as a primary sponsor and substantial cosponsorship noted in reporting [4] [5]. Industry and advocacy outlets describe the MORE Act as descheduling marijuana, enabling expungements, and establishing reinvestment and regulatory frameworks [6] [4] [7].
2. Where “recriminalization” concerns come from — appropriations riders and hemp rules
Opposition to reform or tighter federal control in 2025 did not always come via standalone bills labeled “recriminalize.” Instead, several entries explain that during the 2025 appropriations process Congress debated removing or restricting longstanding protections (the Rohrabacher‑Farr rider), adding exceptions (e.g., near “sensitive locations”), and even proposals to re-criminalize hemp products that contain THC — moves that advocates warned would have criminalizing effects [2]. MPP explicitly notes Congress considered re-criminalizing hemp products with any THC during 2025 appropriations [2]. CNBC reporting similarly flagged congressional hemp restrictions that critics argued could tighten federal prohibitions and threaten the hemp-derived THC market [3].
3. Sponsors and voices pushing restrictive language — what sources show (and don’t)
Available sources identify specific sponsors for pro‑reform measures (e.g., Rep. Nadler for the MORE Act; H.R.5068 listed on Congress.gov) [1] [5]. For restrictive hemp/THC amendments or appropriations riders the sources document debate and proposals in committee and appropriations activity but do not provide a single roll‑call bill with a named sponsor who sought to “recriminalize marijuana” broadly at the federal level in 2025; MPP and news outlets describe the proposals as part of appropriations negotiations rather than a standalone criminalization bill [2] [3]. Therefore: available sources do not name a single 2025 congressional sponsor of a nationwide “recriminalize marijuana” statute comparable to descheduling bills [2].
4. How these different tracks interact — policy and legal effects
The policy picture in 2025 is fragmented: descheduling/decriminalization bills (MORE Act, H.R.5068 and other reform proposals) would remove federal criminal penalties and create expungement mechanisms [1] [6]. Conversely, appropriations riders or hemp restrictions, if enacted, could reintroduce enforcement or criminal exposure for hemp‑derived THC products and narrow prior protections — a technical route to produce criminalizing effects even as other reform bills advance [2] [3]. The Congressional Research Service background materials emphasize that federal scheduling status and appropriations language both shape enforcement and state‑federal conflict [8] [9].
5. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas to watch
Advocacy groups like the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and industry media frame the story as reform vs. rollback: MPP highlights bills to deschedule and warns of appropriation riders that could re-criminalize hemp THC [2]. Industry outlets describe reform bills as politically vulnerable but widely cosponsored [6] [7]. Journalistic reporting on hemp restrictions underscores an implicit agenda among some lawmakers to curb the unregulated hemp‑derived THC market for public‑safety and industry‑protection reasons; opponents see those same moves as protectionism or an anti‑cannabis rollback [3] [2].
6. Key limitations in the available reporting
The provided documents do not catalogue a definitive 2025 standalone federal bill explicitly designed to recriminalize marijuana nationwide with a named primary sponsor; instead, they show appropriations riders and hemp restrictions that critics argue could have criminalizing effects [2] [3]. They also do not give a comprehensive list of every member who sponsored restrictive riders in appropriations language — those debates are reported as part of broader appropriations negotiations [2]. Where source reporting names sponsors (e.g., Nadler for MORE Act, H.R.5068), I cite them; for sponsors of restrictive riders, the available sources describe the measures but do not consistently attach single‑sponsor attribution [1] [2].
If you want, I can assemble a concise list of the reform bills and their named sponsors referenced here (MORE Act/H.R.5068, Veterans’ provisions, CAOA mentions) and a follow‑up list of reported appropriations riders and which committees debated them, using only these sources.