The Evidence-Based Drug Policy Act of 2025 (EBDPA), introduced by Representatives Dina Titus and Ilhan Omar, doesn’t aim to legalize cannabis or reschedule it. Instead, it proposes something deceptively simple: allow the federal government to study it. In a policy environment where ideology has long outpaced data, this quiet shift could have seismic consequences.
The bill would repeal parts of the 1998 Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act that restrict federal funding for studies on Schedule I substances like cannabis, heroin, MDMA, and psilocybin. It would also remove language requiring the ONDCP to actively oppose any efforts to legalize these drugs, opening the door for unbiased, peer-reviewed research to influence future policy.
While modest in scope, the bill represents a potential turning point. It acknowledges that research is just good governance.
A Long-Overdue Catch-Up
The federal government remains stuck in a rhetorical time warp, treating cannabis as if it’s 1985. Cannabis is still classified as a Schedule I drug, implying it has no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse—despite the fact that millions of Americans use it legally under state medical programs, and a majority of states have legalized some form of adult-use cannabis.
Representative Omar put it plainly: “We need drug policy to follow the science and reflect the reality on the ground.” That ground has shifted dramatically, yet federal agencies are still legally blindfolded when it comes to funding or even conducting studies that could inform everything from youth consumption trends to economic equity in legal markets.
“Right now, there’s no systematic way for the federal government to measure how legalization impacts youth use, arrest rates, or economic opportunity,” said Cat Packer, director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation at Drug Policy Alliance. “That institutional blindfold limits our ability to make informed, responsive policy.”
Why Research Still Matters
There’s a prevailing myth that we already know everything we need to about cannabis. The truth is far more complicated—and nuanced. There are gaps in our knowledge when it comes to optimal dosing, long-term effects of consumption methods, the efficacy of different strains for different conditions, and interactions with other medications.
Katharine Neill Harris, a drug policy expert at Rice University, hopes the bill will “lead to an increase in rigorous research to inform medical use practice.” In particular, she points to the need for federally sanctioned trials that could explore whether certain cannabinoids are more effective for pain, PTSD, or epilepsy—and in what forms.
While private-sector research exists, it’s not a substitute for publicly funded, peer-reviewed studies that can shape national healthcare policy and FDA approval processes.
A Door to Psychedelic Science
Although cannabis is at the center of the bill’s promotional messaging, the EBDPA would affect all Schedule I substances. That includes psilocybin and MDMA—two drugs currently showing promise in treating PTSD, depression, and substance use disorders in controlled therapeutic settings.
Without this bill or similar legislation, the federal government is effectively blocked from studying these possibilities. Research institutions must jump through impossible hoops to get approval, and federal grants remain largely out of reach. That means the science emerging from Johns Hopkins, NYU, and MAPS often relies on philanthropy rather than public investment.
“If there is evidence to support FDA approval for a Schedule I drug for therapeutic applications,” Harris said, “this bill would mean that the ONDCP would not have to reflexively oppose it.”
The Political Reality Check
Of course, optimism must be tempered by political realism. Aaron Smith, CEO of the National Cannabis Industry Association, is less enthusiastic about the bill’s prospects, calling its passage unlikely “in the hyper-partisan times we live in.”
Still, there’s a case to be made for bipartisan support. The bill doesn’t call for legalization or even rescheduling—it merely opens the door for federal research to begin. That’s a position that could appeal to cautious moderates and data-driven conservatives alike, particularly those interested in state-level outcomes or cost-benefit analyses related to healthcare and law enforcement.
“This bill prioritizes evidence over ideology,” Packer said. “That alone gives it a fighting chance.”
If Not Now, When?
Rescheduling cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act has stalled, particularly since Donald Trump returned to the White House. The Biden administration had moved to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III substance—a step that would allow for FDA approval of cannabis-based medicines—but that effort is now all but dead.
By contrast, the EBDPA doesn’t require executive action or complex administrative rulemaking. It’s relatively easy to enact, legally speaking. The challenge is political will.
And make no mistake: this is a rare moment of alignment between public opinion and policy opportunity. More than 70% of Americans support cannabis legalization. Veterans groups, physicians, civil rights advocates, and law enforcement reformers all want more data. What’s missing is the mechanism.
A Small Bill That Could Change Everything
If passed, the EBDPA won’t make headlines like legalization or rescheduling would. But it could quietly change the future of drug policy in the U.S.
By lifting the muzzle from federal researchers, the bill could unlock a new era of evidence-based regulation, finally allowing us to study—not speculate about—the real impacts of legalization and therapeutic use. It’s not radical. It’s not risky. It’s rational.
And in 2025, that’s revolutionary enough.
