The DEA vs. The Biden Administration: The Fight Over Marijuana Reclassification

Inside the DEA’s ‘Marijuana Meeting’: Why the Agency Opposes Reclassification

Listen: DEA vs Biden

Summary

In a secluded section of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) headquarters, known as the 12th-floor “bubble,” DEA Chief Anne Milgram made a highly unusual request during a March meeting with her top deputies. Dubbed the “Marijuana Meeting,” she prohibited any note-taking.

During this half-hour session, Milgram informed her deputies that the Biden administration was poised to reclassify marijuana as a less-dangerous drug—a move the DEA had long opposed. Additionally, she disclosed a significant procedural shift: the U.S. Justice Department, not the DEA, would oversee the reclassification process, and Attorney General Merrick Garland, not Milgram, would sign the order. According to sources familiar with the meeting, Milgram offered no explanation for this unprecedented change, which materialized exactly as she had predicted.

The move represents the most significant drug policy shift in half a century and was executed without the backing of the nation’s primary narcotics enforcement agency.

“DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” stated a sentence buried 13 pages into Garland’s 92-page order, which proposed moving marijuana from Schedule I—alongside heroin and LSD—to Schedule III, grouping it with ketamine and some anabolic steroids.

Internal records reveal that the DEA had requested additional scientific input from the Justice Department in January to determine marijuana’s accepted medical use, a critical factor for reclassification. However, Justice Department attorneys overruled these requests, deeming the DEA’s criteria “impermissibly narrow.”

Several DEA officials, both current and former, suspect political motivations behind the Justice Department’s expedited timeline. They argue that President Joe Biden intends to leverage the reclassification issue to appeal to voters in his re-election campaign and was not willing to delay the decision for further DEA studies.

Derek Maltz, a retired DEA agent who formerly headed the Special Operations Division, criticized the Justice Department’s approach: “It’s crystal clear to me that the Justice Department hijacked the rescheduling process, placing politics above public safety.” He emphasized the need for scientific evaluation before making such decisions.

Former DEA Administrator Tim Shea echoed Maltz’s concerns, noting that Milgram’s absence from the signing process suggests she supported her agency’s professionals: “If she had supported it, she would have signed it and sent it in,” Shea said. He asserted that political considerations overruled the DEA’s judgment, which he described as demoralizing for the agency’s personnel.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. However, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre previously stated that Biden was committed to a 2020 campaign promise: “He said no person, no American who possesses marijuana should go to jail. It is affecting communities across the country, including communities of color.”

Justice Department attorneys defended Garland’s decision, stating the action was necessitated by “sharply different views” between the DEA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Last year, HHS recommended reclassifying marijuana, considering it less risky than cocaine, heroin, and oxycodone, and effective in treating ailments like anorexia and pain.

Despite acknowledging marijuana’s risks, HHS concluded these were relatively lower than those posed by other drugs. The DEA, however, disputed these findings and repeatedly sought additional information. Garland’s order highlights at least ten instances where the DEA requested further data before endorsing HHS’ conclusions. The DEA did not respond to requests for further comment.

While the Justice Department did not specifically address internal disagreements, a statement emphasized that the proposal aligned with HHS’s scientific and medical evaluations. The department stressed its legal obligation to follow HHS’s findings on marijuana until the rulemaking process begins.

The discord within the federal government highlights ongoing debates over marijuana policy, reflecting broader political dynamics and conflicting priorities between law enforcement and public health agencies. As the discussion continues, the political implications of marijuana reclassification remain a contentious and closely watched issue.