Trump research cuts threaten cannabis studies, poses rescheduling questions

The Trump administration’s plan to cut federal research funding threatens 565 ongoing experiments involving cannabis, according to an MJBizDaily review and interviews with scientists and academics.

An accompanying freeze of new National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants is also stymieing future research at a key moment – and raising questions about the fate of marijuana rescheduling as well as suggesting profound consequences for the regulated MJ industry.

The NIH announced Feb. 7 that it would drastically reduce to no more than 15% the amount of “indirect costs” – money used to cover administrative and facility-related bills – financed by federal research grants.

Without fully funded indirect costs, “I literally cannot do my research,” Angela Bryan, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Colorado Boulder who’s studied high-THC cannabis as well as the use of marijuana for pain, mood and sleep, told MJBizDaily in a phone interview.

Universities immediately sued to block the NIH cuts, which are now on indefinite hiatus pending resolution of those legal challenges.

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r

That forces researchers to continue to work despite the real possibility that a halt could happen at almost any time.

It also creates potential for yet another long-term headache for the $32 billion marijuana industry.

Without reliable research, the regulated cannabis industry will be hard-pressed to fight allegations of marijuana’s drawbacks and lawsuits alleging high-potency products’ severe harms.

The industry also might be unable to satisfactorily answer questions from skeptical or hostile lawmakers who want to reverse or halt key reforms, including federal marijuana rescheduling and state-level legalization.

“We’re all very concerned, because of the unpredictable nature in which things are heading,” said Dr. Ziva Cooper, a professor and the director of the University of California Los Angeles’s Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids.

Federal dollars aren’t the only funding source for cannabis projects.

Some institutions, such as UCLA, also receive funding from states that set aside revenue from marijuana sales for research.

However, practically speaking, most labs would struggle to function or cease altogether without NIH grants, which "have been the source of much larger, generally high impact studies," Cooper said.

Bryan is currently the principal investigator in three cannabis-related studies, including research into the drug’s value in palliative care for cancer patients and its effects on older users.

At Bryan's lab and at colleagues’ institutions across the country, she said, "the level of anxiety is higher than I’ve ever seen it. I have to tell you: On a scale of 1 to 10, this is a 12.”

“We’re all terrified that our work will grind to a halt," Bryan added.

"We have almost 30 employees at our lab. All of those people will be out of a job.”

In the meantime, the Trump administration has also canceled review of new study proposals, meaning any research in various stages of approval but not yet underway are in limbo indefinitely.

Such disruption to cannabis-related research comes despite some campaign-trail signals that the Trump administration would be marijuana-friendly.

It also runs counter to a September plea from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine for a “new research agenda” - including lifting restrictions imposed by the Office of National Drug Control Policy on studying marijuana legalization and its effects on public health.

According to an NIH database, 565 ongoing research projects - with a total of $320 million in funding - mention marijuana or cannabis in the project title or terms.

These include:

While cannabis represents a tiny portion of the $47 billion the U.S. government spends on 60,000 distinct biomedical research projects across a range of disciplines every year, the ongoing work also reflects a remarkable turnaround that’s now at risk of reversal.

In 2012, the year voters in Colorado and Washington state approved the first adult-use marijuana legalization laws in the nation, researchers published about 1,200 marijuana-related studies, according to an NIH database.

Man of those studies, critics note, focused on the marijuana's harms.

By 2021, researchers published more than 4,200 marijuana-related research projects, with scientists such as Bryan inspired and empowered to also investigate the drug’s potential benefits.

"Over the last four years, at least under the Biden administration, there were a number of signals that NIH was very supportive of funding research dedicating to understanding the health outcomes related to cannabis - whether that was therapeutic or adverse effects," UCLA's Cooper said.

“I think the cannabis space is just starting to get some really great momentum through NIH,” added Josh Kaplan, an associate professor of psychology researching behavioral neuroscience at Western Washington University.

Kaplan said the need to understand cannabis’ safety profile is “imperative.”

“We’re trying to understand it (cannabis) at a high level,” he added.

“I would love to see that momentum continue. I hope that’s not tarnished by what’s going on now.”

Exclusive industry data and analysis to help you make informed business decisions and avoid costly missteps. All the facts, none of the hype. 

Featured inside: 

There is also reason to fear that the chaos and uncertainty swirling in the research space could affect the marijuana rescheduling process, which remains on hold while the Trump administration decides how to proceed.

In January, hearings before the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s chief administrative law judge regarding the Biden administration’s proposal to downgrade marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 of the Controlled Substances Act were put on pause pending an appeal.

When - or whether - that appeal is heard is solely up to the DEA.

The DEA would be led by Trump nominee Terrance Cole, a career official in the agency and vocal cannabis critic, if he is confirmed by the Senate.

A key justification for the Biden Justice Department’s recommendation to reschedule marijuana was the Department of Health and Human Services’ August 2023 finding that cannabis has a “currently accepted medical use."

During his confirmation hearings earlier this month, new Heath Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declined to endorse those findings.

Kennedy also promised Republican U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska - one of the states that officially opposing marijuana rescheduling - that he would “follow the science on the harms of marijuana,” a claim he later reiterated on a Fox News appearance.

Privately, some researchers believe Kennedy's sudden cooling on cannabis as well as Trump's choice to lead the DEA portend the status quo.

But at the least, it raises serious questions about the Trump administration's interest in cannabis reform.

"If the door's open to rescheduling pending more research being done, and if research is impacted by these changes - then, yeah, that would likely impact further discussion about cannabis rescheduling," Cooper said.

"We don't know. We are just unsure."

Chris Roberts can be reached at chris.roberts@mjbizdaily.com.