Who Is Really Influencing Trump Marijuana Rescheduling?

"DEA Blocks Key Cannabinoid Drug Developer MMJ International Holdings from Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing, Never Acknowledging Any Of Its Scientific Findings" says Duane Boise CEO MMJ International Holdings.

WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / June 23, 2026 / On June 29, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will convene what may become the most consequential marijuana hearing in modern American history.

The hearing is intended to help build the administrative record supporting-or opposing-the proposed transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.

That record is supposed to be built on evidence.

Chemistry. Manufacturing controls. Pharmacology. Clinical development. The very scientific factors Congress requires federal regulators to evaluate when determining how a substance should be scheduled.

MMJ International Holdings has spent more than eight years and millions developing precisely that kind of evidence through the federal FDA drug development process.

DEA never evaluated any of it.

Not because the agency concluded the data was insufficient. Not because DEA disagreed with the science. Not because DEA found flaws in MMJ's chemistry, manufacturing controls, analytical testing, or clinical development work.

DEA never got that far.

What DEA's Rejection Letter Actually Says

MMJ International Holdings, together with its subsidiaries MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, Inc. and MMJ BioPharma Labs, Inc. (collectively, "MMJ"), submitted a timely Notice of Intention to Participate in the June 29 marijuana rescheduling hearing.

In a June 17, 2026 letter, DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole denied the request.

Importantly, DEA did not challenge MMJ's scientific credentials.

The agency acknowledged that MMJ:

• Maintains FDA-authorized Investigational New Drug (IND) programs for cannabinoid-based treatments

• Operates a DEA Schedule I analytical laboratory registration

• Has a pending DEA bulk manufacturing application

• Has invested more than $10 million pursuing federally regulated cannabinoid drug development

• Has spent years navigating the FDA botanical drug pathway

DEA did not dispute any of those facts.

Instead, DEA concluded that MMJ's participation request primarily raised legal and constitutional issues-including treaty compliance, statutory interpretation, and Article II concerns regarding DEA's administrative process-rather than identifying with sufficient specificity the factual evidence MMJ intended to present regarding Schedule III.

In short, DEA evaluated the framing of the request. DEA never evaluated the science behind it.

The Scientific Record DEA Never Reached

What makes the denial remarkable is what was never considered.

MMJ has spent years generating the exact categories of information normally associated with pharmaceutical drug development:

• Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) data

• Stability studies

• Analytical testing and validation

• Pharmacological characterization

• Botanical drug development data

• FDA regulatory submissions

• Clinical development planning

• Controlled manufacturing processes

This is not theoretical research. This is the type of scientific and regulatory record developed specifically to satisfy federal drug-development requirements.

Yet none of that scientific record appears anywhere in DEA's denial letter.

The agency never evaluated whether MMJ's data supports or opposes Schedule III. The agency never evaluated whether MMJ's chemistry data was relevant. The agency never evaluated whether MMJ's manufacturing controls offered useful evidence.

The agency simply never reached those questions.

"We have spent years building exactly the kind of scientific record that federal regulators claim they want," said Duane Boise, Chief Executive Officer of MMJ International Holdings. "DEA didn't reject our chemistry. DEA didn't reject our manufacturing controls. DEA didn't reject our analytical work. DEA never evaluated any of it because the agency focused on how the request was framed rather than the scientific evidence behind it."

A Hearing About Scientific Evidence Without Some of the Scientific Evidence

The irony is difficult to ignore.

A hearing convened to evaluate the scientific and medical basis for marijuana rescheduling will proceed without input from one of the few participants in the country actively pursuing cannabinoid medicines through the FDA's formal drug-development process.

DEA's denial does not suggest MMJ lacks expertise. It does not suggest MMJ lacks data. It does not suggest MMJ lacks a direct interest in the outcome.

In fact, DEA expressly acknowledged that marijuana rescheduling could affect MMJ's DEA registrations, pending applications, federal litigation, and commercial development programs.

The agency simply decided that the issues MMJ emphasized in its request were outside the scope of the hearing.

That distinction matters.

This is not a story about DEA rejecting scientific evidence. It is a story about DEA never reaching the scientific evidence at all.

What This Means for the Administrative Record

The June 29 hearing will create a record that may ultimately be reviewed by federal courts. That record will help shape one of the most significant drug-policy decisions in decades.

The question is whether that record will include the full range of scientific evidence available-or only the evidence that survives DEA's procedural gatekeeping process.

MMJ's chemistry and manufacturing data will not be absent because DEA reviewed it and found it lacking. It will be absent because DEA never reviewed it.

"An evidence-based proceeding should be interested in evidence," Boise said. "If a company with FDA-regulated cannabinoid drug development programs, DEA registrations, analytical laboratories, and years of chemistry and manufacturing work cannot get that evidence into the room, people should ask whether the process is capturing the best available science or simply the science that happens to fit through a procedural filter."

The Bigger Question

MMJ's position remains unchanged. The company supports rigorous science. The company supports FDA regulated cannabinoid research. The company supports evidence based decision making.

What concerns MMJ is the possibility that one of the most important marijuana hearings in American history may proceed without considering some of the most developed pharmaceutical cannabinoid data available.

As litigation surrounding marijuana rescheduling continues in federal court, that question may ultimately become just as important as the hearing itself:

Did DEA build a record based on all available evidence-or only the evidence its process allowed through the door?

About MMJ International Holdings

MMJ International Holdings, through its wholly owned subsidiaries MMJ BioPharma Cultivation, Inc. and MMJ BioPharma Labs, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company focused on developing cannabinoid-derived medicines for Huntington's disease, multiple sclerosis, and other serious neurological disorders. The company has pursued FDA-regulated clinical development pathways and maintains federal regulatory authorizations supporting its research programs.

CONTACT:
Madison Hisey
[email protected]
203-231-8583

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this release.

SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings

You May Also Be Interested In

• Bernstein SocGen Group Reiterates Outperform Rating on Zydus Lifesciences (ZYDUSLIF:IN)
• Piper Sandler Upgrades Synopsys (SNPS) to Overweight
• Jefferies Starts UzNIF (UZNF:LI) at Buy