February 20, 2026
In mid-September 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) published a formal notice withdrawing a large set of pending rulemaking actions. The official notice—published in the Federal Register—confirmed that DOJ was pulling back multiple items that had appeared in the Unified Agenda or had been teed up for proposal, including several Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) entries relevant to the regulated cannabis and hemp ecosystem.
Two withdrawals matter most for compliance and regulatory planning:
These rescissions were listed in the DOJ’s withdrawal notice and accompanying tables of affected actions, which are the authoritative record of the change. For context and verification, see the DOJ notice in the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/11/2025-17526/department-of-justice-withdrawal-of-rulemaking-actions
Industry coverage quickly framed the change as a “freeze” on near-term modernization—particularly on (1) research access and (2) analytical testing alignment for hemp. Trade reporting from MJBizDaily and Marijuana Moment provides additional details and stakeholder reaction:
Why this matters: a withdrawn rule is not the same as a delayed final rule. Withdrawal generally means agencies would need to restart the process (often with a new proposal, a new docket, and fresh public comment) if they want to revive the policy.
Even with DOJ/DEA withdrawing pending actions, several core federal baselines remain intact and enforceable. For compliance teams, the practical effect is less about “new requirements disappearing” and more about anticipated clarifications and process improvements not arriving.
Key federal baselines that still govern:
USDA’s hemp program is still the primary federal framework for cultivation compliance, including:
Primary USDA references:
A major pain point for hemp operators has been the “DEA-registered lab” concept for THC compliance testing. USDA has repeatedly extended enforcement deadlines because of insufficient capacity and delays in the DEA registration pipeline.
USDA’s public-facing lab information and enforcement discretion updates are essential reading:
Operational takeaway: even if a DOJ/DEA proposal had been expected to reduce registration burdens for certain analytical labs, your actual compliance obligations still flow from USDA plan requirements and your state/tribal plan. In many jurisdictions, state programs impose stricter requirements than USDA’s temporary enforcement posture.
Because these entries were withdrawn before becoming final, the best way to understand them is through the Unified Agenda descriptions and reputable summaries.
The Unified Agenda entry indicates the proposal would have addressed a narrow but important issue: DEA registration requirements for analytical labs performing chemical analysis solely on hemp samples produced under approved hemp production plans.
Unified Agenda entry (reginfo.gov): https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202504&RIN=1117-AB77
Why labs cared: DEA registration brings controlled-substance handling requirements (security, background checks, inspections, recordkeeping) that can be expensive and slow to obtain. If a lab’s workload is limited to legally-produced hemp samples, many stakeholders argued a blanket controlled-substance registration model was misaligned with day-to-day operations.
What withdrawal means: there is no new federal waiver or streamlined exemption coming through this channel in the near term. Labs should assume the registration question remains tied to USDA enforcement posture and state plan requirements unless Congress or USDA/DEA issue new guidance.
This withdrawn DEA rulemaking was tied to implementing the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act (enacted in 2022), which was intended to make it easier to conduct research by setting timelines and clarifying expectations for certain DEA actions.
Unified Agenda entry (reginfo.gov): https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202504&RIN=1117-AB83
What withdrawal means: research institutions and sponsors should not assume that rule-based process improvements (such as clearer deadlines or standardized review pathways) will materialize on the timelines previously implied in regulatory planning documents.
DOJ’s withdrawal primarily impacts project planning rather than today’s enforceable rules. The biggest operational consequences are budgeting, contracting, and timeline risk—especially for labs, universities, and multi-state operators.
For hemp testing labs and brands relying on third-party certificates of analysis (COAs), the near-term reality is:
A best practice in 2026 is to treat your testing compliance program like a “multi-jurisdictional product launch” even if you only operate domestically: document methods, defensible chain-of-custody, and auditable corrective actions.
For research programs, the withdrawal means:
For researchers and compliance officers, DEA’s general Schedule I research registration resources remain relevant for controlled substances research compliance:
If you are relying on federally authorized sources, NIH continues to track DEA-approved bulk suppliers (helpful for procurement planning and sponsor diligence):
If you’re underwriting a lab network, brand, or research partnership, DOJ’s withdrawal is a reminder to model:
In diligence, document the target’s:
A major theme since 2018 has been that “federal legality” does not equal “uniform federal regulation.” As federal rulemaking slows, the industry increasingly lives inside:
On FDA’s position that existing food and supplement frameworks are not well suited for CBD, the agency’s 2023 statement remains a key reference point for compliance teams building marketing and labeling risk controls:
Compliance takeaway: the “federal floor” exists, but business risk is often determined by the strictest state you operate in and the most skeptical enforcement agency you might face (state agriculture, health department, consumer protection, or attorneys general).
DOJ’s withdrawal does not permanently foreclose future federal action. It does, however, shift the most realistic path forward toward Congress, appropriations, and narrower agency guidance.
In late 2025, Congressional Research Service (CRS) products highlighted that appropriations bills can become vehicles for hemp definition changes and restrictions, which can indirectly force shifts in testing standards and compliance obligations.
Examples:
If Congress changes the statutory definition (for example, moving from delta-9 THC to total THC for finished products, or restricting certain intoxicating derivatives), labs and brands should expect rapid downstream impacts on:
USDA has shown it can meaningfully change the operational reality without changing the underlying regulation—by issuing enforcement discretion, updating guidance, and modifying reporting tooling (like HeMP).
For 2026 planning, regularly monitor:
Even when rulemaking stalls, measurement expectations can tighten through reference standards and quality assurance programs adopted by regulators and accrediting bodies.
NIST’s 2024 release of a hemp plant reference material (RM 8210) is a major signal for labs: regulators and litigators increasingly expect traceability and defensible calibration/validation.
Lab takeaway: If your SOPs do not clearly document calibration, control materials, uncertainty treatment, and method validation, your COAs may be less defensible—regardless of whether DOJ/DEA rulemaking moves.
The moment DOJ withdraws pending rules is exactly when compliance teams should tighten “baseline discipline.” Consider the following operational steps.
DOJ’s September 2025 withdrawal does not change the day-to-day legality of hemp production under USDA rules or the CSA’s baseline controls. But it does change expectations for near-term federal modernization.
In 2026, the most defensible posture is:
Informational only, not legal advice.
When federal timelines shift, teams win by being faster at identifying what changed, what didn’t, and what controls need updating.
Use https://cannabisregulations.ai/ to monitor cannabis compliance developments, track licensing and regulations updates, and strengthen your SOPs for testing, labeling, research partnerships, and multi-jurisdiction rollout planning.
