NCAI Wants Tribes Written Into Marijuana Rescheduling

The National Congress of American Indians says the Justice Department skipped a step it was legally required to take. In a resolution aimed at the Trump administration's marijuana rescheduling plan, NCAI argues that DOJ never properly consulted tribal governments before moving ahead.

The stakes are concrete. Many tribes license and regulate cannabis inside their own jurisdictions, so a federal rule that treats them as an afterthought leaves a gap in exactly the places where tribal programs operate.

One caution before the details. This article draws mostly on secondary reporting about the resolution, so its number, its adoption date and any response from the department should be confirmed against the resolution text itself.

What NCAI Is Asking DOJ to Do

NCAI describes itself as the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments. Its resolution opens with a procedural charge: the administration failed to engage in tribal consultation, as federal law requires, when it crafted the plan to reschedule marijuana.

The remedy it proposes comes in two possible forms. DOJ could amend the existing rescheduling order so it covers tribally licensed cannabis products, or it could issue a separate new rule. Either way, the goal is spelled out: specifically move tribally licensed cannabis and cannabis products from Schedule I to Schedule III.

That specificity is the point. A general rescheduling order says nothing about whether a product grown and sold under a tribal license gets the same treatment as one made under a state license. NCAI wants the answer written down.

The resolution also goes beyond rulemaking. It demands that DOJ immediately begin consultation with tribes engaged in the cannabis industry. In other words, NCAI is asking for the conversation it says never happened, and it wants it started now rather than after any new rule is drafted.

DOJ's Consultation Argument and Why NCAI Rejects It

According to the resolution, DOJ pointed to a Clinton-era executive order on tribal consultation as its reference. DOJ then reportedly said it did not consult because rescheduling does not have substantial effects on one or more Indian tribes. That threshold language is the hinge of the whole dispute.

NCAI rejects the premise. The resolution says scores of tribes engaged with DOJ while the department was weighing the final order. Those same tribes regulate and license cannabis within their jurisdictions, which NCAI treats as the basis for claiming substantial effects.

There is an obvious tension in DOJ's position, at least as the resolution frames it. If dozens of tribes were talking to the department about cannabis during the process, it is hard to argue the rule was irrelevant to them. Whether DOJ sees it that way is unknown, since I found no published response.

The resolution also looks ahead. It urges DOJ to include tribes in any further administrative action on cannabis, whether that action falls under the Controlled Substances Act or is another round of rescheduling. That would turn a one-time complaint into a standing expectation about how the department handles tribal cannabis issues.

Where the Rescheduling Effort Stands

The timeline starts in August 2025, when President Trump said his administration was considering moving marijuana to a lower schedule. On December 18, 2025, he signed an executive order directing DOJ to begin shifting marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. The order told the Attorney General to complete the rulemaking in the most expeditious manner possible.

Nugmag reports that Attorney General Todd Blanche signed a final order in April. That date, and the order's exact scope and effective date, should be checked in the Federal Register before anyone relies on them.

The picture gets muddier with a separate DEA hearing. Marijuana Moment reported that DEA and opponents of rescheduling had filed final briefs ahead of a judge's decision. Opponents argue procedural shortcomings tainted the scientific review, while DEA does not believe a federal watchdog report on gaps in the evaluation process undermines the proposal. How a pending hearing squares with a signed final order is unclear. They may cover different parts of the process, and the official record is the place to sort that out.

Litigation adds another layer:

• Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill withdrew from a lawsuit she had filed jointly with the attorneys general of Indiana and Nebraska.
• A separate suit from doctors and a pharmaceutical company says they are aggrieved by the move.

The current status of both cases should be verified.

Why Tribal Cannabis Markets Make the Gap Matter

The money explains why tribes are pressing the point. A HedgeRow Analysis estimate, reported by Nugmag, projects that tribes in the legal marijuana market could generate more than $2 billion in new revenue every year. That is a projection, not a measured result, but it shows what is at stake in how a federal rule treats tribal operators.

Participation is already broad. An older Marijuana Moment infographic from an advocacy group for Native American tribes in the cannabis industry showed more than a fourth of Indigenous communities in the continental U.S. involved in marijuana or hemp programs. Its date is unclear, so treat that figure as possibly outdated. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is one example of a tribe running such a program.

State-level friction complicates things further. California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued an opinion that tribes cannot take part in marijuana commerce with state-licensed businesses without getting their own state cannabis licenses. A bill on the issue was advancing in the legislature as of June 2026.

History is the last reason for caution. The 2014 Wilkinson Memo extended Cole Memo guidance to tribes, and it was rescinded in 2018 during Trump's first term. Tribal cannabis policy has swung with each administration, and a rule written without tribal input could be just as easy to reverse or ignore.

The practical question is how DOJ responds. It could amend the existing order, write a separate tribal rule, or say nothing at all. Tribal operators and their counsel should watch for any response, because silence would leave the status of tribally licensed products unsettled.

Several pieces are unsettled: whether the April order is final, how the DEA hearing fits with it, where the two lawsuits stand and what the resolution says word for word. Check the Federal Register, DOJ and DEA, and the resolution text, and confirm your tribal and state law before making business decisions. Legality varies by jurisdiction, and nothing here is legal advice.

Browse our seed collection.