Every April 20, the high holiday for marijuana lovers, is a reason to examine the state of the $30 billion cannabis industry. And this year, there is tremendous optimism that federal reform is finally coming.

In December 2025, President Trump signed an executive order asking the Department of Justice to finish the process to reschedule marijuana as a less dangerous drug. While the $30 billion industry has been anxiously waiting progress since then, President Trump recently fired U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who would have carried out that order. Still, there is hope that the Trump Administration will finish the job and downgrade cannabis from a Schedule I drug—along with heroin and LSD—to a Schedule III substance, along with ketamine and steroids.

On the other hand, marijuana’s cousin, THC-derived from hemp, which has blossomed into a $28 billion industry, is under threat. Last year, an amendment inside the Agriculture Appropriations section of the omnibus spending bill to re-open the federal government after the longest shut down in history, effectively banned most hemp derived-THC products currently on the market, which has been both a lifeline to the struggling marijuana industry and another fierce competitor. If nothing changes, the ban will go into effect in November, and the hemp-derived THC economy will go up in smoke. But hemp companies (and their lobbyists) are working hard to convince lawmakers to prevent the ban from going in place this fall, while others are lobbying for regulations to keep the market alive.

Despite the political whiplash, marijuana and hemp are more mainstream than ever. Medical marijuana sales are legal across 40 states, and 25 have recreational sales, and 88% of Americans believe weed should be legal for medical or recreational use, according to Pew Research Center. And THC beverages are being sold in liquor stores, bars, grocery stores and even retailers like Target.

For the fifth-annual Cannabis 42.0 list, Forbes is celebrating the entrepreneurs, innovators and disruptors who are finding success in the state-regulated cannabis market in spite of these headwinds. Over the last few months, Forbes interviewed dozens of investors, executives, analysts and business owners, studied sales data and financial documents and reviewed nearly 200 applicants to identify the 42 leaders who are transforming cannabis from a criminal enterprise into a robust legal industry. The list is focused on entrepreneurial brands and people revolutionizing the industry from the ground up. Here are the pot pioneers blazing a path forward in 2026.

Efter den initiala euforin kring Donald Trumps exekutiva order om att påskynda omklassificeringen av cannabis har optimismen snabbt avtagit. Nu backar cannabisaktierna, samtidigt som osäkerheten kring processen växer.

Det är nu nästan två månader sedan president Donald Trump överraskade den globala cannabisindustrin genom att underteckna en exekutiv order om att inleda den länge efterlängtade processen för omklassificering av cannabis ur det byråkratiska träsket.

Utan att administrationen har nämnt projektet sedan dess  fylls tomrummet återigen av förbudsrörelser , marknadsskepticism och obevekliga distraktioner.

I takt med att den inledande euforin kring den exekutiva ordern om att påskynda omklassificeringen av cannabis i stort sett har lagt sig, har cannabisaktierna – föga förvånande – gett upp sina snabba uppgångar.

AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF (MSOS), som steg med 24 procent efter tillkännagivandet i december, ligger nu omkring 15 procent ned hittills i år, samtidigt som det bredare S&P 500-indexet har rört sig in på plus.

Även om processen långt ifrån kan anses vara avskriven, har cannabisindustrin historiskt haft en tendens att dras med i kortsiktig hype. Allt fler tongivande röster antyder nu att sektorn kan ha fallit i samma fälla ännu en gång.

Omklassificeringen kommer i praktiken främst att innebära en betydande skattelättnad, framför allt för de stora multistate-operatörerna (MSO:er), och det kommer att stärka deras resultat, vilket i sin tur kan påverka aktiekurserna positivt, säger Arthur Cordova, vd för cannabisföretaget Ziel   och tidigare institutionell handlare på Wall Street. – Men utöver det kommer den inte att bidra med något nytt kapital i traditionell mening.

Eftersom justitiedepartementet inte har lämnat några uppdateringar om hur implementeringen fortskrider och den administrativa vägen fortfarande är oklar, säger Cordova att han fortsatt väntar på en trovärdig genomgång av hur processen faktiskt ska gå vidare.

– Jag har ännu inte läst någon riktigt skarp analys som förklarar hur omklassificeringen ser ut i praktiken just nu, säger han.

Denna osäkerhet förvärras av ett växande politiskt motstånd inom Trumps eget parti. Vägen mot en omklassificering till Schedule III är kantad av betydande juridiska och administrativa hinder, och även om processen skulle lyckas är det långt ifrån säkert att den leder till den omvälvande förändring som många etablerade aktörer har hoppats på.

Implementeringsproblemet

I sin exekutiva order instruerade Trump justitieminister Pam Bondi att ”vidta alla nödvändiga åtgärder för att så snabbt som möjligt slutföra regelgivningsprocessen för att omklassificera marijuana till Schedule III enligt Controlled Substances Act”.

Men två månader senare har justitiedepartementet i stort sett inte gett någon klarhet i hur, när eller om det kommer att ske.

När en talesperson för justitiedepartementet kontaktades av Marijuana Moment förra månaden uppgav departementet att det inte fanns några ”kommentarer eller uppdateringar” att dela. Nyligen berättade dock en tjänsteman för Salon att ”justitiedepartementet arbetar med att identifiera det snabbaste sättet att verkställa exekutivordern”, vilket tyder på att den fortsatta vägen ännu inte är fastställd.

De administrativa kraven är omfattande. DEA måste fortfarande gå igenom omkring 43 000 offentliga synpunkter som lämnades in under Biden-administrationens arbete med ett förslag till nytt regelverk. Myndigheten har dessutom saknat administrativa domare sedan augusti 2025 – de tjänstemän som ansvarar för att övervaka omklassificeringar av substanser. DEA-administratören Terry Cole, som bekräftades i juli, har ännu inte offentligt åtagit sig att omklassificera marijuana och kontrollerar utnämningen av de domare som skulle kunna återuppta processen.

I en färsk  rapport från Congressional Research Service  beskrevs hur justitiedepartementet i teorin skulle kunna avvisa presidentens direktiv helt eller försena processen genom att återuppta den vetenskapliga granskningen.

Justitieminister Bondi har hittills förblivit tyst i frågan. Även om det hade spekulerats i att frågan skulle tas upp i veckans explosiva utfrågning, spårade sessionen  oundvikligen ur av Epstein-skandalen.

Rättsliga utmaningar är också praktiskt taget garanterade. Nebraskas justitieminister Mike Hilgers ledde ett oppositionsbrev till flera delstater under Biden-processen och har fortsatt rättstvister mot medicinska cannabisprogram och berusningsmedel som härrör från hampa.

Anticannabisgrupper har redan förberett rättsliga utmaningar mot den vetenskapliga grund som ligger till grund för en omklassificering av cannabis. Samtidigt kan även reformförespråkare komma att väcka talan och hävda att en omklassificering inte går tillräckligt långt, och att cannabis i stället bör avföras helt från Controlled Substances Act.

Vad kommer egentligen att förändras?

För många amerikanska cannabisoperatörer har det centrala fokusområdet kring en omklassificering varit att få bort skatteregeln 280E – den paragraf i IRS skattelagstiftning som förhindrar vanliga affärsavdrag för verksamheter som hanterar substanser klassade under Schedule I eller II.

Men enligt Cordova är påståenden om att detta automatiskt skulle öppna dörren för institutionellt kapital överdrivna.

Det verkliga hindret är enligt Cordova inte Schedule I-klassificeringen i sig, utan avsaknaden av bankreformer – en fråga som fortsatt stått still trots omfattande legalisering på delstatsnivå. Utan tillgång till traditionella bank- och kapitalmarknader ger en omklassificering endast begränsad lättnad.

Därtill fungerar många multistate-operatörer (MSO:er) redan i praktiken som om 280E-regeln vore avskaffad, vilket innebär att de omedelbara ekonomiska vinsterna av en omklassificering sannolikt blir begränsade.

Det enda område där Cordova ser mer påtagliga framsteg är inom forskningen, men även där ligger de verkliga fördelarna för patienter och företag flera år fram i tiden.

Stora läkemedelsbolag som tidigare har ”arbetat tyst bakom kulisserna” kommer då att kunna diskutera cannabis öppet som en del av sina utvecklingsportföljer. Multinationella företag som Bayer och Novartis, som tidigare varit försiktiga med att riskera sin amerikanska verksamhet, kan därmed engagera sig mer öppet.

Samtidigt rör sig kliniska prövningar, FDA-godkännanden och läkemedelsutveckling långsamt, och traditionella cannabisbolag saknar den regulatoriska infrastruktur som läkemedelsindustrin har byggt upp under årtionden.

Business of Cannabis kommer under de kommande veckorna att publicera en serie artiklar som fördjupar sig i de praktiska konsekvenserna av en omklassificering.

Originalartikeln på Businessofcannabis.com

It is now nearly two months since President Donald Trump surprised the global cannabis industry by signing an executive order to drag the highly-anticipated cannabis rescheduling process out of the bureaucratic  swamp.With no mention of the project from the administration ever since, the void is once again being filled with prohibitionist pushback, market scepticism, and relentless distractions.

As the initial euphoria of the Executive Order to expedite cannabis rescheduling now all but evaporated, cannabis stocks have predictably surrendered their rapid gains.

The AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETF (MSOS), which surged 24% following the December announcement, is now down 15% year-to-date as the broader S&P 500 climbs into positive territory.

While the project is by no means written off, the cannabis industry at large historically has poor form on succumbing to hype, and an increasing number of leading voices are now suggesting it could have fallen into this trap once again.

“Rescheduling is just going to be a big tax break largely the MSOs, and it’s going to help their bottom line, which might help their stock price,” Arthur de Cordova, CEO of cannabis company Ziel and former Wall Street institutional trader. “But outside of that, it will do nothing to inject any additional capital in the traditional sense.”

With the Justice Department offering no updates on implementation progress and the administrative pathway remaining unclear, de Cordova says he’s still waiting for credible analysis of how the process moves forward: “I have yet to read an incisive article that explains how rescheduling gets done now.”

That uncertainty compounds mounting political resistance from within Trump’s own party. The path to Schedule III faces significant legal and administrative hurdles, and even if successful, may not deliver the transformational change legacy operators anticipated.

The implementation problem

Trump’s executive order directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to ‘take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the most expeditious manner.’

But two months later, the Justice Department has provided virtually no clarity on how, when, or whether that will occur.

When pressed by Marijuana Moment last month, a DOJ spokesperson said the department had no ‘comment or updates’ to share. More recently, an agency official told Salon that the ‘DOJ is working to identify the most expeditious means of executing the EO’, suggesting that the path forward has not yet been established.

The administrative requirements are substantial. The Drug Enforcement Administration must still review 43,000 public comments submitted during the Biden administration’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking process. The agency has had no administrative law judges on staff since August 2025, the very officials responsible for overseeing drug reclassifications. DEA Administrator Terry Cole, who was confirmed in July, has yet to commit publicly to rescheduling and controls the appointment of new judges who could restart the process.

A recent Congressional Research Service report outlined how the DOJ could, in theory, reject the president’s directive entirely or delay the process by restarting the scientific review.

Attorney General Bondi has so far remained silent on the issue. While it had been speculated the issue would be brought up in this week’s explosive hearing, the session was inevitably derailed by the Epstein Files scandal.

Legal challenges are also virtually guaranteed. Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers led a multistate opposition letter during the Biden process and has continued litigation against medical cannabis programs and hemp-derived intoxicants.

Anti-cannabis groups have already prepared challenges to the rescheduling science. Even pro-reform advocates may sue, arguing that rescheduling doesn’t go far enough and that cannabis should be de-scheduled and entirely removed from the Controlled Substances Act.

What will really change?

The central focus for US-based cannabis operators regarding rescheduling has been the removal of the 280e tax rule, the IRS code section that bars ordinary business deductions for Schedule I/II drug operations.

But suggestions it could open the door to institutional capital, de Cordova suggests, are overcooked.

The real barrier isn’t Schedule I classification, it’s banking reform, which remains stalled despite widespread state legalisation. Without access to traditional banking and capital markets, rescheduling offers limited relief.

Furthermore, most of the MSOs are already operating as if 280e has already been abolished, meaning that immediate gains will likely be modest.

The one area where de Cordova sees genuine progress is research access, but the real-world benefits for patients and businesses will likely not be felt for years.

Big Pharma companies that have been ‘quietly working behind the scenes’ will finally be able to discuss cannabis in their pipeline publicly. Multinationals like Bayer and Novartis, previously cautious about jeopardising US operations, can now engage openly.

Clinical trials, FDA approvals, and pharmaceutical development timelines don’t move quickly, and legacy cannabis operators lack the regulatory infrastructure that Big Pharma has spent decades building.

Between the buzz surrounding federal rescheduling and President Trump’s recent executive order, the U.S. is currently facing a mountain of unanswered questions. Amidst this domestic whirlwind, it is easy to overlook that several European nations are quietly advancing their own large-scale reforms. While many are familiar with the long-standing “coffee shops” of Amsterdam or the established medical programs in the UK and Switzerland, the continent’s most significant shift occurred in 2024. That was the year Germany—the European Union’s most populous nation and a global economic superpower—officially legalized cannabis.

With the industry now expanding beyond state lines and into the territory of independent nations, American operators are naturally eager to understand how they can participate. However, as with any frontier expansion, these international opportunities will come with their fair share of regulatory roadblocks and typical growing pains.

Europe’s Cannabis Market Comes With Heavier Regulation

“Europe’s medical cannabis market is expanding quickly, with over 20 countries allowing medical use.” explains Arthur de Cordova, CEO and Co-Founder of Ziel.

Many of these markets still lack sufficient domestic cultivation and manufacturing capacity, driving a high demand for imported products. While the U.S. regulatory framework currently restricts the export of finished goods, a significant opportunity exists for American equipment and service companies. These firms, backed by extensive experience in cultivation and processing, are uniquely positioned to enter this rapidly expanding landscape.

However, any American operator eyeing a European expansion must navigate a substantial layer of additional regulation. Specifically, for medical cannabis to be sold in the EU, the flower must be cultivated under Good Agricultural and Collection Practices (GACP) and processed in an EU Good Manufacturing Practice (EU GMP) certified facility. This certification is already mandatory for any European pharmaceutical company, as it sets the “minimum standards to operate legally” within the medicinal framework.

While it may take time for the rest of the EU to mirror the “cannabis-friendly” stance of Germany or the Czech Republic, the mere existence of these medical markets is a significant shift. Interestingly, the movement spans the entire geographic and economic scale of the union: Germany, the EU’s largest nation, and Malta, its smallest, have both legalized cannabis. They are joined by Luxembourg, which moved toward legalization slightly before Germany. Meanwhile, 13 other countries—stretching from Norway to Romania—have established medical programs, though they vary significantly in their strictness and permitted product types.

Strategic Pathways for Entering Europe’s Cannabis Market

Swipe to scroll →

Given Ziel’s international experience and the existing regulation surrounding the production of pharmaceutical/medical products in all EU-affiliated countries, de Cordova recommends a few different strategies for expansion into the European countries while still abiding by the strict regulations that come with EU GMP and other required licenses.

Even with the several variances in how each individual EU country will be treating cannabis and the rigorousness of the required certifications, there are still a few different options for cannabis businesses interested in European expansions that each provide their own equal amount of benefits and drawbacks as well.

Partnering With EU GMP Facilities to Accelerate Market Entry

Cordova advised that the fastest path would be that instead of building an exorbitantly expensive EU GMP-certified facility in one of the EU-affiliated nations. GACP growers can save a considerable amount of capital and partner with European facilities that already have gone through all the extensive and costly processes required to obtain their EU GMP validation. Interestingly, the countries mentioned go beyond only The Netherlands and into several other countries not stereotypically known for cannabis culture that have passed nationwide reforms of their own.

Building EU GMP Processing in Colombia or Thailand

There’s two countries in particular that de Cordova frequently mentions as perfect natural climates for cannabis production, yet both of them are far outside of Europe and many of the EU’s policies, yet still operate under the stringent guidelines that come with GACP certification.

With year-round harvest cycles, large-scale greenhouse facilities that rival many award-winning American cultivators and soils that are naturally rich in everything vital for quality cannabis consumption, Colombia and Thailand have become ideal spots for large-scale cannabis cultivation. De Cordova brought up the financial statistic that adding even just two extra harvest cycles can result in additional revenue of over 1 million Euros.

Over the past decade, supportive regulations and foreign investment have helped the country emerge as a key source of medical cannabis for global markets. A key driver has been the widespread adoption of GACP, which is effectively table stakes for Europe; for companies targeting European buyers, GACP compliance is not optional; it is a requirement.

Key Takeaways for U.S. Cannabis Operators Entering Europe

De Cordova advises that the two most crucial regulatory frameworks are GACP for cultivation and EU-GMP for post-harvest manufacturing, two very important certifications that mostly aren’t required for American cannabis companies. Also, on top of the arduous process of receiving those certifications, any aspiring American cannabis companies will simultaneously need to be cognizant of whatever the national laws and regulations are for wherever they’re operating and the vast ways in which the operation and production rules and costs can change between the nations. And even though the American companies would technically be the newcomers into the European industries, de Cordova stressed the miles, and not kilometers, of experience that American cannabis companies can provide for their European contemporaries.