Idaho has held out against weed. Could a Trump executive order change that?

IDAHO FALLS (Idaho Statesman) – State Rep. Marco Erickson says he has seen the danger of marijuana use firsthand.

A 46-year-old Republican representing Idaho Falls, Erickson grew up in a family whose members struggled with drug addictions. He then spent decades working at an inpatient treatment center as a mental health counselor, and as a public health official in Nevada and Eastern Idaho focused on substance-abuse treatment.

In all those years, “I’ve never seen a positive thing come out of” marijuana use, even for medicinal purposes, he told the Idaho Statesman.

So Erickson was unhappy to learn about President Donald Trump’s Dec. 18 executive order calling for the downgrade of marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug. The administration called for the change to increase access to marijuana for medical uses.

“I think it’s a terrible move,” he said.

Erickson is in good company. Idaho’s Republican-dominated Legislature has long opposed the legalization of marijuana, passing bills in recent years to penalize possession and use of the drug even as neighboring states legalized it.

Echoing U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo and Idaho’s attorney general, Raúl Labrador, state lawmakers told the Statesman that they strongly oppose Trump’s order. But they also predicted it would mean little for Idaho.

Federal and state governments classify drugs and other chemical substances into five categories depending on the drug’s acceptable medical use or potential for dependency, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Schedule I drugs are considered to have the highest potential for abuse.

Erickson and Sen. Scott Grow, R-Eagle, said the Legislature decides every year whether and how to conform with federal drug schedules, based on recommendations from the state’s Board of Pharmacy. It’s not unusual for states to diverge from federal stances on some substances, said Grow, who has been outspoken against legalizing marijuana.

“Trump’s executive order, that’s a shot across the bow,” he told the Statesman by phone. “Just because Trump chooses to put (marijuana) in Schedule II or III doesn’t mean that the Idaho Legislature has to adopt that.”

But Josh Hurwit, who served as the U.S. Attorney for Idaho during the Biden administration, said it’s “a pretty unique situation” to have the federal and state governments disagreeing over how aggressively to pursue criminal penalties for use of a drug.

Still, the executive order “really doesn’t mean anything,” Hurwit said.

“The state can still regulate marijuana as it chooses to do,” he told the Statesman by phone. “To the extent there’s a backlash by state or local politicians, they can use their own legislative authority to address marijuana as they want.”

‘Too early to say’ what ballot measures mean for marijuana

Lawmakers said they didn’t anticipate any bills during the 2026 legislative session, which starts Jan. 12, pushing back on the executive order. In part, that’s because they’re waiting to see the effect of a resolution passed in the 2025 session that will put before voters a constitutional amendment to allow only the Legislature, not voters, to legalize marijuana.

Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, spearheaded that effort. As a former prosecutor for Ada County, “I would see the damage that (marijuana) did and still does,” especially because the drug has become more potent than it was in the 1960s or ‘70s, he told the Statesman.

That proposed amendment will be on the ballot in November 2026. It may go head-to-head with an opposing ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana — if the latter gets the required signatures required for a citizen initiative. To make it onto the ballot, the initiative must get over 70,000 signatures from at least 6% of the voters registered in 18 of Idaho’s 35 legislative districts.

Amanda Watson, a spokesperson for the Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho, which has spearheaded the initiative, declined to share how many signatures it has gotten so far. She said the campaign has “very strong momentum.”

It’s not clear what would happen if voters approved both measures at the same time. Erickson said a constitutional change would trump a change to state statute, and that in any case, state law requires the Legislature to ratify the results of the ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana in state law. Lawmakers could veto it instead.

Chelsea Carattini, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s Office, told the Statesman “it’s too early to say” what would happen if both measures were to pass.

“We don’t want to engage in hypotheticals or conjecture,” she said. “If and when that situation arises, it would be evaluated at that time.”

Legal medical marijuana: a loophole for recreational use?

Lawmakers expressed skepticism about whether allowing the use of medical marijuana would help people with chronic pain or undergoing chemotherapy, as the initiative suggests.

“It’s not about cancer. It’s about personal and recreational use,” Erickson said. “Because once you open that door just a little bit, that’s what you’re doing. You’ve just given permission to go forward with recreational use.”

Watson described Erickson’s sentiment as a “misconception.” Medical use is typically low-dose, targeted and requires a diagnosis by a health care provider, she said.

Cannabis helps decrease nausea and vomiting in people receiving chemotherapy, and it may lessen chronic pain resulting from nerve damage, the Mayo Clinic has found. Some studies in animals also show promise for cannabis as a cancer treatment, research shows. The clinic said the drug may help treat these and other conditions but urged caution because it can be habit-forming.

Watson said her organization understands why lawmakers approach the issue with caution, and concerns about medical cannabis becoming a “pathway to recreational use have been heard loud and clear.”

Those concerns “directly shaped” how the Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho drafted the ballot measure, keeping it “intentionally narrow and strictly medical,” she said.

With clear eligibility standards, including diagnosis by a medical provider, pharmacist oversight and strict regulations, the measure is “designed to function like other tightly controlled medical programs,” she added.

Susie Keller, the head of the Idaho Medical Association, did not respond to requests for comment about the state medical community’s stance on the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Lawmakers opposed to the initiative told the Statesman that its proponents were fueled by out-of-state funding.

The Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho political action committee, which has raised about $725,000 — the bulk of the funds in support of the initiative — reports that all of its donations are from within the state, according to the Idaho Sunshine website. All of the donations to that committee, however, come from a limited liability company called Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho LLC. That company is not required to report the source of its own funds, Carattini said.

Watson denied that the initiative was driven by out-of-state money, though she did not directly answer a question about what proportions of the initiative’s funding came from in-state and out-of-state donations.

“The Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho was formed by people passionate about natural therapies who live, work and raise families in Idaho,” she wrote. “Several of the organizers (myself included) have a long history of working together for nonprofit causes based in Idaho that deal with serious or terminal illness.”

Reporter Kevin Fixler contributed.