The federal government is changing how it defines cannabis and hemp, a move with ramifications for New Jersey.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in December directing cannabis to be classified as a less dangerous — though still federally illegal — plant. Some in the cannabis industry view it as a step toward eventual federal legalization, while critics note people are still incarcerated for the plant.

The rescheduling order also directs the government to review how hemp is defined.

The move allows more research on cannabis by universities and large medical companies.

New Jersey is home to some of the nation’s largest pharmaceutical firms, which means much of the research informing federal policy could take place in the Garden State.

Nearly half of all U.S. states have already legalized cannabis, including New Jersey, which approved the measure in 2021.

Cannabis was previously classified on the federal level as Schedule I, which means the government viewed it as having no medical use and a high potential for abuse. There are five schedules in total. Cannabis has been moved to Schedule III, which means medical use is now recognized and the federal government considers it less harmful.

“The federal government’s long delay in recognizing the medical use of cannabis does not serve the Americans who report health benefits from the medical use of cannabis to ease chronic pain and other various medically recognized ailments,” the executive order said.

The order is moving in the direction of viewing cannabis as something with positive benefits, said cannabis lawyer Dan McKillop, a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association’s cannabis committee.

“Clearly they’re doing away with the narrative that there’s no medicinal benefit here, and that’s important because that was a big stumbling block toward reclassification and future federal legalization,” he said.

There are also potential ramifications for hemp.

Congress recently tightened the definition of intoxicating hemp, sparking uproar in the hemp industry. New Jersey followed suit with passage of its own hemp bill, which cleared both chambers of the Legislature. The bill was based on the federal definition.

Critics say the state’s bill defines hemp in a way that excludes local hemp farmers who previously complied with the rules. Other critics also pointed out that rescheduling could render the current definition legislators were working with a moot point.

The bill now awaits Gov. Phil Murphy’s signature. The office declined to comment but said it expects to make a decision by Jan. 12 on the bill and hundreds of others passed during lame duck.

Some states, such as New York, have provided pathways for hemp farmers to enter the cannabis market — but redefining hemp in a way that locks out hemp farmers is intentional, said Chris Goldstein, one of the cannabis activists that was around for the state’s initial legalization effort.

A push by larger cannabis companies to keep out competition has been repeated multiple times nationwide, Goldstein said. New York stands out as an exception and an outcome that most of those companies would like to avoid.

“They’ve kept them out of the cannabis space this long. You think they’re going to let them in?” he said.

Goldstein said he remains skeptical of the rescheduling move for similar reasons.

Large companies and pharmaceutical firms, Goldstein argued, benefit from rescheduling but do not benefit from getting weed taken off the list altogether — a move that could introduce more competition into a market that only the well capitalized can currently afford to play in, he said.

“I don’t trust them, and you shouldn’t either,” Goldstein said of the rescheduling move.

The rescheduling process isn’t automatic and will involve a lengthy administrative procedure that could still get bogged down in red tape and congressional resistance — a problem the Biden administration faced when they too attempted to reschedule weed.

But the Trump administration’s management approach may move the process more quickly, McKillop said.

“I’m not saying it’s a great thing, but everybody who has seen this with Trump over and over again — you either get on board or get out of the way or you get punished somehow. And that’s no way to run a government. But from a practical perspective, does it mean that this is more likely to go through than not? I think it does,” McKillop said.