In the landscape of global drug policy, the United States in 2025 presents a portrait of profound and often bewildering contradiction. The nation is currently navigating the aftershocks of a monumental federal shift in cannabis policy while simultaneously grappling with a deep and persistent chasm between federal law and the bold legislative experiments occurring at the state level. This fractured reality, where a substance can be legal for recreational use in one state while remaining federally illicit, creates a complex legal gray area for citizens, businesses, and law enforcement alike. The era of a monolithic “war on drugs” is decisively over, replaced by a patchwork of conflicting laws that reflect a society in the midst of a dramatic, yet incomplete, transformation.

The most significant development shaping this new era is the federal government’s recent administrative rescheduling of cannabis. In a landmark move finalized in late 2024 following a recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officially moved cannabis from its long-held position on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. This change cannot be overstated in its symbolic and practical importance. For over 50 years, a Schedule I classification defined cannabis as a drug with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, placing it in the same category as heroin. The move to Schedule III fundamentally repudiates this stance, formally acknowledging that cannabis has accepted medical applications and a moderate to low potential for physical or psychological dependence.

The immediate and most celebrated impact of this rescheduling has been on the state-sanctioned cannabis industry. Unlike a cast or pill The move effectively nullified the hated Section 280E of the federal tax code. This provision, which applied only to businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II substances, prohibited them from deducting ordinary business expenses like rent and payroll, resulting in cripplingly high effective tax rates. With rescheduling, state-legal cannabis businesses are now able to operate under the same tax rules as any other legal enterprise, a change that has provided a massive lifeline to an industry struggling with price compression and high operating costs. It also paves the way for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve and regulate cannabis-derived pharmaceutical drugs, opening a new frontier for medical research and development.

As Europe moves through the midpoint of 2025, the political atmosphere in Brussels and across the 27 member states is one of profound tension and precarious balance. The grand pro-European coalition that has long steered the continent’s direction remains in power, but it is a shadow of its former, more confident self. Following the contentious European Parliament elections of 2024, a fragile center is grappling with the immense pressure exerted by a newly emboldened populist and hard-right flank. This dynamic is forcing uncomfortable compromises on cornerstone policies, challenging the bloc’s unity on defense, and creating a sense of strategic uncertainty watched closely by global partners from Washington to Southeast Asia.

The current political arithmetic of the European Parliament tells the story. While the traditional centrist groups—the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), the center-left Socialists & Democrats (S&D), and the liberal Renew Europe—managed to cobble together a majority to secure a second term for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the victory was anything but decisive. The process was a bruising affair, requiring significant concessions and exposing deep fissures within the coalition. The real story of the 2024 election was the surge of right-wing nationalist groups like the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), led by figures such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and the far-right Identity and Democracy (ID) group. Though not in formal power in Brussels, their increased seat count gives them a powerful platform to influence debate, water down legislation, and shape the political narrative back in their home capitals.

Nowhere is this pressure more evident than in the battle over the European Green Deal, once von der Leyen’s legacy-defining project. The ambitious climate package is now facing a significant backlash, framed by its opponents as a source of excessive bureaucracy and economic burden on farmers and industry. The EPP, von der Leyen’s own political family, has noticeably shifted its rhetoric to a more “pro-competitiveness” stance, calling for a “pragmatic pause” on new environmental regulations. This has created immense friction with their S&D and Green coalition partners, who accuse the center-right of capitulating to the populist narrative. Key pieces of legislation, such as stricter emissions standards and nature restoration laws, are either being delayed or significantly diluted. The ambitious 2035 phase-out of the internal combustion engine, while still officially on the books, is facing renewed political challenges from industrial powerhouses like Germany, where leaders like Chancellor Olaf Scholz are under pressure to protect the automotive industry.