STATES 2.0 Act: Current Status and Key Proposals (2026)

The STATES 2.0 Act is a federal cannabis reform proposal intended to respect state choices about legalization while addressing federal regulation and interstate transport. Its full name is the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States 2.0 Act. It is distinct from the separately named States Reform Act.

The current proposal is H.R. 2934 in the 119th Congress, introduced on April 17, 2025. Congress.gov lists it at the introduced stage, following referral to House committees. It has not become law. The December 2023 version discussed in earlier coverage belonged to the previous Congress.

How the Proposal Would Treat State-Legal Cannabis

Under the introduced bill text, most Controlled Substances Act provisions would no longer apply to marijuana activity that complies with state law, subject to specified exceptions. The bill also provides for removal from scheduling for covered cannabis. This is a conditional approach tied to compliance, rather than a requirement that every state establish an adult-use market.

A state could continue to prohibit cannabis. Businesses in a legal state would still have to meet that state’s licensing and operating requirements. Federal relief would not excuse activity that knowingly violates the relevant state or tribal law.

The bill includes provisions for federally recognized tribes, but the operative text contains conditions, including a state-permission condition in its tribal nonapplication provision. A general statement that every tribal activity would receive identical protection regardless of location would overlook that wording.

Interstate Transport

Section 4 would protect qualifying marijuana shipments between jurisdictions that permit the relevant activity. A state or tribe along the route could not prohibit a covered shipment merely because it passes through its territory. The bill also provides a federal exemption for qualifying transport between permitting states.

Originating and destination jurisdictions would retain authority to impose reasonable restrictions concerning time, place, manner, and public health or safety. The proposal should therefore not be described as unlimited permission to sell any cannabis product anywhere in the country.

Because the bill is pending, its transport provisions do not currently authorize a shipment. Businesses must distinguish this legislative proposal from existing law and from separate developments concerning federal cannabis scheduling.

FDA Oversight and Product Standards

Section 7 would direct how the Food and Drug Administration regulates marijuana products. Products meeting the definition of a drug would be treated as drugs; cosmetics would be treated as cosmetics. For food and dietary supplements, the text refers to FDA authority comparable to its authority over food containing alcohol.

Other marijuana products would be marketed under a regulation addressing contaminant testing, manufacturing practices, marketing, and postmarket reporting, with particular attention to youth consumption. The introduced text requires that regulation within 180 days after enactment and says it would not require premarket approval for that category. It does not exempt drug products from their separate requirements.

The bill also restricts marijuana products marketed in combination with specified drugs, devices, tobacco, or alcohol products. Federal recognition of a cannabis market would not eliminate product-specific safety regulation.

Taxation and Banking

The findings discuss a federal excise tax to support administration and oversight, with a role for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. However, the bill does not establish a specific excise-tax rate or a complete collection mechanism. A policy goal in the findings should not be presented as a fully implemented tax program.

Section 9 explicitly provides that compliant conduct would not be subject to Internal Revenue Code section 280E. It also addresses trafficking, forfeiture, and the treatment of proceeds from compliant transactions. Those provisions are more specific than simply expressing support for easier banking.

The sponsors’ reintroduction announcement identifies financial barriers as a target of the legislation. Even if enacted, however, the proposal would not require a particular bank to accept every cannabis business as a customer. Compliance checks and a financial institution’s account decisions would remain relevant. Businesses cannot claim relief under an unenacted bill.

Youth Protections and Traffic Safety

The proposal retains specified federal protections, including restrictions involving distribution to people under 21, with an exception for qualifying medical distribution. It also excludes people who employ someone under 18 in the listed marijuana activities from the central exemptions.

Section 8 calls for a Comptroller General study of legalization and traffic safety, including crashes, impairment assessment, state testing standards, and federal assistance. This is a requirement to study the issue, not a finding that cannabis use has no effect on driving safety.

How It Differs From the MORE Act

The STATES 2.0 Act focuses on the relationship between state policy and federal law, product regulation, and financial and transport barriers. It does not contain a broad expungement or community-reinvestment program.

The MORE Act proposes a different package, including federal descheduling, qualifying conviction relief, and reinvestment measures. The bills should be compared using their actual text rather than treated as interchangeable names for the same reform.

What Happens Next?

The relevant record to watch is H.R. 2934’s action history and any amended text. Committee referral is not passage, and bipartisan sponsorship does not establish a timetable or guarantee enactment. Until legislation takes effect, its proposed protections cannot be used as permission to undertake otherwise prohibited activity.