Despite strict immigration and security measures, US President Donald Trump’s decision to legalize marijuana raises concerns over societal health, youth exposure, and the long-term consequences of federal drug leniency.
In the wake of heightened security concerns following the shooting near the White House in late November 2025, the United States under President Donald Trump has intensified immigration crackdowns, paused asylum applications, and expanded travel bans. Tens of thousands of Afghan nationals and citizens from over 30 high-risk countries have been temporarily barred from entry, while visa processing, green card reviews, and H-1B applications are subjected to unprecedented scrutiny. Yet, amid these stringent measures, Trump has simultaneously taken a surprising step by legalizing marijuana at the federal level, moving it into a lower-risk Schedule III category. This decision presents a complex juxtaposition between national security enforcement and public health policy, raising serious questions about the administration’s priorities.
Security-Driven Immigration Measures
Following the November 26 shooting near the White House by Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the Trump administration swiftly suspended immigration from Afghanistan and 19 other high-risk countries, citing security lapses during the Biden administration. Lakanwal, who entered the U.S. under Operation Allies Welcome in 2021 and later obtained asylum, allegedly shot and critically injured two National Guard soldiers.
President Trump labeled the attack an "act of terror," prompting a full review of all Afghan entrants during the previous administration and a permanent pause on migration from what he termed “Third World countries.” The administration’s actions included halting Green Card processing, freezing Diversity Visa Lottery applications, and tightening H-1B visa requirements, with special attention to applicants’ social media history spanning five years. These measures underscore the administration’s insistence on prioritizing security and vetting procedures for foreign entrants—a move widely supported by those emphasizing the need to safeguard American citizens.
The expansion of the travel ban to 20 additional countries, along with restrictions on Palestinian passport holders, further reflects a hardline approach to immigration. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem explained that nations lacking stable governance or reliable civil documentation pose higher risks and, therefore, stricter restrictions are necessary. While such measures may bolster national security, they have significant humanitarian implications, particularly for Afghans and other vulnerable populations who assisted U.S. forces and now find themselves stranded or facing indefinite delays in asylum and resettlement.
Marijuana Legalization: A Contradiction in Policy
Against this backdrop of intensified security and immigration enforcement, President Trump’s executive order to reclassify marijuana under Schedule III presents a stark contrast. Previously categorized as a Schedule I drug alongside heroin and LSD, marijuana is now recognized as having “moderate to low potential for dependence.” This reclassification opens avenues for expanded medical use, federal banking access for the cannabis industry, and wider recognition of recreational cannabis.
While proponents argue that the move modernizes drug policy, weakens the black market, and generates tax revenue, the broader implications for American society—particularly youth—cannot be ignored. Critics point out that modern cannabis products are far more potent than those of past decades, with concentrated oils, edibles, and high-THC vapes posing significant risks to physical and mental health. Normalizing marijuana use at the federal level risks embedding it into everyday culture, potentially exacerbating addiction, impairing cognitive development in younger populations, and increasing societal dependency on substances with long-term health consequences.
The legalization decision is especially striking when juxtaposed with Trump’s otherwise security-centric approach. On one hand, his administration has tightened borders, suspended immigration, paused asylum, and enhanced vetting for visas, all framed as steps to protect Americans from external threats. On the other hand, softening laws against marijuana arguably exposes citizens—particularly impressionable youth—to internal risks, including impaired judgment, addiction, and social disruption. This policy duality raises a fundamental question: can an administration justify strict protection against external threats while simultaneously relaxing safeguards against internal, controllable risks that directly affect public wellbeing?
Impact on Youth and Social Stability
Experts and public health advocates warn that marijuana legalization at the federal level is likely to reshape perceptions among young Americans, creating an environment where drug use is normalized. Studies indicate that early exposure to cannabis can affect brain development, educational attainment, and long-term mental health. While the administration has emphasized regulatory frameworks and oversight, the challenge remains in enforcing age restrictions, monitoring high-potency products, and managing potential abuse.
Furthermore, easy access to marijuana could interact with other societal risks, including impaired driving, workplace productivity issues, and the potential for increased dependence when combined with alcohol or prescription medications. Critics argue that reclassifying marijuana sends a contradictory message: while immigrants and foreign nationals face severe scrutiny and legal hurdles, American youth may experience leniency toward substances that carry significant health risks.
A Broader Policy Reflection
Trump’s dual approach—tightening immigration and border security while relaxing federal drug laws—reflects a larger tension in governance between external protection and internal societal responsibility. On one hand, measures such as indefinite pauses on asylum, strict vetting of green card and visa applications, and expanded travel bans demonstrate a commitment to safeguarding national security. On the other hand, federal legalization of marijuana raises concerns over the administration’s ability to balance public health priorities with economic and political considerations.
While the economic and financial arguments for cannabis legalization, including legal banking for cannabis businesses and potential tax revenue, are compelling, they should not overshadow the social consequences. Public health, safety, and long-term societal cohesion must remain central in policymaking. Without rigorous controls, education, and community engagement, legalization risks becoming a policy with unintended consequences, undermining the very security and stability that other measures aim to protect.
Moving Forward
The Trump administration’s recent policy moves, heightened immigration controls and marijuana legalization, illustrate a paradox in contemporary governance. Stricter immigration and asylum policies reflect a commitment to national security and protection against external threats, particularly after the White House shooting. Yet, reclassifying marijuana at the federal level introduces internal vulnerabilities, potentially compromising public health and social stability.
Policymakers must weigh the immediate economic and political benefits of marijuana legalization against long-term societal costs, especially concerning youth exposure and mental wellbeing. As the United States navigates this complex landscape, citizens and experts alike are left questioning the coherence of a strategy that simultaneously hardens borders while softening drug laws—a duality with profound implications for the nation’s future.
