Mass Deportation & The Labor Market: Trump's Erroneous Promise

By: Morgan Dreher

edited by: olivia paik and Sophia Khobdeh

President Donald Trump plans to “‘carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.’” [1] What does this mean for Americans? With a plethora of immigration and trade policies, Trump promised to improve the economy for American citizens. Since taking office, he has already issued a series of executive orders and arrested thousands of unauthorized immigrants. [2] But, this objective may be based on a gross misrepresentation of how undocumented immigration affects our labor market. 

A few assumptions underlie the philosophy that mass deportation will improve the labor market and create jobs for American citizens. First, it presupposes that immigrant and citizen labor are direct substitutes – meaning job openings from deportations will readily be filled by unemployed American citizens at no extra cost to employers. Additionally, the promise of increased job availability assumes that our economy has a fixed number of jobs, and all jobs vacated by deported immigrants will be preserved for American-born workers. However, both of these premises are drastic oversimplifications of our country’s economy. 

Beginning with the question of substitutability, trends show that undocumented immigrants tend to work different jobs than American citizens. Unauthorized immigrants are more likely to accept lower paying and more dangerous jobs, which many Americans are unwilling to perform. [3] In fact, H-2A jobs, which provide temporary visas to agricultural workers, rarely see any applications from U.S. born workers. From 2014 to 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor found that “87 percent of H-2A employers requesting U.S. workers received none.” [4] In addition to agriculture, undocumented immigrants are essential to many other key industries. A report from the Carsey School of Public Policy found that unauthorized immigrants make up “22 percent of all farmworkers, 15 percent of construction workers, and 8 percent of manufacturing workers.” [5] Many of these fields already face a labor shortage, and a further decrease in supply from deportations will raise prices for consumers. [6] Therefore, deportations will fuel inflation, undermining one of Trump’s central campaign promises to lower prices. Another issue with the substitutability assumption is that undocumented immigrants have lower reservation wages than American citizens. [7] Employers cannot simply replace undocumented immigrants’ labor with citizen labor, as attracting citizen workers requires higher pay. This increases costs for firms, driving consumer prices up further. But, firms will not always opt to fill the vacancies created by deportation. 

This leads to the second presupposition: a fixed number of jobs. While deportations will certainly decrease competition in the labor market, evidence does not support a net job creation effect. Since the U.S. is already facing labor shortages in the low-wage sector, deportation will not effectively create job openings in the positions Americans are vying for. As hiring becomes more expensive, firms will opt to hire fewer workers to mitigate their costs. They will likely invest in more capital or technology, which serves as a closer substitute for immigrant labor than American born workers. [8] The remaining question is whether the effects of decreased competition will outweigh the effects of job elimination. According to a study by scholar Christoph Albert, undocumented immigrants have a 7% higher job finding rate but earn 8% less, meaning their net effect is job creation. [9] Therefore, the absence of immigrants due to deportation will decrease job availability more than it will benefit domestic workers through reduced competition. 

Deportation will also spur job loss across income levels, as immigrants currently prop up local markets with consumption and business ventures. According to the American Immigration Council, one million undocumented immigrants are entrepreneurs. [10] Plus, immigrant labor is complementary to higher-paying jobs, meaning immigrants improve productivity and thus employment for American workers in intermediate and high level positions. [11] These jobs rely on the goods and services provided by low-skilled labor, often performed by unauthorized immigrants, and will see a decrease in surplus and employment in response to mass deportation. Robert Lynch and Michael Ettlinger from the Carsey School predict that “employment losses for future mass deportation have been estimated to be as high as 3.6 percent.” [12] On the whole, this displays the possible economic downturn linked to Trump’s promised deportations. 

Economists assess the plausibility of these concerns by analyzing other major deportations in America’s history. Many studies examine the deportations under the Secure Communities program from 2008 to 2014, which “increased information sharing between local law enforcement agencies and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” [13] One report found that “when 500,000 undocumented immigrant workers were forced out of the country, 44,000 fewer jobs were held by U.S.-born workers.” [14] Similarly, the end of the Bracero Program in the 1960s–which temporarily admitted Mexicans to America for agricultural work–did not increase employment or wages for American workers. [15] Thus, history proves that mass deportations will not have the positive labor market effects that Trump’s administration promises.

In addition to labor market consequences, mass deportations create other costs for American citizens. A study by the American Immigration Council estimates that between arrests, detainments, legal proceedings, and removals, a one-time mass deportation targeting approximately 13 million undocumented immigrants will cost at least $315 billion. [16] The same research reports that a longer-term operation could cost around “$967.9 billion over the course of more than a decade.” [17] These explicit costs will be accompanied by a series of implicit ones, such as a potential decrease in GDP by 4.2-6.8%. [18] In aggregate, undocumented immigrants also pay more taxes than the welfare they receive, with more than a third of their payroll taxes going towards programs they cannot benefit from. [19] The economic costs of deportation include direct expenditures on deportation processes and foregone GDP and tax revenue – a bill which American taxpayers will foot.

Overall, Trump’s promises of job creation are flawed due to a reliance on two oversimplifications of the economy. Analysis of economic theory and deportations throughout history suggest that mass deportation will have the reverse effect on the economy by decreasing employment and raising prices. Plus, the expenses incurred will inevitably increase taxes, further hurting American consumers. So, as the executive orders roll in and promises of job creation continue, remember that mass deportation leaves no American unscathed.

Notes:

1. Ali Blanco, “The US Has Deported Immigrants En Masse Before. Here’s What Happened,” Politico, 2024. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/29/mass-deportation-immigration-history-00195729.

2. Mica Rosenberg and Perla Trevizo, “Four Years in a Day,” ProPublica, 2025. https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-immigration-executive-orders

3. Chloe East, “The labor market impact of deportations,” Brookings Institution, 2024. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-labor-market-impact-of-deportations/

4. David J. Bier, “H‑2A Visas for Agriculture: The Complex Process for Farmers to Hire Agricultural Guest Workers,” Cato Institute, 2020. https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/h-2a-visas-agriculture-complex-process-farmers-hire

5. Robert Lynch and Michael Ettlinger, “The Economic Impact on Citizens and Authorized Immigrants of Mass Deportation,” University of New Hampshire, 2024. https://carsey.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2025-01/literature-review-economic-impact-mass-deportation.pdf

6. Martin Heinrich, “Mass Deportations Would Deliver a Catastrophic Blow to the U.S. Economy,” Joint Economic Committee, 2024. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/12/mass-deportations-would-deliver-a-catastrophic-blow-to-the-u-s-economy#:~:text=Evidence%20also%20shows%20that%20deportations,least%20educated%20and%20most%20vulnerable

7. Christoph Albert, “The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: Job Creation versus Job Competition,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 13 (1): 35-78, 2021. 10.1257/mac.20190042

8. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy,” American Immigration Council, 2024.  https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/mass-deportation

9. Albert, “The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: Job Creation versus Job Competition.”

10. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

11. Lynch and Ettlinger, “The Economic Impact on Citizens and Authorized Immigrants of Mass Deportation.”

12. Lynch and Ettlinger, “The Economic Impact on Citizens and Authorized Immigrants of Mass Deportation.”

13. East, “The labor market impact of deportations.”

14. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

15. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

16. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

17. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

18. “Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.”

19. Akash Pillai, Drishti Pillai, and Samantha Artiga, “Potential Impacts of Mass Detention and Deportation Efforts on the Health and Well-Being of Immigrant Families,” Kaiser Family Foundation, 2025.  https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/potential-impacts-of-mass-detention-and-deportation-efforts-on-the-health-and-well-being-of-immigrant-families/

Bibliography:

Albert, Christoph. 2021. “The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: Job Creation versus Job Competition.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 13 (1): 35-78. 10.1257/mac.20190042.

Bier, David J. 2020. “H‑2A Visas for Agriculture: The Complex Process for Farmers to Hire Agricultural Guest Workers.” Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/h-2a-visas-agriculture-complex-process-farmers-hire.

Blanco, Ali. 2024. “The US Has Deported Immigrants En Masse Before. Here’s What Happened.” Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/29/mass-deportation-immigration-history-00195729.

East, Chloe. 2024. “The labor market impact of deportations.” Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-labor-market-impact-of-deportations/.

Heinrich, Martin. 2024. “Mass Deportations Would Deliver a Catastrophic Blow to the U.S. Economy.” Joint Economic Committee. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/12/mass-deportations-would-deliver-a-catastrophic-blow-to-the-u-s-economy#:~:text=Evidence%20also%20shows%20that%20deportations,least%20educated%20and%20most%20vulnerable.

Lynch, Robert, and Michael Ettlinger. 2024. “The Economic Impact on Citizens and Authorized Immigrants of Mass Deportation.” University of New Hampshire. https://carsey.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2025-01/literature-review-economic-impact-mass-deportation.pdf.

“Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy.” 2024. American Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/mass-deportation.

Pillai, Akash, Drishti Pillai, and Samantha Artiga. 2025. “Potential Impacts of Mass Detention and Deportation Efforts on the Health and Well-Being of Immigrant Families.” Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/potential-impacts-of-mass-detention-and-deportation-efforts-on-the-health-and-well-being-of-immigrant-families/.

Rosenberg, Mica, and Perla Trevizo. 2025. “Four Years in a Day.” ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-immigration-executive-orders.

The Culture War President: Trump’s Crusade Against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

By: Asha Navaratnasingam

Edited by: regan cornelius and asher moss

At the onset of U.S. President Donald Trump’s first term, Politico dubbed him “The Culture War President” in response to his ongoing hostility toward politically correct elites.[1] In the context of Trump’s renewed fight against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, his past statements feel especially relevant. Near the end of his first term, he issued an executive order banning diversity training in federal organizations.[2] A federal judge blocked the mandate due to concerns over First Amendment violations. Then, when Joe Biden took office as the 46th President, he signed an executive order promoting DEI programs.[3] Rather than acting as a deterrent, however, the Biden administration seems to have furthered Trump’s vendetta against equity initiatives. During his 2024, and third consecutive, run for the presidency, he highlighted his past and intended continuation of the war against DEI as a defining aspect of his platform; he declared in a March 2023 speech that “every institution in America is under attack from this Marxist concept of ‘equity.’” Trump further vowed to reinstate his 2020 executive order when he retook office.[4] Within his election platform, Trump asserted that the U.S. Congress should compensate those “unjustly discriminated against by these destructive policies.”[5]

Immediately upon taking office, Trump followed through on his campaign promises and signed an executive order titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” Labeling DEI as “illegal and immoral” and condemning its “infiltration” into the federal government, the order mandated the discontinuation of all federal DEI programs.[6] It gave agency, department, and commission heads sixty days to terminate all DEI offices, positions, action plans, equity-related grants or contracts, and performance requirements.[6] In his second day in office, the President signed another executive order on DEI, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which cancelled previous administrations’ executive actions relating to DEI.[7] This includes an Equal Employment Opportunity executive order that had played a critical role in federal job equality since 1965.[8] President Trump has also tasked federal agencies with investigating the private sector’s diversity programs for violations of federal law.[9] Purging DEI initiatives from all aspects of the American corporate structure, Trump has promised to “create a society that is blind to color and based on merit.”[10] He has promoted a new method endorsed by Elon Musk.[11] This approach, centered around Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence (MEI), emphasizes choosing employees based on qualification without consideration of demographics.[12] Many leading companies have already made the switch from DEI-based hiring to MEI, including McDonald’s, Walmart, Amazon, and Meta.[13]

In a matter of days, Trump’s executive orders have also revamped the federal bureaucracy. The Department of Veterans Affairs has placed nearly 60 employees responsible for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on paid leave, and the department is in the process of canceling several DEI programs, contracts, and materials.[14] Morgan Ackley, Director of Media Affairs for the Veterans Affairs Department, issued a statement affirming that the Department was “proud to have abandoned the divisive DEI policies of the past.”[15] The Department of Education has also put a number of DEI-focused employees on paid leave and has removed hundreds of materials with mentions of DEI from its outward-facing communication channels.[16] Moving forward, the Education Department pledges to continue to review all programs to remove any initiatives that contain a “divisive DEI agenda.”[17]

The Trump Administration’s gutting of DEI policies have far-reaching consequences for federal as well as private employees. Many employees that federal agencies have placed on leave face potential job loss solely on the basis of involvement in past DEI programs.[18] Furthermore, the executive orders have paused voluntary, employee-led affinity resource groups, and workers say the ramifications of this loss have been devastating.[19] Previous attendees of these resource groups say their community aspect helped them feel like they belonged in the workplace;one worker relayed he had “never been more scared at work” after the groups’ removal.[20] In addition, many federal employees from marginalized communities believe the language used in the executive orders is targeting their identities and feel both psychologically and physically unsafe in their work spaces.[21] Private companies’ diversity programs, many of which are under investigation by federal agencies, are also threatened.[22] Reaching all the way back to his first term, Trump has prioritized dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. He has certainly lived up to the label as the “Culture War President.” Moving forward, the President will likely focus on further purging DEI from the public sector and implementing Merit, Excellence, and Intelligence hiring programs in its place. There is no doubt that the impacts of these actions will resonate across the bureaucracy and the greater American workforce.

Notes:

1. Scher, Bill. “The Culture War President - POLITICO Magazine.” Politico, September 27, 2017. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/27/trump-culture-war-215653/.

2. Trump, Donald. “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping.” National Archives and Records Administration, September 22, 2020. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/.

3. Aratani, Lauren. “How Could Trump’s Second Term Affect Dei Initiatives in the US?” The Guardian, January 11, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/11/trump-dei-diversity.

4. Trump, Donald. “Agenda47: Reversing Biden’s Eo Embedding Marxism in the Federal Government: Donald J. Trump for President 2024.” Agenda47 | Donald J. Trump, March 2, 2023. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-reversing-bidens-eo-embedding-marxism-in-the-federal-government.

5. Evans, Misty. “Presidential Possibilities.” Insight Into Diversity, November 6, 2024.https://www.insightintodiversity.com/presidential-possibilities/.

6. Trump, Donald. “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government Dei Programs and Preferencing.” The White House, January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/.

7. Trump, Donald. “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The White House, January 21, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/.

8. Moore, ReNika. “Trump’s Executive Orders Rolling Back Dei and Accessibility Efforts, Explained: ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union, January 24, 2025. https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/trumps-executive-orders-rolling-back-dei-and-accessibility-efforts-explained.

9. Montlake, Simon. “Trump Is Attacking Dei in Government and beyond. What Will Be the Impact?” The Christian Science Monitor, February 4, 2025. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2025/0204/trump-dei-discrimination-merit-faa.

10. Kelly, Jack. “President Trump Shifts to ‘Merit, Excellence and Intelligence’ in the Workplace and Away from DEI.” Forbes, February 1, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2025/02/01/president-trump-shifts-to-merit-excellence-and-intelligence-in-the-workplace-and-away-from-dei/.

11. Borchers, Callum. “Merit, Excellence and Intelligence: An Anti-DEI Approach ...” The Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/dei-catches-on-merit-intelligence-excellence-mei-27839a3c.

12. Kelly. “President Trump…Away from DEI.”
13. Ibid.

14. “Va Ends Dei, Stops Millions in Spending on DEI.” V A News, January 27, 2025. https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-ends-dei-stops-millions-in-spending-on-dei/.

15. Ibid.

16. “U.S. Department of Education Takes Action to Eliminate Dei.” U.S. Department of Education, January 23, 2025. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-takes-action-eliminate-dei.

17. Ibid.

18. Stein, Chris. “‘Very Retaliatory’: The Federal Workers Caught up in Trump’s Dei Purge.” The Guardian, February 2, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/02/trump-dei-purge-federal-government.

19. Ibid.

20. Yam, Kimmy. “Trump’s Anti-DEI Executive Orders Target Employee Resource Groups, Federal Workers Say.” NBCNews.com, January 27, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/trump-anti-dei-orders-target-federal-employee-groups-rcna189212.

21. Khetarpal, Monica H., and Michael D. Thomas. “The Impact of President Trump’s EO’son Dei: Essential Strategies for Employers.” Jackson Lewis, February 6, 2025. https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/impact-president-trumps-eos-dei-essential-strategIes-employers.

22. Ibid, 9.

Bibliography:

Aratani, Lauren. “How Could Trump’s Second Term Affect Dei Initiatives in the US?” The Guardian, January 11, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/11/trump-dei-diversity.

Borchers, Callum. “Merit, Excellence and Intelligence: An Anti-DEI Approach ...” The Wall Street Journal, July 24, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/workplace/dei-catches-on-merit-intelligence-excellence-mei-27839a3c.

Evans, Misty. “Presidential Possibilities.” Insight Into Diversity, November 6, 2024. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/presidential-possibilities/.

Kelly, Jack. “President Trump Shifts to ‘merit, Excellence and Intelligence’ in the Workplace and Away from Dei.” Forbes, February 1, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2025/02/01/president-trump-shifts-to-merit-excellence-and-intelligence-in-the-workplace-and-away-from-dei/.

Khetarpal, Monica H., and Michael D. Thomas. “The Impact of President Trump’s EO’s on Dei: Essential Strategies for Employers.” Jackson Lewis, February 6, 2025. https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/impact-president-trumps-eos-dei-essential-strategies-employers.

Montlake, Simon. “Trump Is Attacking Dei in Government and beyond. What Will Be the Impact?” The Christian Science Monitor, February 4, 2025. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2025/0204/trump-dei-discrimination-merit-faa.

Moore, ReNika. “Trump’s Executive Orders Rolling Back Dei and Accessibility Efforts, Explained: ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union, January 24, 2025.Navaratnasingam 6 https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/trumps-executive-orders-rolling-back-dei-and-accessibility-efforts-explained.

Trump, Donald. “Agenda47: Reversing Biden’s Eo Embedding Marxism in the Federal Government: Donald J. Trump for President 2024.” Agenda47 | Donald J. Trump, March 2, 2023. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-reversing-bidens-eo-embedding-marxism-in-the-federal-government.

Trump, Donald. “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The White House, January 21, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/.

Trump, Donald. “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government Dei Programs and Preferencing.” The White House, January 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/.

Trump, Donald. “Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping.” National Archives and Records Administration, September 22, 2020. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/.

Scher, Bill. “The Culture War President - POLITICO Magazine.” Politico, September 27, 2017. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/27/trump-culture-war-215653/.Navaratnasingam 7

Stein, Chris. “‘Very Retaliatory’: The Federal Workers Caught up in Trump’s Dei Purge.” The Guardian, February 2, 2025 .https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/02/trump-dei-purge-federal-government.

“U.S. Department of Education Takes Action to Eliminate Dei.” U.S. Department of Education, January 23, 2025. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-takes-action-eliminate-dei.

“Va Ends Dei, Stops Millions in Spending on DEI.” V A News, January 27, 2025. https://news.va.gov/press-room/va-ends-dei-stops-millions-in-spending-on-dei/.

Yam, Kimmy. “Trump’s Anti-DEI Executive Orders Target Employee Resource Groups, Federal Workers Say.” NBCNews.com, January 27, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/trump-anti-dei-orders-target-federal-employee-groups-rcna189212.

NBA YoungBoy and the Law: The Latest in a Long Line of Legal Troubles

By: Curtis Roselle

Edited by: Avigna Ramachandran and william liu

Prescription Drug Fraud Case

Despite his success as a musical artist, rapper NBA YoungBoy has had more than his fair share of run-ins with the law. Most recently, the 25-year-old artist, whose real name is Kentrell Gaulden, faced 46 charges for his role in a large-scale prescription drug fraud ring that involved impersonating a doctor to fill prescriptions for promethazine with codeine, an addictive opioid coformulation. Gaulden pled guilty to two counts of third-degree felony identity fraud, two counts of third-degree felony forgery, and six counts of misdemeanor unlawful pharmacy conduct. He opted to enter a “no contest” plea for the remainder of the charges. Although he pleaded guilty to four of the felony charges, he did not face prison time and was only required to pay a $25,000 fine instead. [1] However, this outcome does not imply that Gaulden is free to go. 

Firearms Case

Prior to his arrest in April 2024 for the aforementioned drug fraud ring, Gaulden was already awaiting trial for a federal firearms case stemming from an arrest in 2021. [2] Shortly after Gaulden’s sentencing in the prescription drug case, a federal judge imposed a 23-month prison sentence for the rapper’s involvement in the firearms case. Gaulden was caught with a Glock 21 .45-caliber pistol and a Masterpiece Arms MPA30T 9mm handgun while filming a music video in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He also admitted to possessing a Sig Sauer 9mm semi-automatic pistol at his home in Huntsville, Utah. [3] In light of his conviction for a firearm-related aggravated assault in 2017, Gaulden was not permitted to have access to them. In addition to serving prison time, Gaulden will be under supervised probation for five years and must pay an additional $25,000 fine. [4]

Legal Outcome and Reactions

When considering Gaulden’s maximum prison sentences in both legal proceedings—10 years for the Louisiana firearms case and 15 years for the Utah prescription drug fraud case—Gaulden was fortunate to receive relatively lenient punishments. [5] Gauldens legal team worked diligently to reach a deal, stating, “This has been a long road that involved extensive litigation and ultimately extensive negotiation.” Gaulden’s legal team is optimistic about the result of the Utah case, noting they are “very happy for Kentrell and look forward to his many future successes.” [6] While the sentence was intended to conclude in December 2025, Gaulden will be released on July 27, 2025, receiving credit for time served. [7] Upon his release, Gaulden seeks to continue making music, as encouraged by Spencer Walsh, the judge who sentenced him. Walsh said to Gaulden, “I’ve seen so many times where you have young men and women who have a lot of talent and potential. They can be robbed of that potential when they start to really struggle with their addictions,” adding, “I don’t want that for you.” [8] After evading harsh sentences, only time will tell if Gaulden will take advantage of this second chance. Hopefully the next few months will be enough time for Gaulden to both reflect on his actions and gain the desire to make a true lifestyle change. With this case being far from Gaulden’s first conflict with the law, the amount of leniency that he has been shown is unprecedented. If Gaulden can take advantage of what may be his final chance to become a law-abiding citizen before the book is thrown at him, this case will serve as a prime example of the efficiency and effectiveness of rehabilitation over incarceration.

Notes:

1. Associated Press, "Rapper NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Federal Gun Charge in Utah," AP News, September 6, 2024.

2. Taijuan Moorman, "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty in Utah Prescription Drug Case," USA Today, November 19, 2024.

3. The Guardian, "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Federal Gun Charge," August 20, 2024.

4. Ethan Shanfield, "NBA YoungBoy Arrested in Utah on Gun and Drug Charges," Variety, 2024.

5. The Salt Lake Tribune, "NBA YoungBoy Sentenced in Federal Gun Case," December 13, 2024.

6. The Guardian, "Rapper NBA YoungBoy Sentenced to Prison in Federal Gun Case," December 11, 2024.

7. Peter Aitken, "NBA YoungBoy's Prison Release Date Revealed in Plea Deal," Newsweek, 2024.

8. ABC4, "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Drug Fraud Charge in Utah," 2024.

Bibliography:

ABC4. "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Drug Fraud Charge in Utah." ABC4, 2024. https://abc4.com/news/local-news/nba-youngboy-pleads-guilty-drug-fraud.

Aitken, Peter. "NBA YoungBoy's Prison Release Date Revealed in Plea Deal." Newsweek, 2024. https://newsweek.com/rapper-nba-youngboy-prison-release-date-plea-deal-2013571.

Associated Press. "Rapper NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Federal Gun Charge in Utah." AP News, September 6, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/nba-youngboy-gaulden-guilty-plea-utah-929ba3f0ff2a4efa9e1ce48c6fec6542.

Moorman, Taijuan. "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty in Utah Prescription Drug Case." USA Today, November 19, 2024. https://usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2024/11/19/nba-youngboy-guilty-utah-prescription-drug.

Shanfield, Ethan. "NBA YoungBoy Arrested in Utah on Gun and Drug Charges." Variety, 2024. https://variety.com/2024/music/news/nba-youngboy-arrested-utah-gun-drug-charges-1235973951.

The Guardian. "NBA YoungBoy Pleads Guilty to Federal Gun Charge." The Guardian, August 20, 2024. https://theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/20/rapper-nba-youngboy-pleads-guilty-gun-charge.

The Guardian. "Rapper NBA YoungBoy Sentenced to Prison in Federal Gun Case." The Guardian, December 11, 2024. https://theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/11/rapper-nba-youngboy-prison-sentence.

The Salt Lake Tribune. "NBA YoungBoy Sentenced in Federal Gun Case." The Salt Lake Tribune, December 13, 2024.https://sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2024/12/13/nba-youngboy-sentenced-federal-gun.

The Legal Implications of Rescheduling Cannabis

By: Hannah Fergus

Edited by: Alanna Liu and Anna Dellit

The Biden administration’s decision to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) marks a historic shift in drug policy with wide-ranging legal and regulatory implications. As a Schedule I substance, cannabis and its use are subject to severe legal restrictions and regulations, with no recognized medical use and severe criminal penalties. Reclassifying the substance would acknowledge its medical benefits, reduce legal penalties, and provide tax advantages for cannabis businesses. However, rescheduling would also create new conflicts between federal and state laws, especially in states where cannabis is legal for recreational use or where certain frameworks like state-run medical programs and interstate commerce function independently of federal laws.  Without broader federal cannabis reform, legal uncertainties will persist and leave state and federal policies at odds.

Understanding the Legal Shift: Schedule I to Schedule III

Schedule I substances are defined by the CSA as having a high potential for abuse, no accepted medicinal use, and a lack of accepted safety when used under medical supervision. [1] Cannabis has been classified as a Schedule I substance since the CSA was passed in 1970, despite growing medical and scientific evidence supporting its therapeutic benefits.  Schedule III substances, including ketamine, anabolic steroids, and testosterone, are recognized for their medical use and are subject to fewer legal restrictions than Schedule I substances. [2]

Rescheduling cannabis to a Schedule III substance would carry several important ramifications.

• Medical Recognition: The rescheduling would formally legalize cannabis for medical use, allowing patients to use it for therapeutic benefits including for cancer patients going through chemotherapy in helping with pain, nausea, and increasing their appetites. [3]  

• Reduced Criminal Penalties: The penalty for possession of a Schedule I or II drug is more than double that of possession of a Schedule III drug. [4]  Rescheduling cannabis would mean that the punishment for a small amount of marajuana wouldn’t be the same as a small amount of cocaine or heroin.

• Tax Benefits: Businesses selling marijuana in states where it is legal wouldn’t be prevented from taking tax deductions as they are now under IRS Code Section 280E. [5] 

Despite these benefits, rescheduling cannabis does not mean that it will be legal in every state, and there will still be significant legal conflicts between federal and state laws.

Conflicts with State Laws

Although cannabis remains federally illegal, many states have laws that legalize it for medicinal and/or recreational use.  These states often simply operate under the assumption that federal authorities will not aggressively enforce the CSA against compliant state-regulated businesses. Statements at the federal level further reinforced this assumption, including the Cole Memorandum, which states that federal attorneys shouldn’t pursue convictions for cannabis offenses in states where it was recreationally legalized. [6]  Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III further complicates this legal unbalance without resolving the current issues in enforcement.

1. State-Legal Recreational Cannabis Markets

One major issue that would arise from the rescheduling is that recreational cannabis would still remain illegal under federal law.  Nearly every state allows some form of access to cannabis, and 24 states allow full access to adults and for medical use. [7]  These states still have complex systems to regulate the sale, taxation, and distribution of cannabis, but the reclassification would mean that cannabis is still a federally controlled prescription drug.  

For example, Colorado’s 64th Amendment allows the use of marijuana for anyone 21 and over and that its taxation and regulation is the same as for alcohol. [8]  Similarly, California’s Proposition 64 law allows the use of marijuana for all those over the age of 21 and even reduces punishments for marijuana related offenses for minors, governed by the Bureau of Cannabis Control. [9]  The rescheduling would mean that the production and distribution of cannabis could be subject to FDA and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) oversight, which would not align with these state programs.  The federal government would have to decide whether or not to pursue consequences for businesses operations outside of FDA regulations.

2. Existing State Medical Cannabis Programs

Rescheduling would also disrupt state programs that allow medicinal cannabis use that have long histories of operating independently of FDA approval.  These states often have their own programs that regulate medical cannabis, which allows physicians to recommend rather than prescribe cannabis to patients of any age.  These programs function under the assumption that cannabis isn’t included in the scope of traditional pharmaceutical regulation.  

Enacted in March 2021, New York’s Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) has improved the Medical Cannabis Program by expanding the number of conditions that qualify and increasing the dispensing limits and types of products allowed to be used as medical treatment. [10] Similarly, Florida’s Second Amendment establishes clear and well-defined frameworks for doctors to use when prescribing medical marijuana. [11]  The reclassification would mean that cannabis would fall under FDA prescription drug regulations, meaning it would have to go through the official FDA development and approval process. [12]  State medical cannabis programs could be directly violating federal law, and doctors would be unable to simply recommend rather than officially prescribe the use of cannabis.  It would have to be formally prescribed, hurting patients who rely on products solely sold in dispensaries.

3. Interstate Commerce and Transport Issues

Rescheduling could further complicate state cannabis commerce and supply chains.  Many states have laws that allow cannabis businesses to operate within state lines but prohibit interstate cannabis transport due to federal prohibition.  If the DEA reclassifies cannabis as Schedule III, federal rules governing pharmaceutical distribution may apply.  For example, Oregan passed Senate Bill 582 saying the state may enter into an agreement with another state to transport cannabis across state lines to conduct business in both states. [13] However, under a Schedule III framework, only DEA-licensed entities may distribute controlled substances, which would interfere with state laws such as Oregon’s Senate Bill and may prevent the state’s control over transportation with other states.

Conclusion

While rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III is an important step toward federal reform, it does not fully resolve the legal conflicts between state and federal law. The reclassification may lead to increased medical benefits, tax relief for businesses, and a shift in criminal enforcement priorities. However, it also introduces new challenges, particularly for recreational markets, state medical programs, and interstate commerce regulations.  Ultimately, unless Congress enacts broader cannabis reform—such as descheduling entirely or implementing a federal-state regulatory framework—legal uncertainties will persist.

Notes:

1. Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812 

2. “Drug Scheduling.” United States Drug Enforcement Administration. DEA, July 10, 2018. https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling 

3. Muhammad Hossain and Han Chae. “Medical Cannabis: From Research Breakthroughs To Shifting Public Perceptions and Ensuring Safe Use.” National Library of Medicine. 13, no. 4 (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11617882/

4. “Laws Governing Drug Use.” Drexel University. Drexel University. ​​https://drexel.edu/studentlife/community-standards/code-of-conduct/drug-free-schools-and-community-act/drug-use 

5. “IRS: Marijuana Remains a Schedule I controlled substance; Internal Revenue Code Section 280 E still applies.” IRS. IRS, June 28, 2024. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-marijuana-remains-a-schedule-i-controlled-substance-internal-revenue-code-section-280e-still-applies#:~:text=Section%20280E%20disallows%20all%20deductions,the%20federal%20Controlled%20Substances%20Act. 

6. Cole Memorandum, U.S. Department of Justice (2013). https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf 

7. “Map Monday: Nearly Every State Redefining Cannabis Access.” National Conference of State Legislatures. NCLS, Dec 11, 2023. ​​https://www.ncsl.org/resources/map-monday-nearly-every-state-redefining-cannabis-access 

8. Colorado Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 16

9. California Proposition 64 (2016), Business and Professions Code §§ 26000-26231.2

10. “NYS Medical Cannabis Program.” Office of Cannabis Management, New York State Department of Health. https://cannabis.ny.gov/medical-cannabis 

11. Florida Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 29; Fla. Stat. § 381.986

12. “Development & Approval Process: Drugs.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, August 8, 2022. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs 

13. Oregon Senate Bill 582 (2019)

Bibliography:

California Proposition 64 (2016), Business and Professions Code §§ 26000-26231.2

Cole Memorandum, U.S. Department of Justice (2013). https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf 

Colorado Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 16

Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812 

“Development & Approval Process: Drugs.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, August 8, 2022. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs 

“Drug Scheduling.” United States Drug Enforcement Administration. DEA, July 10, 2018. https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling 

Florida Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 29; Fla. Stat. § 381.986

Hossain, Muhammad  and Chae, Han. “Medical Cannabis: From Research Breakthroughs To Shifting Public Perceptions and Ensuring Safe Use.” National Library of Medicine. 13, no. 4 (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11617882/

“IRS: Marijuana Remains a Schedule I controlled substance; Internal Revenue Code Section 280 E still applies.” IRS. IRS, June 28, 2024. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-marijuana-remains-a-schedule-i-controlled-substance-internal-revenue-code-section-280e-still-applies#:~:text=Section%20280E%20disallows%20all%20deductions,the%20federal%20Controlled%20Substances%20Act. 

“Laws Governing Drug Use.” Drexel University. Drexel University. ​​https://drexel.edu/studentlife/community-standards/code-of-conduct/drug-free-schools-and-community-act/drug-use 

“Map Monday: Nearly Every State Redefining Cannabis Access.” National Conference of State Legislatures. NCLS, Dec 11, 2023. ​​https://www.ncsl.org/resources/map-monday-nearly-every-state-redefining-cannabis-access 

“NYS Medical Cannabis Program.” Office of Cannabis Management, New York State Department of Health. https://cannabis.ny.gov/medical-cannabis 

Oregon Senate Bill 582 (2019)