Get started free →
HR 9344 119th Congress · House

Bill Would Create Marijuana Research Program at 1890 Land-Grant Schools

Advocate

Official title: To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, to provide for marijuana agricultural research program at 1890 institutions, and for other purposes.

This bill would amend federal agricultural law to create a marijuana agricultural research program at 1890 institutions, which are historically Black land-grant colleges and universities. It would direct those schools to study cultivation, genetics, pest management, soil health, and other crop-production issues tied to marijuana as an agricultural commodity. The measure is aimed at strengthening research capacity at these institutions and expanding federal expertise in a rapidly changing crop sector.

  • Creates a marijuana agricultural research program at 1890 institutions.
  • Uses the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 as the legal vehicle.
  • Focuses on research, extension, and teaching rather than retail cannabis policy.
  • Centers federal agricultural expertise at historically Black land-grant colleges and universities.
Public Relevance 24 / 100
Niche Modest scope Broad

If you are connected to an 1890 land-grant school, agricultural research, or the cannabis cultivation sector, this bill could create new research and teaching opportunities tied to marijuana production. For most people, the effect would be indirect: it could improve the quality of cannabis-related agricultural knowledge and training, but it would not change your taxes, benefits, or everyday access to products by itself.

See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysis
FOR
  • 1890 land-grant universities and agricultural researchers They would gain a new federal research stream and a formal role in studying an emerging crop sector. Supporters would argue this strengthens scientific capacity, creates student opportunities, and helps schools that have long served underserved communities.
  • Cannabis growers and agricultural businesses in legal markets They would benefit from more standardized research on cultivation, plant health, and production methods. Better federal research could reduce crop losses, improve quality, and make the industry more efficient and professional.
  • Rural economic development advocates They may see the program as a way to expand high-skill jobs and innovation at regional universities. Research and extension work can spill over into local economies by supporting farmers, vendors, and related service providers.
AGAINST
  • Federal fiscal conservatives They may object to creating a new specialized federal research program for a crop associated with an industry that remains controversial under federal law. Their concern would be that it expands government spending and institutionalizes a sector they think should be handled at the state level.
  • Drug policy critics They may argue that federal support for marijuana research normalizes a substance they believe should remain tightly restricted. Some could worry that the program advances commercialization faster than public-health safeguards or legal clarity.
  • Traditional crop interests competing for research funding They may question whether scarce agricultural research resources should be diverted from staple crops, livestock, or broader farm challenges. Their view would be that federal research should prioritize issues affecting the largest number of farmers.
  • “provide for marijuana agricultural research program at 1890 institutions”

    This would formally authorize a federal research effort focused on cannabis cultivation and related agronomy at historically Black land-grant schools. In practice, that could fund studies on crop production, training, and extension services tied to the legal marijuana sector.

  • “amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977”

    The bill would plug the new program into an existing federal agriculture framework rather than creating a completely separate system. That usually makes the program easier to administer through established research and extension channels.

  • “1890 institutions”

    These schools are historically Black land-grant universities, so the bill would direct a specialized opportunity to a specific set of institutions. That can expand research capacity and student training in places that have often received less agricultural funding than other land-grant networks.

  • “and for other purposes”

    This standard legislative wording signals that the bill may include additional technical or conforming changes beyond the main research program. Those changes can affect how the new program is integrated into federal agricultural law.

June 18, 2026

Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.

Take Action

Get more from BillBoard

Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.

Ask AI about this bill

Data sourced from api.congress.gov.

Free to use · No credit card

Understand every bill.
Make your voice count.

BillBoard turns dense U.S. legislation into plain-English summaries, helps you take a stance, and connects you to your representatives — in seconds.