Could DEA Be Next? EPA Firings Spark Questions About DEA’s Accountability in MMJ’s Marijuana Licensing Delays

After the EPA dismissed employees who publicly criticized its leadership, attention is turning to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Diversion Control Division, long accused of obstructing FDA-approved cannabis research. With DEA officials Matthew Strait and Thomas Prevoznik retired and attorney Aarathi Haig facing ethical questions, patient advocates warn that new DEA Administrator Terry Cole may soon be forced to take similar disciplinary action against insiders who blocked MMJ BioPharma Cultivation’s clinical trials for Huntington’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis.

WASHINGTON, DC / ACCESS Newswire / August 31, 2025 / The Environmental Protection Agency made headlines this week after firing at least eight employees who signed a dissent letter criticizing the Trump administration’s policies under Administrator Lee Zeldin. The move has sent shockwaves across federal agencies and raised a critical question: could the same kind of purge happen at the Drug Enforcement Administration?

The DEA’s Diversion Control Division has already come under intense scrutiny for its handling of medical cannabis licensing, particularly the seven-year stall of MMJ BioPharma Cultivation’s application to produce marijuana for FDA-approved clinical trials in Huntington’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis. With two longtime officials – Matthew Strait and Thomas Prevoznik – now retired, insiders describe a Division “in transition.”

But one controversial figure remains: DEA attorney Aarathi Haig, who has continued prosecuting MMJ’s case despite questions about her bar compliance and eligibility in New Jersey. Patient advocates and legal experts argue that if other agencies are firing employees for dissent, the DEA may eventually be forced to act against officials accused of bias, obstruction, or ethical violations.

A Culture of Obstruction

Unlike the EPA dissenters, who criticized the agency’s direction under Trump, DEA critics point to constitutional violations and bad-faith tactics used to block cannabis research: moving goalposts on “supply agreements,” retroactive rulemaking, and excessive security demands costing MMJ hundreds of thousands of dollars.

MMJ argues that these actions aren’t policy disagreements – they are unconstitutional abuses of power. Recent Supreme Court rulings in Axon v. FTC (2023) and SEC v. Jarkesy (2024) have already undermined the DEA’s use of in-house Administrative Law Judges, raising the stakes for employees who defend the system.

Will Terry Cole Clean House?

New DEA Administrator Terrance “Terry” Cole has pledged accountability. But whether he will follow through – and whether firings could come to Diversion Control the way they did at EPA – remains an open question.

“Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Duane Boise, CEO of MMJ International Holdings. “If Administrator Cole wants to restore credibility, he must look hard at the people inside Diversion who’ve obstructed science for seven years. The EPA has already set the precedent – the DEA could be next.”

What’s at Stake

The issue is larger than internal agency politics. For patients with Huntington’s and Multiple Sclerosis, every delay means lost time against diseases that relentlessly progress. For researchers and investors, it means wasted capital and lost opportunity. And for federal agencies, it signals a reckoning: those who obstruct science and defy constitutional precedent may face the same fate as the EPA dissenters – dismissal.

MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan.

CONTACT:
Madison Hisey
MHisey@mmjih.com
203-231-85832

SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire