A bipartisan bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives would prevent past marijuana use from being used to disqualify applicants for federal employment or security clearances, reviving an effort that previously advanced through a House committee but never became law. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., introduced H.R. 10504 on September 17, 2026, with Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, as the bill’s Republican cosponsor. The measure has been referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Congressional records describe it as legislation to limit adverse security-clearance and employment-suitability determinations based on past marijuana use.
Called the Cannabis Users’ Restoration of Eligibility Act, or CURE Act, the proposal addresses a peculiar divide in federal marijuana policy. Millions of Americans live in states where medical or adult-use cannabis is permitted, while federal hiring and security-clearance systems continue to operate under federal controlled-substance law. Existing federal guidance already tells agencies that previous cannabis consumption should generally be evaluated case by case rather than treated as an automatic disqualifier. The CURE Act would go further by placing protections against disqualification based on past use into federal law and creating a reconsideration mechanism for some people previously denied opportunities because of cannabis.
An important clarification is necessary, however. Some early coverage of the newly introduced bill describes it broadly as protecting “marijuana users,” including current users. The official title of H.R. 10504 and the most detailed reporting currently available describe the 2026 legislation as addressing past marijuana use. That distinction became central when an earlier version of the CURE Act was amended in Congress to remove protections for ongoing use.
What the New CURE Act Would Change
Under the proposal, previous marijuana consumption could not by itself prevent a person from receiving a federal security clearance or being deemed suitable for federal employment. Recent reporting on the legislation says its language provides that past marijuana use by a covered person may not be used in determining whether that person qualifies for a clearance or federal employment. It would apply not merely to ordinary civil-service hiring but to personnel decisions involving the national-security clearance system.
The legislation would also address people who were already turned away. Within one year after enactment, federal agencies would be directed to establish a process for reviewing certain previous employment or clearance denials connected to marijuana, including determinations dating back to January 1, 2008. That feature distinguishes the proposal from guidance that applies primarily to applicants going forward: the bill attempts to give some people affected by earlier decisions an opportunity to have those determinations reconsidered.
H.R. 10504 is at the beginning of the legislative process. As of September 19, it has been introduced and referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, with no committee vote or House floor vote yet recorded. The congressional title confirms that its focus is adverse determinations based on past marijuana use.
Federal Agencies Already Treat Past Marijuana Use Differently From Current Use
The proposed law would not begin from a completely zero-tolerance system. The Office of Personnel Management issued federal hiring guidance in 2021 making clear that agencies generally may not automatically declare an applicant unsuitable simply because the individual previously used marijuana. Instead, agencies are instructed to conduct an individualized assessment considering factors including the nature of the job, seriousness and circumstances of the conduct, how recently it occurred, the person’s age at the time and evidence of rehabilitation.
OPM specifically distinguishes past marijuana use from ongoing use. Its guidance says previous consumption, including recently discontinued use, should be viewed differently from continued cannabis use. Federal suitability rules require agencies to identify a connection between past conduct and the integrity or efficiency of government service rather than imposing an automatic prohibition based solely on a history of cannabis consumption.
Security clearances operate under a separate national-security framework. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued marijuana-specific guidance in December 2021 instructing adjudicators to consider cannabis involvement under the government’s “whole-person” approach. Marijuana use can remain relevant to a clearance decision, but it is not necessarily determinative by itself. Factors such as frequency, recency, likelihood of future use and surrounding circumstances can affect the assessment.
Why Security Clearances Are Different
Federal law creates an additional complication for people actively using controlled substances. 50 U.S.C. §3343 says federal agencies generally may not grant or renew a security clearance for a covered person who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance or is legally considered addicted to one. Covered people include federal employees, active-duty members of the military and employees of federal contractors.
That statutory language helps explain why Congress is considering legislation even though agencies have already relaxed their treatment of historical marijuana use through guidance. Administrative guidance can tell adjudicators how to weigh previous conduct, but a statute provides a more durable rule and can directly modify legal restrictions governing the clearance process.
Current cannabis use also raises issues that the new proposal should not be confused with eliminating. Federal employees remain subject to federal drug-free-workplace policies, and marijuana’s legality under a particular state’s law does not automatically make recreational use permissible for federal workers or security-clearance holders. OPM has repeatedly emphasized that the more flexible approach toward previous marijuana consumption does not amount to authorization for current federal employees to use cannabis.
The Earlier CURE Act Was Broader Before Congress Narrowed It
Raskin first introduced the CURE Act in 2023 with then-Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C. The original version was considerably broader than the legislation that eventually moved through committee. It proposed preventing both prior and current marijuana use from serving as grounds for failing a security-clearance or employment-suitability determination.
That provision changed during the House Oversight Committee’s September 2023 markup. The committee adopted modifications that expressly removed references to current marijuana use, leaving protections focused on historical consumption. Supporters of the amendment said that narrowing the legislation brought it more closely in line with existing government personnel policy. The amended CURE Act then passed the committee 30-14, with support from members of both parties, but it did not become law before the end of the 118th Congress.
The newly introduced H.R. 10504 closely reflects that narrower policy direction. Its official title specifically refers to limiting adverse determinations based on “past marihuana use,” suggesting Congress is again drawing a line between someone who used cannabis previously and someone who continues using it while applying for or holding a sensitive federal position.
Supporters Say Marijuana Rules Can Shrink the Federal Talent Pool
Supporters of reform have generally framed the issue as one of recruitment and personnel policy rather than simply marijuana legalization. In the earlier debate, Raskin argued that qualified people should not be prevented from federal service because they once used marijuana, particularly as state cannabis laws have changed. Republican supporters of the previous version similarly argued that unclear cannabis rules could discourage technically skilled applicants from pursuing government work.
The concern has been particularly visible in cybersecurity, intelligence, technology and other fields in which the federal government competes with private employers for workers. When OPM and ODNI began revising personnel-vetting policies, federal officials explicitly acknowledged that treating marijuana differently from other illegal drugs could help expand the pool of applicants for federal and contractor positions.
That argument also drove the Senate’s DOOBIE Act during the previous Congress. Then-Sen. Gary Peters introduced the companion legislation in 2024 to prohibit agencies from using past marijuana consumption as the sole basis for federal hiring, clearance and credentialing decisions. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved that proposal, but it likewise did not become law.
Opponents Have Raised National-Security Concerns
Previous debate over the CURE Act also produced substantive opposition. During the 2023 House markup, some lawmakers argued that Congress should preserve broad discretion for security adjudicators because clearances can provide access to extraordinarily sensitive intelligence, nuclear information and other national-security material. Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, emphasized that the legislation could affect people working in sensitive intelligence operations and nuclear-weapons programs, while Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, argued that Congress should more carefully evaluate potential national-security consequences.
Sessions proposed allowing recent marijuana use within a specified period to remain a basis for an adverse determination, but that amendment was rejected. Supporters countered that the bill did not eliminate broader security vetting or prevent agencies from examining an applicant’s judgment, honesty, reliability, criminal conduct or other potentially relevant behavior. Rather, their position was that historical marijuana consumption alone should not determine the outcome.
That distinction remains important with the 2026 bill. A statutory protection for past marijuana use would not mean that everyone with a history of cannabis consumption automatically qualifies for a clearance. Applicants would still undergo background investigations and whole-person evaluations covering numerous security considerations.
Schedule III Has Not Automatically Solved the Federal Employment Issue
The debate has become more complicated following the federal government’s 2026 changes involving marijuana scheduling. Certain medical marijuana products and state-licensed medical cannabis activity were moved into a Schedule III framework earlier this year, but that did not broadly legalize recreational marijuana under federal law or eliminate federal workplace and personnel-security requirements.
Current security-clearance guidance therefore has not simply disappeared because parts of federal cannabis policy changed. Clearance specialists have continued to emphasize that federal standards still govern applicants and clearance holders, regardless of whether recreational cannabis is legal under the law of the state where a person lives.
The CURE Act addresses that employment and clearance problem directly rather than relying on marijuana scheduling to resolve it indirectly. It would establish in statute that an applicant’s past cannabis use, by itself, is not the basis for excluding the person from federal service or classified work.
The Bill Would Codify a Shift That Has Already Been Developing
The significance of H.R. 10504 is therefore somewhat different from headlines suggesting the federal government is about to allow unrestricted cannabis use by federal workers. Current policy already treats previous marijuana use with considerably more flexibility than it did historically. OPM requires individualized evaluation, and ODNI guidance tells security adjudicators that marijuana involvement should be considered within the larger circumstances of the person seeking access to classified information.
What Congress is considering is whether those principles should become a statutory protection rather than remain largely dependent on administrative guidance. The bill would also provide a mechanism for reconsidering earlier cases in which cannabis history played a decisive role, potentially affecting applicants and former applicants across civilian agencies, federal contractors and national-security positions.
For now, the CURE Act is only a proposal. H.R. 10504 was introduced September 17 and remains before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. But its reintroduction shows that the conflict between state marijuana legalization, changing federal cannabis rules and decades-old personnel-security law remains unresolved. If enacted in its currently described form, the biggest practical change would not be permission for federal employees to freely use marijuana. It would be a much narrower—and potentially consequential—rule: having used cannabis in the past would no longer, by itself, be allowed to close the door on a federal career or security clearance.
