As more states legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use, many security clearance applicants and holders assume the federal government has relaxed its standards as well. That assumption is wrong.
Despite changing state laws and shifting public attitudes, marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Because the security clearance process is governed by federal standards, marijuana use continues to present real risks for both new applicants and current clearance holders.
After more than 25 years representing security clearance applicants and holders, I have seen marijuana-related issues remain one of the most common and most misunderstood clearance issues.
Federal Law Still Controls the Clearance Process
Security clearance determinations are made under federal adjudicative guidelines. Regardless of whether marijuana is legal in a particular state, its use remains unlawful under federal law. It remains a security concern under Guideline H of Security Executive Agent Directive 4. That distinction matters.
Adjudicators evaluate drug involvement under guidelines focused on judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and willingness to comply with the law. The concern is not simply the substance itself, but whether an applicant demonstrates respect for federal law and security requirements.
How Recent Is “Too Recent”? Timeframes Matter
One of the most common questions I hear from new applicants is: How long do I need to stop using marijuana before applying for a clearance?
There is no automatic or universally safe waiting period written into the adjudicative guidelines. Instead, adjudicators evaluate recency, frequency, intent, and likelihood of future use. The Government tried to provide more guidance on this area in December of 2021, but it is still vague as of 2026.
That said, recency is critical. Marijuana use within the past few months of applying will almost always raise significant concerns. The closer the use is to the date of the security clearance application (typically the SF-86 submission), the more difficult it becomes to demonstrate rehabilitation and a commitment to abstain.
In practice, longer periods of demonstrated non-use strengthen an applicant’s case. Occasional experimental use in the distant past is treated very differently from regular or recent use. Adjudicators are looking for credible evidence that the behavior has stopped and will not recur.
Intent also matters. Key Point: Applicants who state that they plan to continue using marijuana, if legal under state law, are unlikely to obtain or retain a clearance. The government expects clearance holders to comply with federal law, regardless of state law.
Frequency and Pattern of Use
Clearance decisions are rarely based on a single factor. Occasional experimentation years ago is generally mitigable. Regular use, habitual use, or use in combination with other risky behaviors can raise more serious concerns.
Adjudicators assess whether marijuana use reflects poor judgment, a pattern of rule-breaking, or susceptibility to blackmail or coercion. The more recent and frequent the use, the harder it is to mitigate.
Candor Is Often More Important Than the Conduct
In our experience, many marijuana-related clearance denials stem not from the use itself, but from a lack of candor.
Failure to disclose prior marijuana use on the SF-86 or during an interview can create far greater problems than honest disclosure. Additionally, providing an initial account of drug usage and then changing it later can cause significant problems. Investigators routinely verify information through interviews, records checks, and developed sources. An omission, intentional or not, can raise concerns under the personal conduct guidelines that are often harder to overcome than past drug use.
Applicants are far better positioned when they fully disclose past use, provide accurate timelines, and demonstrate a clear commitment to abstinence.
Risks for Current Clearance Holders
For individuals who already hold a clearance, marijuana use presents even greater risk. Many federal agencies require clearance holders to self-report drug use. Unless the individual reports their own usage, they can be at serious risk. If not reported, and the marijuana use is later uncovered by adjudicators, a clearance holder is likely to face a clearance action based on both the usage and for not reporting it.
A single use of marijuana by a clearance holder (government contractor/federal employee) can result in suspension, revocation proceedings, and/or employment termination.
State legalization does not protect a clearance holder from federal consequences. Even off-duty use in a state where marijuana is legal triggers serious security concerns.
A Common Hypothetical
Consider an applicant who used marijuana socially in a state where it was legal, stopping approximately three months before submitting a clearance application. The applicant discloses the use honestly but states that he believes occasional future use should not matter because it is legal in his state. We have seen these types of cases.
Even with honest disclosure, the recency of use and the stated intent to potentially resume use may lead an adjudicator to conclude that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation or commitment to federal law compliance. A different applicant with the same past use but who stopped earlier and clearly commits to abstinence may face a far more favorable outcome.
Changing Policies, But Persistent Risk
While federal agencies periodically issue guidance acknowledging evolving state laws, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. Clearance holders and applicants should not assume that public policy trends eliminate the risk. While the President recently encouraged more research into marijuana usage for medical conditions the adjudication rules have not changed.
Each case is fact-specific. Recency, frequency, intent, candor, and overall conduct history all matter. But applicants should understand clearly: recent marijuana use and any intent to continue using it remain significant barriers to obtaining or maintaining a security clearance.
Final Thoughts
Marijuana use continues to be one of the most common issues affecting security clearance applicants and holders. Although public attitudes and state laws have shifted, federal clearance standards and other laws have not changed in a way that eliminates risk.
Applicants should carefully consider the timing of marijuana usage before applying, ensure full and accurate disclosure, and be prepared to demonstrate genuine abstinence. Clearance holders should recognize that use or even a connection to marijuana usage (e.g. family member lives with you and frequently uses marijuana), even where legal under state law, can jeopardize both their clearance and their careers.
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Security clearance rules and government policies may change, and readers should consult counsel regarding their specific circumstances.
