Kratom is legal at the federal level because it has never been placed on the Controlled Substances Act schedule. The DEA lists it as a “Drug and Chemical of Concern,” and the FDA has issued public warnings against its use, but neither agency has taken the final step of banning it. The short answer is a combination of unique pharmacology, massive public pushback against a 2016 scheduling attempt, and a regulatory gray zone that has persisted ever since.
Kratom’s Federal Status
Under U.S. law, a substance is only illegal to possess or sell nationwide if it appears on one of the five schedules of the Controlled Substances Act. Kratom does not appear on any of them. That means at the federal level, buying, selling, and possessing kratom is not a crime. The DEA has the authority to emergency-schedule substances it considers an imminent public health threat, and it tried to do exactly that in 2016. But it reversed course, and no scheduling action has succeeded since.
The FDA, meanwhile, treats kratom not as a controlled substance but as a problematic product in the food and supplement space. The agency has concluded that kratom does not qualify as a safe dietary supplement or food additive. It actively detains kratom shipments at the border under Import Alert 54-15, which allows customs officials to hold kratom-containing products without even physically examining them, on the grounds that kratom is an “adulterated” dietary ingredient with no established safety record. So while kratom isn’t criminally prohibited, the federal government has made importing it officially difficult.
The 2016 Scheduling Attempt That Failed
In August 2016, the DEA published a notice of intent to emergency-schedule kratom’s two primary active compounds, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, as Schedule I substances. Schedule I is the most restrictive category, reserved for drugs the government considers to have high abuse potential and no accepted medical use. Heroin and MDMA are on Schedule I.
What followed was extraordinary. The DEA received a flood of public comments from kratom users, researchers, and advocacy groups. Many commenters described using kratom to manage chronic pain or to transition away from prescription opioids. The volume and intensity of opposition was unusual enough that, in October 2016, the DEA withdrew its notice entirely. The agency asked the FDA to expedite a scientific and medical evaluation of kratom’s two key alkaloids, but that evaluation has not resulted in a scheduling recommendation. The withdrawal marked a rare instance of the DEA backing down from a scheduling action due to public pressure, and it remains the pivotal moment explaining why kratom stays legal today.
Why the FDA Hasn’t Pushed a Ban Through
The FDA has been vocal about its concerns. The agency warns consumers that kratom carries risks of liver toxicity, seizures, and substance use disorder. It points out that kratom’s main alkaloids bind to the same brain receptors as opioid drugs like codeine, and that one compound in particular, 7-hydroxymitragynine, is more potent at those receptors than morphine. The FDA has also noted that kratom can produce classic opioid effects: sedation, nausea, constipation, physical dependence, and in some cases respiratory depression.
Yet the FDA lacks the unilateral power to criminalize a substance. It can refuse to approve kratom as a drug or supplement, seize shipments, and issue warnings, but actually scheduling a substance requires DEA action. The FDA can recommend scheduling, and the DEA can request its scientific evaluation (which it did in 2016), but the process has stalled. The FDA’s position is essentially that if someone submits a formal drug application for kratom, the agency will evaluate the data. Until then, it considers kratom unapproved for any medical use and unsafe as a food or supplement ingredient.
Kratom’s Unusual Pharmacology
One reason kratom resists easy classification is that its chemistry doesn’t map neatly onto existing drug categories. Mitragynine, the most abundant alkaloid in kratom leaves, behaves differently from conventional opioids. In lab studies on human opioid receptors, mitragynine has low binding affinity and actually acts as an antagonist (blocking the receptor) rather than activating it at higher doses. At lower doses, it can function as a weak agonist. This dual behavior is unusual. Researchers have described mitragynine as a “low-efficacy opioid agonist with additional actions at non-opioid receptors,” including receptors involved in adrenaline signaling.
7-hydroxymitragynine is a different story. It binds to opioid receptors with nine times the affinity of mitragynine and acts as a partial agonist, meaning it activates those receptors more consistently. But it makes up less than 2% of the total alkaloid content in natural kratom leaves. Advocates argue this distinction matters: the dominant compound in whole-leaf kratom is pharmacologically different from the opioids the DEA typically schedules. Whether that distinction is meaningful enough to justify keeping kratom unscheduled is the core scientific debate.
State-Level Bans and Regulations
While kratom remains federally unscheduled, six states have banned it outright: Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island. In these states, possessing or selling kratom is illegal regardless of federal status. Some states and localities have taken a patchwork approach. In Mississippi alone, more than 30 counties and cities have restricted or banned the product.
A growing number of states have gone the opposite direction, passing versions of the Kratom Consumer Protection Act. These laws don’t just keep kratom legal; they regulate it. Missouri’s version, for example, requires kratom products to be labeled with the exact amounts of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, bans products containing synthetic alkaloids or dangerous contaminants, caps 7-hydroxymitragynine at 2% of a product’s total alkaloid content, and prohibits sales to anyone under 18. The goal is to treat kratom more like a regulated consumer product than an uncontrolled substance. A federal version of this bill was introduced in the Senate in 2023, though it has not advanced beyond committee referral.
International Status
Kratom’s legal status in the U.S. partly reflects its international standing. The World Health Organization reviewed kratom in 2021 and did not recommend placing it under international control. Kratom, mitragynine, and 7-hydroxymitragynine are not controlled under any United Nations drug treaties. This matters because international scheduling often influences domestic policy, and the absence of an international mandate to ban kratom removes one of the usual catalysts for national action.
Industry Self-Regulation
In the absence of federal regulation, the kratom industry has built its own quality framework. The American Kratom Association runs a Good Manufacturing Practice program modeled on FDA supplement manufacturing standards. Vendors who participate must pass third-party audits evaluating their manufacturing, testing, packaging, labeling, and storage processes. Products are tested for identity, purity, strength, and composition, and all auditors and testing labs must be pre-approved by the organization. Vendors who meet the requirements are listed as “Qualified Vendors.”
This kind of voluntary self-regulation serves a strategic purpose beyond consumer safety. By demonstrating that the industry can police itself, advocacy groups make the case to legislators that kratom can be managed through regulation rather than prohibition. It is a direct response to the FDA’s argument that kratom products are inherently unsafe, and it has helped fuel the state-level consumer protection laws that now serve as the primary legal framework for kratom sales in much of the country.