Kansas Governor Laura Kelly signed House Bill 2365 in April 2026, amending the state's Uniform Controlled Substances Act to prohibit kratom products — the latest in a string of state-level actions that have left the legal status of the Southeast Asian botanical in open flux across the country. From outright bans to compliance campaigns to a notable reversal, state regulators are moving faster on kratom than federal agencies, and in every direction at once.

The Kansas action followed Louisiana's ban, which took effect August 1, 2025, and Iowa's House passing a bill that would classify kratom as a Schedule I controlled substance — placing it alongside heroin and LSD under that state's scheduling framework. Under the Iowa proposal, first-offense possession would carry a misdemeanor charge. As of January 2026, kratom and its potent alkaloid derivative 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) remained unscheduled under Iowa criminal law; the bill still required Senate passage and a gubernatorial signature to take effect.

Not every state is tightening its grip. Rhode Island reversed its own kratom ban in July 2025, a rare legislative rollback that reflected pushback from users who report relying on the substance to manage opioid withdrawal. NIDA's current guidance acknowledges that people do use kratom for that purpose, though the agency notes there are no FDA-approved uses for kratom in any indication.

Enforcement Without a Federal Framework

In the absence of federal scheduling, states and attorneys general are improvising enforcement. Missouri's Attorney General secured an agreement from American Shaman — a major national kratom and hemp retailer — to suspend sales of both kratom and 7-OH products in the state, announced June 4, 2026. The action stopped short of litigation but used consumer-protection authority to achieve a market withdrawal. Ohio, for its part, has not banned kratom outright; instead, the state Board of Pharmacy issued guidance requiring all entities that possess, manufacture, market, or sell kratom to comply with R.C. Chapter 3715, Ohio's Pure Food and Drug Act, which imposes labeling, adulteration, and manufacturing standards.

California's approach has been the most operationally detailed. Governor Newsom's office announced in March 2026 that the state had achieved 95% compliance with its prohibition on illegal kratom products — defined to include foods, dietary supplements, and medical products containing kratom or 7-OH. The 95% figure signals active market surveillance, not merely statutory prohibition.

At the federal level, the FDA has not moved to schedule kratom under the Controlled Substances Act, though its posture has grown more skeptical over time. The agency has warned that kratom appears to carry risks of addiction, abuse, and dependence consistent with opioid pharmacology. Its Forensic Chemistry Center previously analyzed toxic element concentrations in 26 kratom products via ICP-MS, flagging contamination concerns. A 2023 request for proposals on kratom safety research indicated the agency was still building its evidentiary base rather than acting on it.

The American Psychiatric Association has been more direct: it has stated that kratom contains opioids and carries potential for dependence and addiction, a position published in October 2025.

What the Patchwork Means in Practice

The divergence across states creates immediate compliance burdens for multi-state retailers and serious ambiguity for consumers. A product legal in Ohio under food-safety rules may be a controlled substance in Kansas or contraband in California if improperly labeled. American Shaman's Missouri situation illustrates how attorneys general can achieve de facto bans through settlements even where no scheduling statute exists.

The 7-OH angle complicates matters further. Several state actions — California's prohibition, Missouri's AG action, and Iowa's proposed scheduling — explicitly name 7-OH alongside the parent alkaloid mitragynine. That specificity matters: 7-OH is orders of magnitude more potent at opioid receptors than mitragynine, and its presence in retail products at elevated concentrations is what has drawn the sharpest regulatory scrutiny. Banning "kratom" without specifying its alkaloid profile has historically allowed reformulated products to remain on shelves; the states naming 7-OH explicitly appear to be closing that gap.

The federal government's continued inaction creates the underlying pressure driving state legislatures to act. Without a unified scheduling decision or FDA-approved use pathway, states are left to triangulate between public-health warnings, advocacy from kratom users who describe genuine therapeutic benefit, and industry lobbying. Rhode Island's reversal is a data point in that tension — not a trend. The legislative calendar in Iowa and the enforcement trajectory in Missouri suggest the pressure toward restriction is, for now, the dominant current.