In a recent congressional hearing, Rep. Dan Crenshaw again pleaded his case for the advancement of psychedelic use in the mentally ill. The matter at hand pertains to a critical Bill that aimed to utilize and study psychedelic treatments for mental illnesses in conjunction with the Department of Defense.
The underlying Bill, which had been previously endorsed in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), has encountered an obstacle during its journey as numerous progressive proposals hangs in the balance. Although the House Rules Committee previously gave the green light to advance several non-controversial amendments related to the NDAA, it faces the daunting task of revisiting the measure and grappling with the vast array of remaining amendments—including two medical cannabis and psychedelics provisions.
Enter Dan Crenshaw, who testified at the Committee hearing to vouch for psychedelics amendment put forth by Rep. Morgan Luttrell. Under the measure that’s already part of the bill following committee action, the defense secretary would be obligated to carry out a clinical trial exploring the therapeutic benefits of psychedelics for active duty service members with PTSD, traumatic brain injury or chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
At the hearing, Dan Crenshaw noted that “there was, “”there’s a lot of support for this bill”, particularly from Chairman Rogers, along with a diverse group of Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Creshaw continued that the bill has already received “very positive feedback” from the House Armed Services Committee, and “so you think that we wouldn’t need to be here today because a version of it already made it into the base text of the NDAA.”
The urgency of the matter arises from a recent turn of events. In May, a standalone Bill was introduced to allocate funding for this endeavor. Close collaboration with members of the Armed Services Committee and positive feedback, including Chairman Rogers’ support, led to the belief that progress was being made. However, the version of the Bill that made it into NDAA was significantly altered without proper authorization.
The committee staff unilaterally made changes, stripping all funding and weakening the language to a mere requirement for a study. This alteration not only undermined the original intent but also failed to outline the necessary guidelines for conducting clinical trials, leaving room for ambiguity.
As a result, Crenshaw implored that it has become imperative for a renewed push for an amendment that restores the Bill to its original form—a version that was previously voted on and endorsed by the House. He reiterated that this amendment seeks to reinstate the $15 million in funding and explicitly mandates the use of clinical trials.
Dan Crenshaw ended his testimony with an earnest plea, hoping that the proposed amendment receives due consideration and support, enabling it to be voted on and passed in the House.