American Kratom Association Demands Major Correction or Full Retraction of Misleading New York Times Report on DEA Opioid Scheduling
AKA Charges That The New York Times Misrepresented Federal Action on Dangerous 7-OH and Mitragynine Pseudoindoxyl Products by Ignoring Combined Opioid Limits and a Second, Independent Scheduling Requirement
WASHINGTON, D.C. — October 30, 2026 — The American Kratom Association is calling on The New York Times to publish a substantial correction or fully retract its October 28, 2026, article, “Trump Administration Backs Down on an Opioid Ban After Kratom Industry Lobbying,” charging that the newspaper presented a materially misleading account of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s revised federal scheduling proposal for 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MGPI).
In a letter addressed to The New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger, the AKA challenges the article’s central portrayal of the Trump administration’s action as a retreat from efforts to control dangerous opioid products. The AKA argues that the report failed to adequately explain two critical provisions of the revised DEA proposal that materially affect which products would be subject to Schedule I controls.
First, the revised DEA rule establishes a single combined concentration threshold for both 7-OH and MGPI. Second, it adds an independent 100-to-1 alkaloid-ratio requirement that can trigger Schedule I controls even when the combined concentration falls below the numerical limit. The revised proposal therefore includes an additional way to identify products containing disproportionately elevated concentrations of potent opioid-active compounds.
“The New York Times owes its readers a correction that explains what the DEA actually proposed, rather than presenting a misleading political narrative that leaves out critical regulatory requirements,” said Mac Haddow, Senior Fellow on Public Policy for the American Kratom Association. “The revised DEA proposal does not give manufacturers separate allowances for 7-OH and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl. It combines those two potent opioid compounds under a single concentration threshold and adds a second, independent 100-to-1 ratio test. Ignoring those provisions fundamentally distorts the scope and intent of the federal action.”
AKA Demands Prominent Correction, Revised Headline, or Full Retraction
The AKA’s letter calls for The New York Times to correct the article’s treatment of the combined 7-OH/MGPI concentration threshold, explain the independent 100-to-1 ratio test, clarify that the October action remains a Notice of Intent rather than an effective final order, and distinguish scheduling thresholds from findings of product safety or market authorization.
The Association also requests reconsideration of the headline and correction of the information disseminated through republication and syndication.
If the newspaper cannot adequately correct its central characterization without fundamentally rewriting the article, the AKA requests a complete retraction.
“This is not a disagreement about whether journalists should scrutinize government decisions, lobbying, or political contributions. Of course they should,” Haddow said. “But legitimate scrutiny does not excuse leaving out material provisions of the actual federal rule. The New York Times has a responsibility to accurately explain what the government proposed, including the single combined threshold for 7-OH and MGPI and the independent 100-to-1 ratio requirement.
“When an article misleads readers about a federal drug-control action with serious public health consequences, the appropriate response is a prominent correction — not silence, and not a minor clarification buried where readers will never see it. If the fundamental narrative cannot be corrected, the article should be retracted,” Haddow concluded.
The full text of the AKA’s letter to The New York Times is available here.
