House Committee Advances Spending Bill That Would Ban Most Hemp Products Containing THC

GOP-Led Panel Moves to Redefine Hemp, Threatening Wide Swaths of the Cannabinoid Market

A Republican-controlled House subcommittee has advanced a federal spending bill that could significantly alter the hemp industry by prohibiting nearly all consumable hemp-derived cannabinoid products—including those containing federally legal trace levels of THC. The legislation was approved in a 9-7 vote by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies and will now move forward to the full committee for markup on June 11.

The measure, intended for fiscal year 2026, is part of a 138-page appropriations package but contains provisions that hemp stakeholders say would gut the industry by redefining hemp under federal law. Specifically, the bill would bar the sale of products with any “quantifiable” amount of THC or any other cannabinoid marketed to have similar effects, regardless of origin or intoxicating potential.

Proposed Redefinition of Hemp Would Eliminate Market for CBD and Minor Cannabinoids

Under current law established by the 2018 Farm Bill, hemp is federally legal if it contains no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight. This threshold has enabled the national marketing of a broad spectrum of hemp-derived products, including CBD oils, tinctures, gummies, and even low-THC smokable flower.

The new language would eliminate that threshold entirely by prohibiting any hemp product containing detectable THC or cannabinoid compounds with similar or perceived similar effects. The revision would allow industrial hemp production for limited uses—fiber, grain, oil, and non-cannabinoid food products—but would ban the commercial sale of nearly all consumable hemp-based formulations currently found in retail markets.

This would render most commercially viable hemp products—including non-intoxicating CBD goods—illegal at the federal level, affecting both small-scale producers and large vertically integrated operations that rely on these items for revenue.

Regulatory Language Draws From Previously Rejected Provisions in Earlier Farm and Spending Bills

The proposed restrictions mirror similar language introduced in previous sessions of Congress, including amendments to the 2024 Farm Bill and 2025 appropriations bills that ultimately failed to pass. The latest version introduces slightly modified criteria, including an updated definition of what constitutes a “quantifiable” amount of THC.

Instead of assigning this determination solely to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the bill stipulates a collaborative process involving both the HHS and USDA secretaries. While this procedural adjustment may appear nuanced, the practical effect remains the same: a federal prohibition of hemp-derived products based on any detectable psychoactive or marketed effect.

The bill also includes language that explicitly excludes FDA-approved drugs, such as Epidiolex (a CBD-based medication for epilepsy), from the hemp definition. This carve-out is likely an attempt to preserve the pharmaceutical pathway for certain cannabinoid treatments while restricting all others outside regulated drug frameworks.

Hemp Industry Braces for Market Collapse if Legislation Becomes Law

For many in the hemp sector, the proposed redefinition represents an existential threat. Products containing minor cannabinoids—such as delta-8 THC, HHC, and THCP—have become central to the financial viability of the post-2018 hemp market. Even non-intoxicating CBD products often contain trace amounts of THC and would fall under the ban, according to the proposed language.

Industry representatives argue that the legislation would not only eliminate popular wellness products used by millions of consumers but also undermine the investments made by thousands of hemp farmers, processors, and retailers nationwide. Businesses that have spent years building brands under the assumption of federal legality would face sudden and sweeping regulatory reversals.

While some analysts believe the bill may struggle to advance in its current form due to broader legislative gridlock and conflicting priorities, stakeholders are treating the threat as immediate. The prospect of a sweeping federal ban has reignited advocacy and lobbying efforts across the cannabis supply chain, including from allied industries such as beverage and wellness manufacturers.

Critics Warn That Broad Federal Prohibition Would Undermine State-Level Regulations and Empower Illicit Markets

Opponents of the legislation contend that a blanket federal ban would override state-level regulatory systems that have already been established to govern intoxicating hemp products. In the absence of a federal framework, many states have enacted robust rules concerning testing, labeling, age restrictions, and manufacturing practices for hemp-derived cannabinoids.

Eliminating the legality of these products federally would, critics argue, invalidate years of state legislative efforts and expose consumers to increased risk by driving the market underground. Without regulated alternatives, illicit actors could fill the void, exacerbating issues related to safety, product consistency, and market accountability.

Moreover, by refusing to create a federal system of oversight, the bill could hamper public health protections while failing to stem demand for cannabinoid-based products. Some stakeholders argue that prohibition-style measures have already proven ineffective in curbing use and instead fuel the growth of unregulated distribution channels.

Alcohol and Cannabis Industry Groups Sound Alarms Over Economic and Public Health Implications

The proposed bill has not only united hemp producers in opposition but has also drawn concern from adjacent industries. Members of the alcohol industry—long wary of competition from cannabinoid-infused beverages—have expressed alarm that an overly broad ban would harm efforts to develop regulated cannabis drink categories.

Trade associations representing wine and spirits wholesalers have labeled the proposal “overly broad” and counterproductive. They argue that states have demonstrated effective regulatory leadership and that federal policy should enhance, not override, those efforts. Industry leaders warn that undermining state authority and innovation could stifle job creation and revenue growth associated with hemp-derived consumer goods.

Reports from major financial analysts, including Bloomberg Intelligence, have highlighted the growing substitution effect of cannabis on alcohol consumption, suggesting that cannabinoid-based beverages are not only economically significant but socially transformative. Restricting their development could, therefore, have both economic and cultural repercussions.

States Across the Country Are Already Crafting Their Own Hemp Policies as Federal Uncertainty Grows

As federal legislation remains unsettled, many states are taking matters into their own hands. Over the past year, several—including Texas, Florida, and California—have introduced or enacted laws restricting hemp-derived intoxicants. These range from outright bans on delta-8 products to complex regulatory systems involving licensing, taxation, and lab testing.

In Texas, lawmakers recently passed a bill that would ban all consumable hemp products containing any detectable THC. The measure is currently awaiting action by Governor Greg Abbott, who has not indicated how he will respond.

This growing patchwork of state-level laws reflects both the high consumer demand for cannabinoid products and the regulatory vacuum left by federal inaction. Without a coherent national framework, producers must navigate inconsistent and often contradictory rules across jurisdictions, complicating interstate commerce and business planning.

As Congressional Debate Intensifies, Calls for a Regulated National Framework Grow Louder

As the spending bill heads to the full House Appropriations Committee, stakeholders across industries are calling on Congress to pursue sensible, science-based regulation rather than sweeping prohibitions. Advocates argue that a robust federal framework—centered around safety, transparency, and consumer choice—would better serve the public and the market than an outright ban.

Such a framework could include federal age restrictions, manufacturing standards, accurate labeling, and marketing controls to address concerns about youth access and product safety. Supporters of regulated reform point to the success of such models in alcohol and food industries as examples of how hemp products could be integrated into a legal, accountable market.

Until Congress acts decisively to regulate cannabinoid products, confusion and risk will likely continue to grow both for consumers and the businesses that serve them.