According to congressional researchers, a federal budget bill being considered by the House of Representatives would effectively ban hemp-derived CBD products.
In a recent report, published by the Congressional Research Service(CRS), legislative analysts examined the possible impact of hemp provisions. According to advocates and industry stakeholders, these provisions could devastate a major sector of the marijuana industry.
While report language attached to the 2026 appropriations bill was recently amended to clarify lawmakers’ intent not to disrupt the non-intoxicating cannabinoid market—signaling that products like CBD shouldn’t be banned—the legislation itself hasn’t changed and could still jeopardize the industry without further amendments to its provisions.
After the report’s language was changed, the CRS’s analysis seems to confirm the industry’s fears about the proposed legislation. It explains how the law would “expand the current statutory definition for hemp”, which is currently cannabis that contains no more than 0.3% THC in dry weight. “To include industrial hemp products, and exclude hemp-derived Cannabinoid Products.”
It states that “Excluding cannabinoid-derived products from hemp’s federal definition would effectively prohibit the production and sale hemp-derived derivatives and extracts of cannabinoids including CBD,” It says that the excluded cannabinoids include non-naturally occurring, synthesized and manufactured compounds.
“The proposed provision would make other broader changes to the hemp definition by changing the allowable limits of THC—the leading psychoactive cannabinoid in the cannabis plant—to be determined on the basis of its total THC, including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), instead of delta-9 THC. The USDA 2021 hemp final regulations codify this regulatory practice. The provision would exclude from hemp ‘any viable seeds from a Cannabis sativa L. plant’ that exceed a total THC (including THCA) of 0.3 percent in the plant on a dry weight basis.”
As it stands, the legislation has cleared a House Appropriations subcommittee—but while it was discussed in the full committee last week, members ultimately did not act on it before recessing for a district work period. Next week, the panel will take up the bill again.
However, prior to breaking the panel adopted a manager’s amendment, which was proposed by Rep. Andy Harris. (R-MD), an opponent of marijuana reform. Although Harris has expressed his opposition to cannabis reform, the report clarifies the fact that the panel is not in agreement with him. The following are some of the most common ways to pronounce To prohibit the federal legalization of non-intoxicating products that have “trace or negligible amounts” of THC.
“In determining the quantifiable amounts, the Committee does not intend for industrial or nonintoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoid products with trace or insignificant amounts of THC to be affected,” it says.
Harris stated in his opening remarks during the hearing last week that “the hemp-loophole” from the 2018 Farm Bill is closed.
He argued that the policy “has resulted in the proliferation of intoxicating cannabinoid products, including delta-8 and hemp flower, being sold online and in gas stations nationwide under the false guise of being ‘USDA approved.'”
It would be a major change to the law. The proposed policy would maintain “industrial hemp’s” legal status under a new definition which allows the sale and cultivation of hemp for fibre, oil, cakes, nuts, hulls, microgreens, or other edible hemp products for human consumption.
This language, which is mostly consistent with the appropriations legislation and agriculture bills that were introduced in, but ultimately not enacted during the previous Congress, has been adopted.
Hemp industry participants rallied to oppose that proposal. A previous version of it was also in the base Bill from last year’s subcommittee. It’s virtually identical to a provision of the 2024 Farm Bill that was attached by a separate committee last May via an amendment from Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), which was also not enacted into law.
The new version of the spending bill for 2026 has some changes, such as a change in what is considered a “quantifiable amount” of THC for hemp products.
It is now stated that the quantifiable amounts are “based on the substance, manufacturing, or articles (as decided by Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of Agriculture)” as opposed to the previous definition which was a simple amount “determined by Secretary and Secretary of Health and Human Services”.
It is now specified in the proposed legislation that hemp doesn’t include any “drugs that are the subject of an approved application under paragraph (c) or subsection (j) section 505 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (2 U.S.C. This legislation seems to make an exception in the case of FDA-approved drugs like Epidiolex which is synthesized using CBD.
A leading alcohol industry association, meanwhile, has called on Congress to dial back language in the House spending bill that would ban most consumable hemp products, instead proposing to maintain the legalization of naturally derived cannabinoids from the crop and only prohibit synthetic items.
Members of Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) also met with lawmakers and staffers in April to advocate for three key policy priorities that the group says is based on “sound principles of alcohol distribution.” These include the banning of synthetic THC and setting up federal testing and labeling systems.
Separately, key GOP congressional lawmakers—including one member who supports marijuana legalization—don’t seem especially concerned about provisions in the new spending bill that would put much of the hemp industry in jeopardy by banning most consumable products derived from the plant.
—
MEDCAN24 tracks hundreds of marijuana, psychedelics, and drug policy legislation in state legislatures this year. Patreon subscribers who donate at least $25/month have access to the interactive maps and charts as well as our hearing calendar.
Discover more about the marijuana bills tracker. Become a patron on Patreon and you will have access.
—
Jonathan Miller, general counsel of the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told congressional lawmakers in April that the market is “begging” for federal regulations around cannabis products.
Rep. James Comer, R-KY, also asked about FDA’s inaction on regulations. He joked that it would take “a gazillion of bureaucrats who work at home” to control cannabinoids like CBD.
A report from Bloomberg Intelligence (BI) last year called cannabis a “significant threat” to the alcohol industry, citing survey data that suggests more people are using cannabis as a substitute for alcoholic beverages such a beer and wine.
Last November, meanwhile, a beer industry trade group put out a statement of guiding principles to address what it called “the proliferation of largely unregulated intoxicating hemp and cannabis products,” warning of risks to consumers and communities resulting from THC consumption.
The poll found that although most Marijuana consumers are opposed to Trump’s actions on cannabis, a rescheduling of the drug or its legalization may increase support.
Kimzy Nanney provided the photo.
MEDCAN24 would not be possible without the support of readers. Please consider making a Patreon monthly pledge if you depend on our cannabis journalism for information.
