Wisconsin Governor Pushes To Stop Federal Hemp THC Ban, Saying Lack Of Legal Marijuana In State Makes The Impacts ‘Intensified’

The governor of Wisconsin is calling on congressional lawmakers to urgently take action to block a federal hemp THC ban that threatens to wipe out much of the state’s cannabis market—an issue he says is “intensified” by the fact that the state has yet to legalize marijuana for medical or adult use.

In a letter sent to Wisconsin’s congressional delegation on Tuesday, Gov. Tony Evers (D) warned about the ramifications of the pending federal hemp policy change that’s set to take effect in November under a large-scale bill President Donald Trump signed into law last year. He said without “legislative modification,” the new law “will have significant implications for Wisconsin hemp farmers, processors, retailers, and our broader economy.”

“Hemp-derived products currently support a growing sector of legitimate businesses across Wisconsin, employing nearly 3,500 employees and contributing meaningfully to local economies with over $700 million in economic production,” the governor wrote, adding that the hemp policy change means “many of these existing lawful products would be reclassified in a manner that effectively eliminates existing business models, forcing closures, layoffs, and lost investment.”

Evers is far from alone in his call for action. Industry stakeholders and legislators across the aisle have insisted that the federal reclassification of hemp would effectively eliminate the market that’s evolved since the crop and its derivatives were federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill. At minimum, they’ve called for an extended implementation delay so there’s more time to consider alternatives to outright recriminalization.

“The growing of hemp has become a strong diversification option for Wisconsin farmers, and as of November 2025, Wisconsin had 470 federally licensed hemp producers. Regulatory uncertainty surrounding the definition of hemp undermines their ability to plan responsibly and threatens to disrupt crop selection, with the potential to leave fields sitting idle for the 2026 season and beyond,” the letter says. “Without timely federal legislative action, Wisconsin producers may be forced to abandon hemp cultivation altogether, resulting in lost income and diminished economic opportunities, especially in our rural communities.”

“Our farmers already deal with enough, and the constant chaos and confusion out of D.C. caused by reckless trade wars and erratic tariff taxes continues to make an already strenuous job even harder,” it continues. “State and federal leadership must not turn its back on the farming communities and families who have long been, and always will be, the bedrock of our nation’s continued success.”

Notably, Evers said that the impacts of the forthcoming hemp policy change are “further intensified by the fact that Wisconsin has not enacted legislation legalizing medical or recreational marijuana, despite multiple attempts by my administration to do so.” The governor has repeatedly pushed for the reform— including legalization in multiple budget requests, for example—but efforts to enact the reform have consistently stalled out even as adult-use markets have come online in neighboring states such as Illinois and Michigan.

“While consumer demand for hemp-derived products remains strong, the absence of a legalized marijuana market in Wisconsin means that many of these products serve as lawful alternatives for Wisconsinites and an important source of revenue for instate businesses,” Evers said. “Restrictive changes to the hemp definition will only drive commerce for hemp-derived products across state lines, shifting jobs and tax revenue away from Wisconsin.”

A Wisconsin Senate committee last month approved a bill to legalize medical marijuana in the state as other legislators push for broader adult-use legalization. The state’s Republican-controlled Senate and Assembly last year rejected an attempt to legalize cannabis, defeating amendments to budget legislation that would have ended prohibition and established new medical and recreational cannabis programs.

Evers is not seeking re-election. But he said last year that if his party can take control of the legislature, the state can “finally” legalize marijuana so that residents don’t have to go to neighboring Illinois to visit its adult-use market.

“Due to the unique situation Wisconsin is left in, outlined above, I strongly believe federal legislation is needed to prevent the negative impacts of the new federal hemp definition,” he said, while urging lawmakers to support a bipartisan bill to delay the implementation of the policy change for two years to give the industry time to consider regulatory alternatives.

“This is about preserving lawful agricultural production that supports our local farmers and producers, protecting small businesses, and ensuring regulatory clarity for an industry that Congress itself created through prior legislation,” he said. “Time is of the essence. Farmers, producers, and retailers need certainty now in order to make informed decisions for the 2026 growing season and beyond. I urge you to act promptly to protect Wisconsin’s agricultural producers, small businesses, and workforce.”

On the other side of the debate, a coalition of law enforcement and anti-drug groups recently called on congressional leaders to oppose efforts to delay the implementation of the hemp THC ban.

As certain lawmakers seek to push back the implementation timeline—with delays included in proposed amendments for the latest Farm Bill that’s being marked up in a key House committee on Tuesday, for example—the prohibitionists groups led by Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) are sounding the alarm.

One 2026 Farm Bill amendment to delay the hemp ban would only extend the timeline by another year, and another would delay it for two years, though those proposals are expected to be killed given that the House committee chairman has claimed they are not germane to the underlying bill. A separate standalone bill from the amendment sponsor, Rep. Jim Baird (R-ID), would give the industry two additional years to consider regulatory alternatives to an outright ban.

Hemp and alcohol industry stakeholders are on full alert amid a pending ban on hemp THC products—including increasingly popular cannabinoid beverages—and a former Democratic congressman who owns a major alcohol company recently spoke at Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America’s (WSWA) Access LIVE 2026 event in Las Vegas where he and others discussed the policy landscape around hemp and how to avert an industry-wide upheaval.

WSWA, which hosted the event, has been closely monitoring federal hemp policy developments, and the association was among the first in the sector to call on Congress to dial back language in the now-enacted law set to ban most consumable hemp products, while proposing to maintain the legalization of naturally derived cannabinoids from the crop and only prohibit synthetic items.

Other major alcohol retailers came together in January to encourage Congress to delay the enactment of the law Trump signed that will federally recriminalize hemp-derived THC beverages and other products.

— Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. —

Since 2018, cannabis products have been considered legal hemp if they contain less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis.

The provisions set to take effect later this year specify that, within one year of enactment, the weight will apply to total THC—including delta-8 and other isomers. It will also include “any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as a tetrahydrocannabinol (as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services).”

The new definition of legal hemp will additionally ban “any intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products which are marketed or sold as a final product or directly to an end consumer for personal or household use” as well as products containing cannabinoids that are synthesized or manufactured outside of the cannabis plant or not capable of being naturally produced by it.

Legal hemp products will be limited to a total of 0.4 milligrams per container of total THC or any other cannabinoids with similar effects.

Within 90 days of the bill’s enactment, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies were supposed to publish list of “all cannabinoids known to FDA to be capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant, as reflected in peer reviewed literature,” “all tetrahydrocannabinol class cannabinoids known to the agency to be naturally occurring in the plant” and “all other known cannabinoids with similar effects to, or marketed to have similar effects to, tetrahyrocannabinol class cannabinoids.”

However, FDA appears to have missed that deadline. A spokesperson told Marijuana Moment last month that the lists would be posted in the Federal Register when they’re available.

Lawmakers from across the aisle have been raising concerns about the potential consequences of the hemp redefinition, which would eradicate most consumable cannabinoid products that have become commonplace in states across the U.S., including those where marijuana hasn’t been legalized.

Rep. James Comer (R-KY) and Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner Jonathan Shell are among the critics of the ban, and they sent a letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) last month imploring him to use his influence to avert the recriminalization, at least on a temporary basis, by supporting the proposed implementation delay.

While McConnell championed hemp legalization under the 2018 Farm Bill, however, the former Senate majority leader has supported unraveling the hemp THC market that he’s described as an unintended consequences of the broader agriculture legislation.