Congressional Lawmakers Approve Farm Bill With Hemp Provisions—But Not The THC Ban Delay Stakeholders Wanted

Members of a key congressional committee have advanced a large-scale agriculture bill that hemp industry stakeholders hoped could be used to delay a pending federal ban on cannabinoid products containing THC. But while the latest Farm Bill does contain certain hemp provisions, it seems unlikely at this stage that the measure will be used to prevent that market upheaval.

The House Agriculture Committee on Tuesday and Wednesday held a markup of the 2026 Farm Bill, ultimately approving it by a vote of 34-17.

Despite a push from lawmakers and hemp interests, however, two GOP-led amendments seeking to push back the THC recriminalization timeline were not approved after the chairman determined they were not germane to the underlying legislation.

Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN) filed the amendments ahead of the markup, with one proposal to delay the hemp ban that’s currently set to take effect in November by one year and another that would give the industry two additional years as they work to put forward a regulatory alternative for intoxicating cannabinoid products. Baird has separately introduced standalone legislation that would push the implementation back by two years.

Baird is not present on Capitol Hill this week due to the recent death of his wife, so Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), the panel’s minority ranking member, presented the two-year-delay amendment on his behalf—though after a brief discussion she withdrew it without forcing a vote on the issue.

“This amendment seeks to delay the last-minute changing of definitions around him that was inserted into a recent appropriations bill, which has caused market uncertainty and widespread economic anxiety among farmers, processors, retailers and consumers back home in Minnesota and of course, in [Baird’s] home state as well,” she said.

The way Congress’s GOP majority included hemp THC recriminalization provisions in a spending bill last year was “just plain wrong,” Craig said. “Literally planning decisions are being made right now by hemp farmers. That’s why I called for a comprehensive regulatory framework for the safe production and marketing of hemp the right products, a framework that puts in place clear rules of the road for growers and retailers, includes protections for children and safeguards for consumers, and brings the relevant federal agencies, whether it’s [the Food and Drug Administration], [The U.S. Department of Agriculture] or other related agencies, into the process at the appropriate point for the appropriate product.”

“I stand ready to work with my colleagues, both in this committee and in other committees on both sides of the aisle to come together and move forward, not backward on this issue. This is an industry with tremendous room for innovation and growth… This is an industry that we shouldn’t be demonizing and fearing, but it should be brought into the light and smartly regulated to protect the safety and wellbeing of our communities, while giving entrepreneurs, farmers, small businesses opportunities to develop new markets, create new products and meet the needs of consumers. By the way, more than a few Minnesotans have reached out to me about this issue, concerned that big whiskey distillers in Kentucky are trying to restrict consumer choice in Minnesota. That doesn’t sit well with me at all, and it certainly doesn’t sit well with my hockey moms. I think our nation would be better for having a comprehensive regulatory framework in this space, and we in Congress need to come together to figure this out.”

Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA), chair of  the Agriculture Committee, had reportedly determined in advance of this week’s meetings that Baird’s hemp amendments were not germane to the bill.

“The [agriculture] appropriations bill that passed last fall brought clarity to the industry on what is or is not allowable under the definitions of hemp,” he said Wednesday. “Importantly, to many in this room today, that language addressed the issue of final form products that have been the source of many public health concerns since the 2018 Farm Bill because they lacked a federal regulatory structure.”

“A comprehensive regulatory framework for these products falls outside the jurisdiction of this committee, and instead of falls within the jurisdiction of our colleagues…on Energy and Commerce,” the chairman said.

While the House committee didn’t vote on the hemp THC ban delay amendments, the base bill that was marked up does include several sections that concern cannabis grown by farmers for industrial purposes such as fiber and grain.

For example, the legislation would amend existing statute related to the development of industrial hemp production regulatory plans by states and tribes—including surrounding polices for testing, sampling, background checks and record-keeping.

“Within this base bill, we do support our hemp farmers in a couple of different ways,” Thompson said at the markup. “We direct USDA to expand and access more laboratories for our hemp farmers to be able to have their commodity tested… Also, we have provided states more flexibility in this space.”

Here’s a summary of the hemp language in the 2026 Farm Bill from House Agriculture Committee staff:

“Sec. 10005. Hemp production.

Section 10006 amends subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.

Subsection (a) amends section 297B to require State and Tribal plans to include a procedure under which a hemp producer shall be required to designate the type of production of the hemp producer; allow State and Tribal plans to include a procedure for the use of visual inspections, performance-based sampling methodologies, certified seed, or a similar procedure when developing sampling plans for industrial hemp; allow State and Tribal plans to include a procedure for eliminating the 10-year period of ineligibility following the date of conviction for producers of industrial hemp with a felony related to a controlled substance; require documentation during inspections that demonstrates a clear intent to produce industrial hemp for producers under a State or Tribal plan that includes procedures for reducing or eliminating sampling or testing requirements for industrial hemp; allow testing if a producer of industrial hemp fails to provide required documentation; require the State or Tribe to report a producer of industrial to the Attorney General and applicable law enforcement officers if that producer violated the State or Tribal plan by producing a crop that is inconsistent with the designation of industrial hemp; and ban any person who knowingly produced a crop that is inconsistent with the designation of industrial hemp from obtaining a hemp license for 5 years.

Subsection (b) amends section 297C to require a Department of Agriculture plan to include a procedure under which a hemp producer shall be required to designate the type of production of the hemp producer; allow a Department of Agriculture plan to include a procedure for the use of visual inspections, performance-based sampling methodologies, certified seed, or a similar procedure when developing sampling plans for industrial hemp; allow a Department of Agriculture plan to include a procedure for eliminating the 10-year period of ineligibility following the date of conviction for producers of industrial hemp with a felony related to a controlled substance; require documentation during inspections that demonstrates a clear intent to produce industrial hemp for producers under a Department of Agriculture plan that includes procedures for reducing or eliminating sampling or testing requirements for industrial hemp; allow testing if a producer of industrial hemp fails to provide required documentation; and requires the Secretary to collect information related to the designation of the type of production of hemp producers and the laboratory certificate of analysis for hemp disposed of.

Subsection (c) amends section 297D to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a process by which the Department of Agriculture can issue certificates of accreditation to laboratories for the purposes of testing hemp.”

Meanwhile, Wisconsin’s governor is among the most recent voices to call on congressional lawmakers to urgently take action to block the federal hemp THC ban, which threatens to wipe out much of the state’s cannabis market. It’s an issue he said is “intensified” by the fact that the state has yet to legalize marijuana for medical or adult use.

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

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.

— 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.

Photo courtesy of Brendan Cleak.