Hemp in 2026: What the Next Farm Bill Could Mean for You

Quick Answer: Federal appropriations legislation currently advancing through Congress would fundamentally redefine legal hemp by excluding any hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing "quantifiable amounts" of THC or THCA—potentially eliminating a substantial portion of the hemp industry according to industry analysis. The FY2026 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 4121, Section 759) passed the House Appropriations Committee in June 2025 and would create separate definitions for "industrial hemp" (fiber, grain, seed) and "hemp-derived cannabinoid products," with the latter facing prohibition if they contain detectable THC as determined by future HHS rulemaking. Rep. James Comer and 27 bipartisan lawmakers are fighting to remove this language, arguing it would jeopardize 328,000 American jobs and an estimated $28.4 billion in economic activity. The outcome remains uncertain as appropriations negotiations continue, but the threat to legal hemp access is immediate and real.

Key Takeaways

• House appropriations bill (H.R. 4121, Section 759) contains provisions that would redefine hemp to exclude cannabinoid products with any "quantifiable" THC—giving HHS authority through future rulemaking to set limits that could range from zero tolerance to low parts-per-million thresholds

• Rep. James Comer leads bipartisan opposition with 27 lawmakers warning the provisions would "deal a fatal blow" to hemp farmers and eliminate an estimated 95% of the regulated hemp industry, according to hemp trade group analysis

• Senator Mitch McConnell shifted from his 2018 position, now advocating for restrictions on intoxicating and synthetic hemp-derived cannabinoids he says were an "unintended consequence" of the original Farm Bill language, while supporting continued cultivation of traditional industrial hemp

• Total THC testing (including THCA) would replace delta-9 only testing, functionally banning THCA flower and other products currently legal under the 0.3% delta-9 threshold

• Industrial hemp exemption would protect fiber, grain, and seed operations but eliminate the cannabinoid market that supports the majority of hemp farmers economically

• AHAA is coordinating national advocacy to oppose prohibition language and support smart regulation that protects consumers while preserving legal access and jobs

 

---

 

The American hemp industry faces its most existential threat since prohibition ended in 2018. While debates about the next Farm Bill typically focus on agricultural subsidies and nutrition programs, language buried in FY2026 appropriations legislation could eliminate much of the legal hemp market—affecting farmers, processors, retailers, and millions of consumers who rely on hemp-derived products.

Important clarification: Though often referred to colloquially as the "2026 Farm Bill hemp ban," the hemp provisions discussed in this article are part of the FY2026 agricultural appropriations bill (H.R. 4121), not the Farm Bill reauthorization itself, which remains in draft form for future consideration.

This isn't speculation. The legislative threat is active, bipartisan opposition is organized, and the timeline is compressed. For anyone whose livelihood or health depends on legal hemp access, understanding what's being proposed—and how to fight it—is critical.

The American Healthy Alternatives Association (AHAA) is at the forefront of this fight, mobilizing grassroots advocacy, coordinating with Congressional allies, and funding the legal strategy needed to prevent hemp prohibition from becoming law. This article breaks down what's actually in the proposed legislation, who's pushing for and against it, and what you need to do to protect hemp's future.

The 2018 Farm Bill: How We Got Here

To understand the current threat, it's necessary to understand what the 2018 Farm Bill accomplished and why some lawmakers now claim it created problems.

The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (commonly called the 2018 Farm Bill) removed hemp from the Controlled Substances Act by defining it as Cannabis sativa L. containing no more than 0.3% delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dry weight basis. This single change legalized hemp cultivation, processing, and interstate commerce under USDA oversight.

The 0.3% threshold was based on delta-9 THC only—the primary intoxicating cannabinoid—measured at pre-harvest. The definition explicitly included "all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers" from hemp, meaning products derived from legal hemp were also legal regardless of their final form.

This framework enabled the hemp industry to grow into an estimated $28.4 billion market supporting approximately 328,000 jobs. Farmers cultivated hemp for three primary markets: fiber (textiles, construction materials), grain/seed (food, oil), and cannabinoids (CBD, CBG, CBN, and other extracts).

The cannabinoid market became the economic driver. While fiber and grain have value, cannabinoid extraction generates significantly higher revenue per acre, making hemp cultivation financially viable for farmers who otherwise couldn't compete with cheaper imported fiber or established grain crops.

However, the 2018 Farm Bill's broad language created what critics call "loopholes":

The 0.3% Delta-9 Loophole: Because the law specified delta-9 THC only, products containing delta-8 THC (a minor cannabinoid that produces mild intoxication) or THCA (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, which converts to THC when heated) could be marketed as legal hemp despite producing psychoactive effects when consumed.

The Derivatives Loophole: The phrase "all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids" meant that cannabinoids extracted from legal hemp remained legal even if concentrated or formulated into products with intoxicating potential.

The Synthetic Cannabinoid Question: Some companies began chemically converting CBD (abundant in hemp) into delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC, and other analogs not naturally abundant in the plant, arguing these were "derivatives" of legal hemp.

These products—particularly delta-8 edibles, THCA flower, and THC-infused beverages—flooded convenience stores, gas stations, and smoke shops in states where marijuana remains illegal. For consumers in prohibition states, this represented newfound access. For state regulators and law enforcement, it represented a gap in control. For licensed marijuana businesses, it represented unfair competition from unregulated hemp.

This tension set the stage for the current legislative push to "close the hemp loophole."

Learn how AHAA is fighting to protect hemp access without eliminating the legal industry that millions depend on.

What's Actually in the FY2026 Legislation

The proposed changes aren't in a standalone hemp bill—they're buried in must-pass appropriations legislation that funds the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FDA, and related agencies. This procedural approach bypasses the normal committee process where hemp industry stakeholders could testify and amendments could be debated.

Both House and Senate versions of the FY2026 Agriculture Appropriations Bill contain similar hemp provisions, though the Senate ultimately stripped its version following procedural objections. The House version (H.R. 4121, Section 759) remains active and could be inserted into final negotiations.

According to Congressional Research Service analysis, the legislation would:

Redefine hemp to create two categories:

1. Industrial hemp: Cannabis grown for "non-cannabinoid" uses including fiber, grain/seed (oil, protein powder, hulled seed), or immature plants (microgreens, edible leaves), as well as hemp grown for research or as viable seed to produce more industrial hemp.
   
   

2. Hemp-derived cannabinoid product: Any intermediate or final product derived from hemp (other than industrial hemp) that contains cannabinoids in any form and is intended for human or animal use through inhalation, ingestion, or topical application.
   
   

Exclude from the hemp definition:

• Any hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing cannabinoids "not capable of being naturally produced" (synthetic cannabinoids)

• Cannabinoids "capable of being naturally produced but synthesized or manufactured outside of the plant" (semi-synthetic cannabinoids like chemically converted delta-8)

• Any products containing "quantifiable amounts" of THC, THCA, "or any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as THC"

Change THC testing standards:

• Replace delta-9 THC testing with total THC (including THCA) for determining hemp compliance

• This codifies the USDA's existing regulatory practice from 2021 but extends it to finished products, not just agricultural samples

Grant regulatory authority:

• Authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the USDA Secretary, to determine what constitutes "quantifiable amounts" of THC or similar cannabinoids through future rulemaking

• This delegation means the actual threshold could range from zero tolerance to parts-per-million limits, depending on agency discretion—creating regulatory uncertainty until HHS issues guidance

Hemp Regulatory Changes: Current Law vs. Proposed 2026 Provisions

This table reveals why industry groups call the legislation a "hemp ban disguised as regulation." The devil is in the undefined term "quantifiable amounts." If HHS sets this threshold at zero (products must contain literally zero THC), it would be technologically impossible to comply—hemp naturally produces THCA, and extraction processes can't remove every molecule.

Even using the most advanced chromatography methods, some THC remains detectable at parts-per-million or parts-per-billion levels. A zero-tolerance standard would eliminate the entire cannabinoid market, including non-intoxicating CBD products that help millions with anxiety, pain, inflammation, and sleep.

Join AHAA's fight to oppose this legislation and support rational regulation instead of prohibition.

Who's Pushing the Ban—and Why

The effort to restrict hemp-derived cannabinoids has support from an unlikely coalition:

Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD): Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies, Harris is the primary architect of the House provision. A longtime opponent of cannabis reform, Harris argues the 2018 Farm Bill created a "loophole" allowing intoxicating products to be sold in gas stations and convenience stores without age verification, testing, or safety standards. He contends the legislation "threads the needle" by protecting industrial hemp while eliminating intoxicating products.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY): McConnell championed hemp legalization in the 2018 Farm Bill, viewing it as an economic opportunity for Kentucky farmers. However, he has since advocated for closing loopholes linked to intoxicating or synthetic cannabinoids, stating during Senate markup that the existing hemp definition created "an unintended consequence that has allowed for intoxicating hemp-derived synthetic products to be made and sold." McConnell supports restrictions targeting products that produce psychoactive effects while maintaining support for traditional industrial hemp cultivation for fiber, grain, and seed. His position is more nuanced than a complete reversal but represents a significant shift from the broad hemp legalization he championed in 2018.

State Attorneys General and Law Enforcement: The Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA)—representing state marijuana regulators—and attorneys general in multiple states have urged Congress to close what they see as three loopholes (0.3% delta-9 only, THCA exclusion, derivatives language) that undermine state marijuana programs and create public safety concerns.

Licensed Marijuana Industry: State-licensed cannabis businesses argue that unregulated hemp products create unfair competition. Marijuana businesses pay licensing fees, testing costs, taxes, and operate under strict oversight. Hemp businesses operate under less stringent agricultural rules and can sell across state lines. This disparity has generated pressure from marijuana trade associations to "level the playing field" by restricting hemp.

Prohibitionist Organizations: Groups ideologically opposed to cannabis in any form view the hemp cannabinoid market as backdoor legalization and support any effort to eliminate it.

The arguments these groups make include:

• Youth access: Hemp products are sold in stores without age restrictions, packaging that appeals to children, and marketing that mimics popular candy brands

• Lack of testing: Unlike state marijuana programs, hemp products aren't always tested for potency, contaminants, or accurate labeling

• Impaired driving concerns: Law enforcement can't easily distinguish hemp from marijuana, complicating enforcement of impaired driving laws

• Public health incidents: Emergency room visits related to delta-8 and other hemp cannabinoids have increased, particularly among youth

• Undermining state marijuana programs: Legal hemp cannabinoids reduce demand for state-licensed marijuana, cutting into tax revenue and regulatory control

Some of these concerns are legitimate. The hemp market has bad actors—companies selling mislabeled products, targeting children, and making unverified health claims. But the solution isn't prohibition. It's regulation: age restrictions, testing requirements, label accuracy standards, and enforcement against violators.

That's precisely what AHAA advocates for—and what Congressional allies are proposing as an alternative.

Who's Fighting for Hemp—and What They Want Instead

Opposition to the hemp ban is bipartisan, geographically diverse, and economically motivated. It includes:

Rep. James Comer (R-KY): Chair of the House Oversight Committee and former Kentucky Commissioner of Agriculture, Comer spearheaded Kentucky's industrial hemp pilot program and was instrumental in the 2018 Farm Bill's passage. In September 2025, Comer led 27 bipartisan lawmakers in a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson urging removal of the anti-hemp language from any final appropriations package.

The letter warns: "Under the 2018 Farm Bill language, the hemp industry supports 320,000 American jobs, generates $28.4 billion in regulated market activity, and produces some $1.5 billion in state tax revenue. If the language contained in the FY26 Agriculture-FDA Appropriations Bill were to become law, it would deal a fatal blow to American farmers supplying the regulated hemp industry and small businesses, and jeopardize tens of billions of dollars in economic activity around the country."

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY): Paul has warned that the proposed legislation would "completely destroy" the hemp industry. He's working to negotiate a compromise that addresses safety concerns without eliminating legal commerce, though he acknowledges that stakeholders are "in some ways, talking past each other."

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR): Oregon's senators delivered a joint letter to Senate leadership recommending legislation that establishes a regulatory framework protecting consumers while allowing continued growth for hemp farmers and businesses.

Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY), Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX): These lawmakers and others from 13 states signed Comer's letter, reflecting hemp's economic importance across diverse political constituencies.

Senator Rand Paul has spoken his support for an 18 month period to allow for a comprehensive study on the hemp market's economic impact, safety and the health benefits involved with hemp-derived compounds.

American Healthy Alternatives Association (AHAA): AHAA is leading coordinated advocacy efforts across multiple states, engaging lobbyists, funding legal strategies, and mobilizing consumers to contact their representatives. AHAA's approach combines grassroots action with high-level policy engagement to create political pressure for compromise.

What hemp advocates want instead:

The industry is unified behind a regulatory framework that includes:

• Age restrictions: Limit hemp cannabinoid product sales to adults 21 and older

• Packaging and labeling standards: Eliminate "look-alike" products that mimic popular candy brands; require clear cannabinoid content, serving size, and warning labels

• Mandatory third-party testing: Require independent lab testing for potency, heavy metals, pesticides, residual solvents, and microbial contaminants

• Certificate of Analysis (COA) disclosure: Make test results publicly accessible via QR codes or online databases

• Good Manufacturing Practices: Apply cGMP standards similar to dietary supplements

• Marketing restrictions: Prohibit health claims not supported by FDA-approved evidence; ban marketing directed at minors

• Retail restrictions: Limit sales to licensed retailers with age verification systems

• Federal enforcement: Empower FDA and FTC to take action against mislabeled, contaminated, or deceptively marketed products

This framework mirrors how state marijuana programs operate—and it's achievable without eliminating the legal hemp market. But it requires lawmakers to choose regulation over prohibition.

Support AHAA's advocacy for smart hemp regulation by joining as a member or making a donation to fund lobbying and legal strategy.

What This Means for Hemp Farmers

The agricultural impact of the proposed legislation cannot be overstated. While "industrial hemp" for fiber, grain, and seed would remain legal, these markets alone don't sustain most hemp farmers economically.

Fiber hemp requires specialized processing infrastructure that doesn't exist in most of the United States. Farmers must transport raw hemp to distant processing facilities, driving up costs. Imported hemp fiber from China and Europe is cheaper, making U.S. fiber hemp commercially challenging without government subsidies or protectionist trade policies.

Grain and seed hemp compete with established crops like corn, soybeans, and wheat. While hempseed has nutritional value and the FDA recognizes hemp seed ingredients as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe), the market is limited compared to cannabinoid extraction. Grain hemp generates approximately $300-600 per acre compared to $1,000-3,000+ per acre for cannabinoid-rich hemp.

Cannabinoid hemp is where farmers make money. CBD, CBG, CBN, and other cannabinoids command premium prices because demand is high and cultivation requires expertise. This market has enabled farmers in Kentucky, North Carolina, Oregon, Colorado, and other states to transition from tobacco or diversify revenue streams.

Eliminating the cannabinoid market would force farmers into three choices:

1. Pivot to fiber or grain (likely unprofitable without massive investment in processing infrastructure)

2. Stop growing hemp entirely (returning to traditional crops with lower margins)

3. Grow hemp illegally for state-licensed marijuana markets (requires moving to a legalization state and obtaining expensive licenses)

For small and mid-sized farms, none of these options are viable. The result would be consolidation: large agricultural corporations with diversified operations could absorb the loss, but family farms dependent on hemp income would fail.

Kentucky farmers—many from counties that traditionally grew tobacco—have sent letters to Senator McConnell warning that recriminalizing their harvest would devastate rural communities. The irony is sharp: McConnell championed hemp as an economic lifeline for these same farmers in 2018, and now his reversal threatens to eliminate it.

Read more about hemp farming economics and policy impact on AHAA's news hub.

What This Means for Hemp Businesses

Processors, manufacturers, and retailers face immediate existential risk if the FY2026 legislation becomes law.

Processors and extractors have invested millions in equipment designed to produce cannabinoid-rich extracts, isolates, and distillates. CO2 extraction systems, ethanol recovery equipment, distillation columns, and chromatography units are specialized assets with no alternative use. If hemp-derived cannabinoids become Schedule I controlled substances, this equipment becomes worthless overnight.

Manufacturers of CBD oils, capsules, topicals, edibles, and beverages would be unable to sell inventory or fulfill contracts. Products in warehouses, distribution channels, and retail shelves would become illegal contraband subject to seizure and destruction.

Retailers—from small independent shops to large e-commerce platforms—would lose their primary product category. Smoke shops, wellness stores, and specialty hemp retailers whose revenue depends on cannabinoid sales would close. Employees would lose jobs. Landlords would lose tenants.

Testing laboratories that analyze hemp products for cannabinoid content, contaminants, and compliance would lose most of their client base. These labs invested in expensive instrumentation and hired trained staff based on the legality of the hemp market.

Ancillary businesses—packaging suppliers, logistics companies, payment processors, insurance providers, and marketing agencies—would all lose hemp clients.

The U.S. Hemp Roundtable warns that according to hemp industry analysis, eliminating hemp-derived cannabinoids would wipe out roughly 95% of the industry's economic value. Industrial hemp for fiber and grain represents less than 5% of current market activity, with the remaining 95% concentrated in cannabinoid production and sales.

Some companies might pivot to state-licensed marijuana markets, but this requires:

• Relocating to a legalization state

• Obtaining competitive licenses (often capped, expensive, and politically connected)

• Meeting state-specific regulations that vary widely

• Operating only within one state (no interstate commerce)

• Accepting that marijuana remains federally illegal and subject to potential federal enforcement

For most businesses, this isn't a viable path. The result would be industry collapse, followed by a black market filling the void left by legal commerce—exactly the opposite of what prohibition advocates claim to want.

What This Means for Consumers

For millions of Americans who use hemp-derived cannabinoids, the proposed legislation represents loss of access to products they rely on for health and wellness.

Medical cannabis patients in prohibition states currently use hemp-derived CBD, CBG, and other cannabinoids as alternatives to pharmaceutical options or as complementary therapies. If hemp cannabinoids become illegal, these individuals face a choice: move to a marijuana-legal state, obtain products from illegal sources, or go without.

Consumers using CBD for anxiety, sleep, pain, or inflammation have built routines around specific products and dosages. Clinical research supports CBD's benefits for certain conditions, and many people find it more tolerable than prescription alternatives. Eliminating legal access doesn't eliminate need—it just forces consumers into unregulated markets.

Veterans using hemp cannabinoids as alternatives to opioids, benzodiazepines, or other medications with serious side effects would lose a legal option that many credit with improving quality of life and reducing dependence on pharmaceuticals.

Elderly consumers managing chronic conditions often prefer hemp-derived CBD topicals, tinctures, or capsules over prescription drugs with harsh side effects. Loss of access would push this demographic toward riskier alternatives or force them to accept conditions they've successfully managed.

Pet owners using hemp-derived CBD for animal anxiety, arthritis, or seizures would also lose access, as veterinary applications would fall under the same prohibition.

The Congressional Research Service initially stated the legislation would "effectively prohibit" production and sale of hemp-derived cannabinoids "including cannabidiol (CBD)." While the report was later amended and committee report language was added to clarify that products with "trace or insignificant amounts of THC" shouldn't be affected, the statutory text itself provides no such exemption. This disconnect between report language (expressing congressional intent) and statutory text (the actual law) creates profound legal uncertainty for CBD and other non-intoxicating cannabinoid products.

This creates profound uncertainty. What is "trace" versus "quantifiable"? How will HHS define these terms? Will CBD isolate (>99% pure CBD with no THC) remain legal, but full-spectrum CBD (containing trace THC plus other beneficial cannabinoids) become illegal?

Without clear statutory language, consumers face the prospect of buying products that might become illegal retroactively once HHS issues its determination.

Take action to protect consumer access to hemp cannabinoids by contacting your representatives through AHAA's Action Center.

THC Testing Changes and Why They Matter

The shift from delta-9 THC testing to total THC testing deserves specific attention because it affects every hemp product—not just intoxicating ones.

Current standard (2018 Farm Bill): Hemp is defined as cannabis containing no more than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight, measured at pre-harvest. This allows THCA (the acidic precursor to THC) to be present at higher levels since it doesn't count toward the threshold until it's decarboxylated (converted to THC through heat).

Proposed standard (FY2026 legislation): Hemp must contain no more than 0.3% total THC (delta-9 THC + THCA + other THC analogs) by dry weight. This is already the USDA's regulatory practice for agricultural compliance testing, but extending it to finished products has major implications.

THC Testing Standards: 2018 vs. Potential 2026 Requirements

This table shows why the "quantifiable amounts" language is so dangerous. If HHS determines that any amount detected by modern testing equipment qualifies as "quantifiable," it would be impossible to produce compliant products from natural hemp.

Hemp plants synthesize THCA naturally as part of their cannabinoid profile. Even CBD-dominant cultivars contain trace THCA. Extraction processes can reduce THC content but can't eliminate it entirely without extreme purification that also removes other beneficial compounds.

A zero-tolerance standard would force manufacturers to use CBD isolate only—eliminating full-spectrum and broad-spectrum products that consumers prefer for the "entourage effect" (synergistic benefits of multiple cannabinoids working together).

Learn more about hemp testing and compliance standards and how AHAA is advocating for reasonable thresholds that protect safety without eliminating legal commerce.

Hemp Cannabinoid Status: What Could Change in 2026

The proposed legislation targets specific cannabinoid categories, creating winners and losers across the product spectrum.

Hemp Cannabinoid Status Under Proposed 2026 Framework

This chart reveals a critical point: the proposed legislation doesn't just target intoxicating products—it puts all hemp cannabinoids at risk due to vague language about "quantifiable amounts" and "similar effects."

Even cannabinoids with no intoxicating properties (CBD, CBG) could be banned if they're present in products containing trace THC. And the "similar effects" language is so broad that regulators could interpret it to include any cannabinoid that interacts with the endocannabinoid system.

The only way to protect non-intoxicating cannabinoids is to remove the vague prohibition language and replace it with specific, science-based standards that distinguish between intoxicating and non-intoxicating products based on measurable criteria.

Timeline: What Happens Next

The legislative timeline is compressed and uncertain. Here's what we know:

June 2025: House Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 4121 (FY2026 Ag Appropriations Bill) with Section 759 redefining hemp. Vote was 35-27, strictly along party lines.

July 2025: Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version (S. 2256, Section 782) with similar language. However, Senator Rand Paul later forced removal of the hemp provision through procedural objections, and the full Senate passed a version completely removing the hemp ban on July 29, 2025.

September 2025: Rep. James Comer led 27 bipartisan lawmakers in sending a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson urging removal of hemp provisions from any final appropriations package. Industry groups ramped up grassroots advocacy campaigns.

October 2025: As of this writing, the House and Senate have not yet formally convened conference negotiations to reconcile their appropriations bills. Three scenarios remain possible:

1. Hemp language stays in: If House Republicans insist on including Section 759 and negotiate it into the final package, it would go to President Biden for signature. If signed, the hemp redefinition becomes law immediately—eliminating most hemp-derived cannabinoid products.
   
   

2. Hemp language is removed: If bipartisan opposition succeeds and leadership removes the provisions, the hemp industry continues under current law, but the threat remains for future legislation.
   
   

3. Compromise language is added: Negotiators could adopt alternative regulatory language that restricts intoxicating products (delta-8, THCA flower) while explicitly protecting non-intoxicating cannabinoids (CBD, CBG, CBN). This is AHAA's preferred outcome.
   
   

What comes next depends on political pressure. Appropriations bills are must-pass legislation—the government needs funding. But provisions within these bills can be negotiated, amended, or stripped during conference committee negotiations between House and Senate.

The hemp provisions are not popular with either chamber's leadership. Speaker Johnson hasn't publicly endorsed them. Senate leadership stripped them from the Senate version. But Rep. Andy Harris and Senator Mitch McConnell wield significant influence, and both are committed to the restrictions.

The deciding factor will be whether enough members of Congress hear from constituents that hemp jobs, farms, and consumer access matter. That's where grassroots advocacy—coordinated by organizations like AHAA—becomes critical.

Take action today to contact your senators and representatives urging them to oppose hemp prohibition language in the FY2026 appropriations bill.

Why Smart Regulation Beats Prohibition

Every concern raised by prohibition advocates can be addressed through regulation without eliminating the legal hemp market.

Concern: Youth access to intoxicating products
Solution: Require age 21+ for all hemp cannabinoid products; penalize retailers who sell to minors; ban packaging that appeals to children

Concern: Lack of testing and safety standards
Solution: Mandate third-party lab testing for potency, contaminants, and accurate labeling; require certificates of analysis (COAs) accessible to consumers

Concern: Misleading marketing and health claims
Solution: Empower FDA and FTC to enforce existing rules against false advertising; penalize companies making unverified medical claims

Concern: Impaired driving and law enforcement challenges
Solution: Develop field testing for THC/cannabinoids; restrict marketing of intoxicating products; label requirements clearly indicating intoxication potential

Concern: Products with THC shouldn't be sold outside state marijuana programs
Solution: Create a federal framework for non-intoxicating hemp cannabinoids (CBD, CBG, CBN) with clear THC limits; restrict intoxicating products (delta-8, THCA flower) to adult-use marijuana programs or tightly regulated hemp channels

This is exactly what the hemp industry has proposed: age restrictions, testing requirements, labeling standards, and marketing limits—the same framework used successfully in state marijuana programs, but applied at the federal level for hemp.

Prohibition, by contrast, eliminates testing, eliminates labeling, eliminates age restrictions, and eliminates any regulatory oversight—because it pushes the market underground. Black market hemp would be more dangerous, not less, just as black market marijuana was more dangerous than legal, regulated products.

Support AHAA's advocacy for smart hemp regulation that protects consumers without destroying jobs and legal access.

What You Can Do Right Now

The fight to protect hemp isn't over—but time is running out. Here are immediate actions you can take:

1. Contact your representatives: Use AHAA's Action Center to send pre-written letters to your senators and representative opposing Section 759 of H.R. 4121 and any similar hemp prohibition language. Personalize the message with your story if you're a farmer, business owner, or consumer who relies on hemp.

2. Join AHAA as a member: Membership dues fund lobbying efforts, legal strategy, and grassroots campaigns. AHAA has already coordinated advocacy in multiple states and works directly with Congressional allies like Rep. Comer to build political opposition to hemp bans.

3. Share accurate information: Combat misinformation by sharing fact-based articles like this one. Many people don't know the hemp industry is under threat. Educate your networks using social media, email, and conversations.

4. Support businesses that fight back: Buy from hemp companies that are transparent about testing, support AHAA's advocacy, and actively oppose prohibition. Your purchasing decisions matter.

5. Tell your story: If hemp products have improved your health, helped you reduce pharmaceutical use, or provided income as a farmer or business owner, share that story with your representatives. Personal narratives are more powerful than statistics.

6. Stay informed: Follow AHAA's news updates to track legislative developments and know when critical votes are happening so you can take action at the most impactful moments.

The hemp industry won't survive on hope alone. It will survive because stakeholders organized, advocated, and made it politically costly for lawmakers to eliminate it. You're part of that effort.

 

---

 

Frequently Asked Questions About the 2026 Farm Bill and Hemp

Will CBD products still be legal if the FY2026 legislation passes?

The legislation's language is ambiguous, creating significant uncertainty. While committee report language states that "industrial or nonintoxicating hemp-derived cannabinoid products with trace or insignificant amounts of THC" shouldn't be affected, the actual statutory text hasn't changed. CBD isolate (>99% pure CBD with no THC) would likely remain legal, but full-spectrum CBD products containing trace THC could be banned depending on how HHS defines "quantifiable amounts." Until that definition is established, the legal status of most CBD products remains uncertain. Learn more about hemp safety standards and testing that could protect consumer access.

What's the difference between industrial hemp and hemp-derived cannabinoid products under the proposed law?

Industrial hemp would be defined as hemp grown for non-cannabinoid uses: fiber (textiles, construction materials), grain/seed (food products like protein powder, oil, hulled seeds), or immature plants (microgreens, edible leaves). This category would remain fully legal. Hemp-derived cannabinoid products are consumables intended for human or animal use that contain cannabinoids in any form—including CBD oils, edibles, topicals, and supplements. These products would face prohibition if they contain "quantifiable amounts" of THC or cannabinoids with "similar effects" to THC. The distinction effectively splits hemp into "allowed" (non-cannabinoid) and "prohibited" (cannabinoid) categories.

Why is Senator Mitch McConnell now opposing hemp when he supported it in 2018?

Senator McConnell's position has shifted but is more nuanced than a complete reversal. He has stated that the 2018 Farm Bill's definition of hemp created "unintended consequences" by allowing intoxicating hemp-derived products—particularly synthetic cannabinoids like delta-8 THC—to be sold outside of state marijuana regulatory systems. McConnell advocates for closing loopholes linked to intoxicating or synthetic cannabinoids while maintaining support for traditional industrial hemp cultivation for fiber, grain, and seed. He argues the current push reflects "the original intent of the 2018 farm bill," which he says was to legalize agricultural hemp for non-cannabinoid purposes, not to create a market for psychoactive products. Critics, including Kentucky hemp farmers who have written to McConnell, argue this shift—even if not a complete reversal—betrays farmers he encouraged to enter the cannabinoid market and would devastate rural economies that depend on it.

If hemp-derived cannabinoids are banned, can I just buy marijuana products in legal states instead?

Only if you live in a state with legal recreational or medical marijuana and meet that state's requirements. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, so interstate transport is prohibited—you can't legally buy in one state and bring products home to another. Many states still prohibit marijuana entirely, leaving millions of Americans without legal access if hemp is banned. Even in legal states, marijuana products are often more expensive than hemp products due to higher taxes and regulatory costs. For consumers in prohibition states, eliminating legal hemp means choosing between going without or buying from unregulated black markets with no testing or quality control.

What happens to hemp farmers if only industrial hemp (fiber and grain) remains legal?

Most hemp farmers would face financial hardship or exit the industry entirely. Fiber hemp requires specialized processing infrastructure that doesn't exist in most regions, and imported fiber from China and Europe is cheaper. Grain hemp competes with established crops and generates significantly lower revenue per acre ($300-600) compared to cannabinoid-rich hemp ($1,000-3,000+). The cannabinoid market is what makes hemp cultivation economically viable for small and mid-sized farms. Without it, farmers would need to return to traditional row crops, find alternative income, or attempt to enter state-licensed marijuana markets (which require expensive licenses, relocation to legal states, and acceptance of ongoing federal prohibition risk).

Are delta-8 THC and THCA the same as marijuana?

No, though they can produce similar effects. Delta-8 THC is a minor cannabinoid found in very small amounts in hemp; most commercial delta-8 is created by chemically converting CBD (abundant in hemp) into delta-8. It produces mild intoxication, less intense than delta-9 THC (the primary intoxicating compound in marijuana). THCA (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) is the raw, non-intoxicating precursor to THC found naturally in both hemp and marijuana plants. THCA doesn't produce intoxication until it's heated (through smoking, vaping, or cooking), at which point it converts to delta-9 THC. The 2018 Farm Bill's definition of hemp based on delta-9 THC only created a legal pathway for these products, though their intoxicating effects when consumed have driven regulatory pushback.

How is AHAA fighting to protect hemp, and how can I support the effort?

AHAA coordinates multi-state advocacy campaigns, works directly with Congressional allies like Rep. James Comer, funds lobbying efforts, and develops legal strategies to oppose hemp prohibition while supporting smart regulation. AHAA's Action Center provides tools to contact your representatives with pre-written messages opposing harmful legislation. Membership contributions fund these efforts—including hiring professional lobbyists, commissioning legal analysis, organizing grassroots campaigns, and coordinating with industry partners to build political pressure for compromise solutions that protect consumer access and hemp jobs. You can also stay informed through AHAA's news hub, which tracks legislative developments and provides timely updates on when to take action.

---

 

Sources Used for This Article

Congressional Research Service. (2025). Hemp Restrictions in FY2026 Agriculture Appropriations (IN12565). https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12565

Congressional Research Service. (2024). Hemp Provisions in the House Farm Bill and FY2025 Agriculture Appropriations Bill (IN12381). https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12381

Rep. James Comer. (2025, September 26). Comer Leads Bipartisan Effort Urging Speaker Johnson to Strike Anti-Hemp Provisions from FY26 Ag Appropriations Bill [Press Release]. https://comer.house.gov/2025/9/comer-leads-bipartisan-effort-urging-speaker-johnson-to-strike-anti-hemp-provisions-from-fy26-ag-appropriations-bill

King & Spalding LLP. (2025). Congressional Crack Down on Hemp Loophole? Significant Changes Loom for Hemp Industry. https://www.kslaw.com/news-and-insights/congressional-crack-down-on-hemp-loophole-significant-changes-loom-for-hemp-industry

Shipman & Goodwin LLP. (2025). Proposed Federal Legislation Would Ban Virtually All Hemp-Based Cannabinoid Products. https://www.shipmangoodwin.com/insights/proposed-federal-legislation-would-ban-virtually-all-hemp-based-cannabinoid-products.html

Scarinci Hollenbeck. (2025, July 24). Are Big Changes Coming for Federal Hemp Regulation? https://scarincihollenbeck.com/client-alert/federal-hemp-regulation-changes-2026

Cannabis Business Times. (2025, July). US Lawmakers Advance Bill to Ban Hemp Products With THC. https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/hemp/news/15750513/us-lawmakers-advance-bill-to-ban-hemp-products-with-thc

Cannabis Business Times. (2025, June). US Lawmakers Aim to Close Hemp, THCA 'Loophole' in New Budget Proposal. https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/hemp/news/15747843/us-lawmakers-aim-to-close-hemp-thca-loophole-in-new-budget-proposal

Cannabis Business Times. (2025, June). US House Committee Approves Bill to Close THCA 'Loophole,' Ban Intoxicating Hemp Products. https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/hemp/news/15749271/us-house-committee-approves-bill-to-close-thca-loophole-ban-intoxicating-hemp-products

Marijuana Moment. (2025, September). Bipartisan Lawmakers Say Hemp THC Ban In Spending Bill Violates Congressional Rules, As They Prepare New Measure To Regulate Market. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/bipartisan-lawmakers-say-hemp-thc-ban-in-spending-bill-violates-congressional-rules-as-they-prepare-new-measure-to-regulate-market/

Marijuana Moment. (2025, June). Federal Bill Would 'Effectively' Ban All Consumable Hemp Products—'Including CBD'—Congressional Researchers Say. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-bill-would-effectively-ban-all-consumable-hemp-products-including-cbd-congressional-researchers-say/

Marijuana Moment. (2025, June). Rand Paul Says GOP Congressman's Hemp Ban Bill Would 'Completely Destroy' The Industry. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/rand-paul-says-gop-congressmans-hemp-ban-bill-would-completely-destroy-the-industry/

U.S. Hemp Roundtable. (2025, September 26). Major Congressional Pushback Against Hemp Ban. https://hempsupporter.com/news/major-congressional-pushback-against-hemp-ban/

WAVE 3 News. (2025, September 29). Kentucky lawmakers push back against proposed restrictions on legal hemp. https://www.wave3.com/2025/09/29/kentucky-lawmakers-push-back-against-proposed-restrictions-legal-hemp/

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP. (2025, June). House Appropriations Committee Advances Potential Ban on Hemp-Derived Products. https://www.michaelbest.com/Newsroom/370812/House-Appropriations-Committee-Advances-Potential-Ban-on-Hemp-Derived-Products