The 2026 Farm Bill won’t be the vehicle to delay the November 2026 implementation of the federal government’s ban on intoxicating hemp products, at least for now.
The House Committee on Agriculture voted, 34-17, on March 5 to approve House Resolution 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (the 2026 Farm Bill), after spending more than 20 hours marking up the bill on Tuesday, Wednesday and into the early morning hours on Thursday.
The legislation broadly addresses the nation’s agricultural and food policies, but one provision in the 800-plus page bill would define hemp as a cannabis plant that does not test higher than 0.3% total THC (including THCA), meaning it would remove language from the 2018 Farm Bill that includes a 0.3% delta-9 THC threshold, often referred to as the “loophole” that allowed intoxicating hemp products to proliferate nationwide.
The federal government’s forthcoming intoxicating hemp product ban takes it a step further.
In appropriation negotiations, Senate Republicans slipped a provision into November 2025’s government reopening deal to also outlaw any hemp-derived products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of THC, as well as those containing synthetic (delta-8 THC) or unnatural (HHC) cannabinoids.
Although bipartisan lawmakers are hoping to repeal or delay the intoxicating product ban, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., has made his intentions clear: The 2026 Farm Bill should deal with agriculture (hemp plants), not finished goods (hemp products).
“The ag appropriations bill that passed last fall brought clarity to the industry on what is or is not allowable under the definitions of hemp,” Thompson said during this week’s markup. “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.”
Instead, Thompson said hemp-derived products in their final form fall within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“[They] need to engage promptly on this issue,” he said.
Still, Rep. James Baird, R-Ind., filed an amendment to delay the federal hemp ban ahead of this week’s committee markup on the 2026 Farm Bill.
In January, Baird filed a proposal, the Hemp Planting Predictability Act, as standalone legislation to delay the intoxicating hemp product ban by two years, expressing concerns that farmers would not have enough time to prepare for the regulatory changes.
“Planting and growing crops requires planning well in advance," he said. "Congress created a regulatory environment in the 2018 Farm Bill that allowed for certain investments, and farmers were operating within this environment."
Baird was absent from this week’s markup hearing after his wife of 59 years, Danise Baird, died March 1 following complications from a car accident, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported.
Thompson and Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig, D-Minn., said he intended to withdraw the amendment during markup. Still, Craig, who co-sponsors the Hemp Planting Predictability Act, presented the amendment before withdrawing it on Baird’s behalf.
“The way my Republican colleagues have gone about this in the appropriations process is just plain wrong,” Craig said. “Literally, planning decisions are being made right now by hemp farmers. That’s why I’ve called for a comprehensive regulatory framework for the safe production and marketing of hemp-derived 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 FDA, USDA, or other related agencies, into the process at the appropriate point for the appropriate product.”
The congresswoman added that she was concerned that “big whiskey distillers” in Kentucky are trying to restrict consumer choice in Minnesota and the rest of the nation.
While regulating intoxicating hemp products was off the table in the committee’s markup, Thompson said the 2026 Farm Bill aims to support the country’s hemp farmers “in a couple of different ways,” including through lifting regulatory burdens for industrial hemp producers.
“We direct USDA to access more laboratories for our hemp farmers to be able to have their commodity tested, and having greater access to those laboratories,” the chairman said. “Also, we have provided the states more flexibility in this space.”
The current version of the 2026 Farm Bill directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to consult with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and establish a process for accrediting laboratories to test hemp, removing a requirement that labs be DEA-registered to test hemp, which the USDA has repeatedly delayed enforcing due to “inadequate” DEA-registered laboratory testing capacities.
The 2026 Farm Bill would also allow hemp farmers to self-designate their production type as “only industry hemp,” such as fiber and grain, or as “hemp grown for any purpose other than industrial hemp,” such as cannabinoids.
Those who self-designate as industrial hemp farmers could reduce their sampling or testing requirements through “visual inspections, performance-based sampling methodologies, certified seed, or a similar procedure when developing sampling plans,” according to the bill.
In addition, industrial hemp farmers would no longer have a 10-year ineligibility period for felony convictions related to controlled substances. However, farmers who say they’re industrial hemp growers and knowingly produce cannabinoid hemp would be banned for five years.
After Craig withdrew Baird’s amendment, Thompson still allowed those on the 54-member committee to comment.
Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., took the opportunity.
“North Carolina farmers and small businesses have built operations under the existing hemp framework, and a sudden federal rollback would create confusion, disrupt interstate commerce, and destabilize emerging markets across the state,” she said. “So, the extension maintains stability while giving Congress time to establish clear regulatory pathways instead of triggering a disruptive rollback before a workable federal framework is in place.”
