The anti-hemp lobby scored an overwhelming victory yesterday when the US House of Representatives voted in favor of a funding package, called a “Continuing Resolution” (CR), that includes a new and more restrictive definition of “hemp” and significant prohibitions on hemp and hemp products. Despite vigorous advocacy for hemp by Senator Rand Paul (thank you, Sen. Paul), the anti-hemp provisions made it into law. Congress enacted a THC ban that goes well beyond THC to strike a lethal blow to the entire hemp industry, including CBD.

This article discusses the changes that the CR makes to hemp, how the changes will impact the hemp industry, and what we anticipate will be the next steps.

What does the new law do and when does it go into effect?

The new hemp provisions, which I’ve published in their entirety at the bottom of this article, go into effect in 365 days (ie, November 12, 2026). The CR makes the following changes to the 2018 Farm Bill’s hemp provisions:

• Defines “hemp” with respect to “total THC”, including THCa and all THC isomers (ie, delta-8, delta-10, etc.) In other words, the sum total of all forms of THC, including THCa, may not exceed 0.3% on a dry weight basis. Notably, the new language does not even consider “decarboxylated” THCa. This presumably means that all THCa, and not just 0.877% of the THCa (ie, the decarboxylation conversion), must be counted.
• Prohibits viable cannabis seeds from non-hemp cannabis plants.
• Prohibits any cannabinoids that are not naturally produced by the cannabis plant.
• Prohibits any cannabinoids that are capable of being naturally produced by the cannabis plant but are “synthesized or manufactured” outside the plant.
• Prohibits any products containing more than 0.4 milligrams combined total per container of any THC, including THCa.
• Prohibits any products containing “any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as a tetrahydrocannabinol”.
• Defines “intermediate hemp products” and requires the FDA to publish a number of items related to THC, and to provide more specificity regarding the definition of “container”.

Will any consumer hemp products survive?

The question of what, if any, consumer hemp products will survive this new law has been the subject of fierce debate. The answer is simple: no consumer hemp products, other than hemp seeds and hemp seed oils, will survive this law.

Although the bill was marketed to lawmakers as targeting “intoxicating hemp” and not impacting CBD, the fact is that the CR kills the CBD sector, too. First, most CBD products contain more than 0.4 milligrams of THC. Second, and as I have previously discussed at length, this provision criminalizes the manufacturing of CBD isolate products since the process of isolating CBD necessarily results in excess “waste-stream” THC exceeding 0.3%.

What now?

Even though the anti-hemp provisions in the CR do not go into effect for a year, the ramifications will be immediate. The CR will freeze up the industry in a number of ways. Investment capital will dry up quickly, and hemp companies are unlikely to invest in new product development, long-term supply agreements, leases and expansions, new hiring, etc.

We can expect that some hemp companies will exit the industry in early 2026. That being said, I anticipate that many will stay. From a pure economic standpoint, “going out of business sales” can generate fast cash. We can expect that a lot of hemp products will be sold in 2026 under the threat of them going away forever. A year-long “closeout sale” on hemp products will generate a lot of revenue for companies willing to stay in the industry.

There has been a lot of talk about an intra-state hemp industry in which companies conduct all of their activities within the borders of a hemp-friendly state. While this is technically feasible, it’s really just a different version of the adult-use (“recreational”) marijuana market with all of the incumbent problems, including 280E taxation, problems with banking and merchant processing, and the persistent threat of federal criminal charges.

In the big picture, the only viable option for the hemp industry is to engage in a full-blown lobbying effort to enact a better law. The hemp industry has struggled with fragmentation and a lack of engagement. The “silver lining” of the CR is that it presents the best motivation and opportunity for the hemp industry to solve these problems. It’s a “do or die” situation. Unless the industry unites and significantly increases the funding it provides to industry trade associations and lobbyists then it will terminate this time next year.

What does this mean for the cannabis industry?

If you ask 10 different people from various segments of the cannabis industry what the CR means for the larger cannabis industry then you’re likely to get 10 different responses varying from “this is the worst thing that could have ever happened” to “this is the best thing that could have happened”. People have a lot of passion about this issue.

I’ve always thought that the hemp industry represented a significant opportunity for cannabis. In particular, the legalization of hemp gave the cannabis industry a second chance to remedy many of the problems that exist in the marijuana market. It also expanded access to millions of Americans who otherwise had no way to purchase legal cannabis products. Additionally, it provided an opportunity for small businesses to take part in the cannabis revolution. For these reasons, I am highly disappointed in the short-sightedness of those who advocated and voted to shut down hemp. While there are many in the cannabis (marijuana) industry who are celebrating, I think that most of them are misguided and have chosen to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Now is the time to advocate for hemp, which is another way of saying that now is the time to advocate for cannabis. As bad as the CR is, it provides a real opportunity to unite the entire cannabis industry under the umbrella of reasonable regulations and widespread access. I promote the Three Pillars approach to cannabis regulation: age-gating, quality manufacturing, and proper labeling.

Do you need help navigating a path forward?

We can help. I’ve been advising hemp businesses since the 2014 Farm Bill first legalized “industrial hemp”. At Kight Law, we provide our clients with experienced, real-world insights and guidance to help them through challenging times. Contact us if you would like to discuss your business.

Here are the pertinent hemp provisions in the CR:

The CR redefines “hemp” (starting on page 129) as follows:

(1) HEMP.—

(A) IN GENERAL.— The term ‘hemp’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a total tetrahydrocannabinols concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

(B) INCLUSION.—Such term includes industrial hemp.

(C) EXCLUSIONS.—Such term does not include—

(i) any viable seeds from a Cannabis sativa L. plant that exceeds a total tetrahydrocannabinols concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of 0.3 percent in the plant on a dry weight basis;

(ii) any intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing—

(I) cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant;

(II) cannabinoids that—

(aa) are capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant; and

(bb) were synthesized or manufactured outside the plant;

(III) more than 0.3 percent combined total of—

(aa) total tetrahydrocannabinols (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid); and

(bb) any other cannabinoids that have similar effects (or are marketed to have similar effects) on humans or animals as a tetrahydrocannabinol; or

(iii) 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; or

(iv) any final hemp-derived cannabinoid products containing—

(I) cannabinoids that are not capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant;

(II) cannabinoids that—

(aa) are capable of being naturally produced by a Cannabis sativa L. plant; and

(bb) were synthesized or manufactured outside the plant;

(III) greater than 0.4 milligrams combined total per container of—

(aa) total tetrahydrocannabinols (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid); and

(bb) 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 CR then goes on to define and address “hemp derived cannabinoid products”:

(3) HEMP-DERIVED CANNABINOID PRODUCT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘hemp-derived cannabinoid product’ means any intermediate or final product derived from hemp (other than industrial hemp), that—

(i) contains cannabinoids in any form; and

(ii) is intended for human or animal use through any means of application or administration, such as inhalation, ingestion, or topical application.

(B) The term ‘intermediate hemp-derived cannabinoid product’ means a hemp-derived cannabinoid product which— 

(i) is not yet in the final form or preparation marketed or intended to be used or consumed by a human or animal;

(ii) is a powder, liquid, tablet, oil, or other product form which is intended or marketed to be mixed, dissolved, formulated, or otherwise added to or prepared with or into any other substance prior to administration or consumption.

(C) The term ‘container’ means the innermost wrapping, packaging, or vessel in direct contact with a final hemp-derived cannabinoid product in which the final hemp derived cannabinoid product is enclosed for retail sale to consumers, such as a jar, bottle, bag, box, packet, can, carton, or cartridge.

(D) The term container excludes bulk shipping containers or outer wrappings that are not essential for the final retail delivery or sale to an end consumer for personal or household use.

(E) EXCLUSION.— Such term does not include a drug that is the subject of an application approved under subsection (c) or (j) of section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355).’

(3) Within 90 days of the enactment of this act, the Food and Drug Administration, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, shall publish—

(A) a 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;

(B) a list of all tetrahydrocannabinol class cannabinoids known to the agency to be naturally occurring in the plant; 

(C) a list of all other know cannabinoids with similar effects to, or marketed to have similar effects to, tetrahyrocannabinol class cannabinoids; and 

(D) additional information and specificity about the term ‘‘container’’, as defined in paragraph (3)(C).

November 13, 2025