Congressional Committee Advances 2026 Farm Bill with Hemp Provisions, but THC Ban Delay Stalls
The House Agriculture Committee completed a two‑day markup of the 2026 Farm Bill on Tuesday and Wednesday, ultimately approving the measure by a vote of 34‑17. While the bill includes several provisions aimed at supporting industrial hemp producers, it did not contain the amendments that hemp industry stakeholders had hoped would postpone a pending federal ban on cannabinoid products containing THC.
Markup Outcome and Vote
Committee leaders described the markup as a routine step in the annual farm‑legislation process, emphasizing that the base legislation focuses on commodity programs, conservation, and rural development. The final vote reflected bipartisan support for the overall package, though the narrow margin highlighted ongoing disagreements over specific policy riders.
Amendments to Delay THC Recriminalization Rejected
Prior to the markup, Representative Jim Baird (R‑IN) filed two amendments designed to push back the effective date of the THC recriminalization rule. One proposal sought a one‑year delay; the other asked for a two‑year extension while the industry develops a regulatory framework for intoxicating cannabinoid products.
Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R‑PA) determined in advance that neither amendment was germane to the underlying Farm Bill text. During the session, Representative Angie Craig (D‑MN) presented the two‑year delay on Baird’s behalf after he was absent due to a personal loss. Following a brief discussion, Craig withdrew the amendment without forcing a vote.
In her remarks, Craig argued that the recent inclusion of THC‑related definitions in a fiscal year appropriations bill created market uncertainty and economic anxiety for farmers, processors, retailers, and consumers in her home state of Minnesota and in Baird’s Indiana district. She called for a comprehensive regulatory framework that would involve the FDA, USDA, and other relevant agencies to ensure product safety while protecting children and supporting legitimate business opportunities.
Statements from Committee Leaders
Chairman Thompson defended the committee’s position, noting that the agriculture appropriations bill passed the previous fall already clarified what constitutes allowable hemp under current law. He stated:
“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… A comprehensive regulatory framework for these products falls outside the jurisdiction of this committee, and instead falls within the jurisdiction of our colleagues on Energy and Commerce.”
Thompson also highlighted the bill’s existing support for hemp farmers, including directives for the USDA to expand laboratory access for testing and to grant states greater flexibility in managing hemp programs.
Hemp Provisions Included in the Base Bill
Although the THC‑ban delay amendments were not adopted, the base legislation does contain several sections that affect industrial hemp grown for fiber, grain, and other non‑intoxicating uses. Key elements include:
- Amendments to subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 that require state and tribal hemp plans to specify the type of hemp production being cultivated.
- Provisions allowing the use of visual inspections, performance‑based sampling, certified seed, or similar methods when developing sampling plans.
- Measures to eliminate the 10‑year period of ineligibility for producers with a felony related to a controlled substance, provided they meet documentation requirements.
- Requirements for state and tribal agencies to report violations to the Attorney General and applicable law‑enforcement officials, and a five‑year ban on licensing for anyone who knowingly produces a crop inconsistent with their declared hemp type.
- A directive for the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a process for issuing certificates of accreditation to laboratories that test hemp.
These changes aim to improve oversight, reduce administrative burdens on compliant growers, and enhance data collection on hemp disposition.
State and Industry Reactions
Industry groups expressed disappointment that the markup did not include a delay to the THC ban, noting that the upcoming redefinition of legal hemp would effectively outlaw many consumable cannabinoid products—including popular delta‑8 THC beverages—that have proliferated since the 2018 Farm Bill.
Wisconsin’s governor joined a growing chorus of state officials urging Congress to act quickly to prevent market disruption, pointing out that his state has yet to legalize marijuana for medical or adult use, making the hemp sector a critical source of cannabis‑derived products.
Conversely, law‑enforcement and anti‑drug coalitions warned against postponing the ban, arguing that the current regulatory gap poses public‑health risks. Major alcohol retailers and trade associations, such as the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, have also weighed in, advocating for a approach that maintains legal access to naturally derived cannabinoids while prohibiting synthetically produced variants.
Looking Ahead
With the THC‑ban delay amendments set aside for now, stakeholders will likely turn to other legislative vehicles—such as standalone bills or future appropriations measures—to seek relief. Representative Baird has already introduced separate legislation that would extend the implementation deadline by two years, and similar proposals may emerge in the Senate.
The ongoing debate underscores the need for a clear, federally recognized framework that distinguishes between industrial hemp and intoxicating cannabinoid products. As policymakers, industry representatives, and public‑health experts continue to negotiate, the outcome will shape the future of the hemp market and its role in the broader agricultural economy.
For more details on the markup and the provisions included in the 2026 Farm Bill, see the original report Here.
