--“The article is writed by Franctank(A factory with more than 10 years vape experience)
A newly added and previously little-noticed clause in the federal spending bill passed by the U.S. Congress is pushing the American hemp industry into a life-or-death countdown: in less than a year, almost all hemp-derived THC products with intoxicating effects will be considered illegal at the federal level.
According to the new law, starting November 13, 2026, any hemp-derived THC product with intoxicating effects — including gummies, beverages, vapes, THCA flower and various “THC analogs” — will once again be classified as a “controlled drug” under federal law. The size of the affected industry is estimated at $28.3 billion.
1.The 2018 “Hemp Loophole” Is Closed for Good
This round of legislation is seen by supporters as “make-up homework”:
The 2018 Farm Bill defined cannabis with no more than 0.3% THC by dry weight as hemp, with the original intent of supporting fiber, seed, CBD and other agricultural and wellness product industries.
However, companies quickly found a “loophole” — without violating the 0.3% Δ9-THC limit, they used high THCA content or delta-8 and other “alternative THCs” to develop a large number of products that can get consumers “high,” and sold them widely at gas stations, convenience stores and online under the banner of “legal hemp.”
The new federal law has three core elements:
(1)Redefining “hemp”
It no longer looks only at Δ9-THC, but at “total THC” — including THCA. As long as total THC by dry weight exceeds 0.3%, the plant or product is no longer considered hemp.
(2)Adding a “per-package absolute content” cap
Legally compliant hemp products on the market may contain no more than about 0.4 mg of total THC per bottle or package, which is far below the THC levels in many current drinks and gummies.
(3)Closing the door on lab-made THC analogs
For THC-like compounds that are almost nonexistent in the plant itself and must be synthesized or converted in a lab (such as HHC, THC-P, etc.), the new law directly excludes them from the definition of “hemp.”
In terms of legal effect, this is almost equivalent to:
Throwing all hemp products that can get people intoxicated back into the same regulatory category as traditional marijuana.
2.A “Strange Alliance” Pushed the Ban Through, with Only Two Republicans Breaking Ranks
Behind this ban stands a rather unusual political alliance:
Regulated cannabis companies: They believe cheap, lightly regulated hemp THC products are stealing market share and driving prices down.
Hard-line anti-legalization groups, some law-enforcement agencies and public-health advocates: They worry about “candy- and soda-like intoxicating products” flooding convenience stores and online shops and attracting underage consumers.
Alcohol industry lobbyists: The rise of low-dose THC beverages in bars and alcohol retail channels is seen as direct competition to beer and ready-to-drink cocktails.
In the House vote, the vast majority of Republicans followed party leadership in supporting the spending bill and its attached hemp provisions. Only Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Greg Steube of Florida openly voted no, arguing among other things that the clause would “re-criminalize” most of the hemp THC consumer products currently on the market.
In the Senate, an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky to strip out the hemp ban was rejected. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, in a rare move aligned with the hemp industry, argued that this should be left to the states to decide.
3.Industry Pushback: A One-Year “Life-or-Death Window” and a Full-Scale Lobbying Fight
After the ban passed, the industry did not simply accept its fate. According to multiple reports, hemp companies, farmers and retailers are quickly regrouping and preparing a large-scale lobbying campaign:
One key goal over the coming year is to win more detailed, nuanced rules instead of a blanket ban, either by:
revising the implementation details of the current spending bill, or using the FY 2026 agriculture appropriations bill / next Farm Bill as a vehicle for changes.
Their core demands focus on three areas:
1.Distinguish intoxicating from non-intoxicating products
They want low-risk products like CBD oils and topicals to be clearly exempted and not lumped together with high-dose, intoxicating THC products in Schedule I.
2.Replace prohibition with regulation
For example, implement age restrictions, potency caps, mandatory third-party testing and labeling, and marketing/packaging limits, rather than simply banning all hemp THC products.
3.Leave a “lifeline” for farmers and compliant businesses
Otherwise, in a country where traditional marijuana is not yet legal at the federal level, this would effectively wipe out an agricultural and consumer-goods value chain worth tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
One industry leader described the situation like this:
“This is a one-year countdown: either we convince lawmakers in Washington to turn ‘prohibition’ into ‘controlled regulation,’ or this entire industry will be erased from the statute books.”
4.From CBD Oil to “Sparkling Hemp”: A Diverse Market Pushed to the Edge
In statistical terms, the ban appears to target “intoxicating” products, but its impact extends far beyond vapes and gummies:
(1)In terms of consumption scenarios:
From the hemp seltzers on convenience-store shelves,to low-dose THC cocktails in bars,to small shops in remote areas providing alternative therapies for chronic pain patients — all will face intense compliance pressure and possible closure.
(2)In terms of geography:
In states like Texas and Alabama that still prohibit adult-use cannabis and heavily restrict medical use, hemp THC has long been the only legal way for residents to access THC.
Once the federal door slams shut, these places are highly likely to see a resurgence of black-market activity, rather than natural disappearance of demand.
For many small and medium-sized businesses, the problems are brutally practical:
Banking and payment services were already shaky because cannabis remains illegal at the federal level. With their products now being treated as Schedule I substances, the risk and cost of borrowing, card processing, insurance, warehousing and interstate logistics will climb even higher.
On the tax side, if they are treated as trafficking in a Schedule I controlled substance, they will fall under IRS Section 280E, which means they can deduct almost none of their ordinary business expenses — effectively forcing them to operate under high tax burdens and high compliance costs with almost no room to maneuver.
5.A “Countdown Problem” With Less Than a Year on the Clock
From now until November 13, 2026, the U.S. hemp industry is facing more than a simple binary choice of “survive or die.” It’s caught in a far more complex, multi-layered game:
(1)At the legislative level:
Will Congress, under public and industry pressure, soften “total prohibition” into “strict regulation”?
(2)At the regulatory level:
How will the FDA, DEA and state regulators interpret and enforce the new definitions?Will there be carve-outs for products like CBD?
(3)At the market level:Which companies can quickly adjust their product portfolios and business models, shifting to low-THC, non-intoxicating or non-ingestible products and thereby survive the storm?
For investors and operators, the message of this “less-than-one-year-to-federal-hemp-THC-ban” moment can be summed up in a single sentence:
What’s really being sentenced to death may not be any one product category, but the business models of the past seven years that were built on legal gray areas and regulatory vacuum. The coming year will decide whether this industry is uprooted entirely, or reshaped into something smaller, more regulated — but more stable.