The Hemp Ban That Wasn’t (Yet): Why Federal Gridlock Makes Compliance More Important Than Ever

In late July, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s agriculture subcommittee quietly removed a controversial provision from the Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture Appropriations bill. That provision, championed by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), would have effectively banned intoxicating hemp products at the federal level by redefining hemp to exclude any product containing “quantifiable amounts” of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), or related intoxicating cannabinoids.

Its removal came only after McConnell’s fellow Kentucky senator, Rand Paul (R), threatened to block the bill altogether. Paul argued the change would “destroy” the hemp industry, and he was willing to bring the entire appropriations process to a halt to prevent it. The clash revealed not only a personal divide between Kentucky’s senior and junior senators but also the broader uncertainty and inconsistency shaping hemp policy across the country.

For hemp operators, the message is mixed: this time the ban didn’t stick, but the issue is far from resolved. While Washington debates, states like Colorado have already taken action-either setting the standard for regulating intoxicating hemp themselves or banning it outright. For businesses, the message couldn’t be clearer: compliance isn’t optional, it’s survival.

McConnell vs. Paul: A Kentucky Showdown with National Consequences

Few political ironies are sharper than this one: Mitch McConnell, the architect of hemp’s federal legalization in the 2018 Farm Bill, is now leading the charge to rein it back in.

In his July 16th op-ed in the Lexington Herald-Leader, McConnell framed the 2018 Farm Bill as a project gone awry. His intent, he wrote, was to legalize industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity, not to greenlight a booming market for intoxicating cannabinoids like delta-8 THC, delta-10 THC, or high-THCA flower. He argued that “rooting out the bad actors and reaffirming our original legislative intent is an important step toward both greater child safety and greater economic certainty.”

Rand Paul, on the other hand, took the opposite view. In his eyes, the very survival of the hemp industry was at stake. He has consistently argued that attempts to close the so-called “loophole” are overly broad, threatening not only intoxicating products but also non-intoxicating full-spectrum CBD goods that depend on trace cannabinoids to remain effective. Paul’s message was simple: kill this provision, or watch me kill the bill.

So, the hemp language was stripped, the larger bill moved forward, and for now the status quo remains.

But anyone following the issue knows this is not the end of the story.

Why the “Loophole” Debate Matters

At the heart of this fight is a single word: hemp.

The 2018 Farm Bill defined hemp as cannabis with less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis. That narrow definition left the door wide open for companies to manufacture hemp-derived cannabinoids that produce intoxicating effects but still comply with the letter of the law.

The result was an explosion of intoxicating hemp products: gummies, vapes, beverages, flower sprayed with delta-8 or other hemp derived intoxicating cannabinoids. All of which are technically hemp, all outside the marijuana regulatory framework, and all untaxed like high THC cannabis sold in licensed dispensaries.

Proponents argue this innovation has kept hemp afloat in the face of CBD market saturation and plummeting prices. Critics warn it’s a dangerous workaround that exposes children, consumers, and communities to unregulated intoxicating products.

McConnell’s provision would have ended the debate by redefining hemp to exclude any product with “quantifiable” THC or similar cannabinoids. The hemp industry called it an existential threat. The U.S. Hemp Roundtable warned it would “wipe out over 95% of the hemp industry.”

By contrast, public health advocates and groups like the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America supported a crackdown, framing it as necessary for consumer safety and market integrity.

This clash, economic survival vs. public health, explains why the issue remains unresolved and why it is certain to return during Farm Bill negotiations or House–Senate conference committees this fall.

Federal Uncertainty, State Innovation

While Congress argues, states are already moving ahead with their own frameworks for intoxicating hemp.

Colorado’s Safe Harbor regulations, rolled out at the end of 2023, are the most comprehensive in the country. They don’t ban intoxicating hemp products outright. Instead, they regulate them under a new “Safe Harbor” designation that requires businesses to meet food or dietary supplement standards under Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs).

As of July 1, 2024, the grace period ended. Every Safe Harbor facility in Colorado must now:

• Complete an annual third-party cGMP audit approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).
• File an annual attestation form confirming compliance.

This system acknowledges reality: intoxicating hemp products exist and banning them outright would drive them underground. Instead, Colorado insists on higher safety, documentation, and compliance standards to ensure products are manufactured and labeled responsibly.

In practice, this means Safe Harbor registrants are held to stricter requirements than non-intoxicating hemp businesses. They face tighter export rules, limitations on handling intoxicating and non-intoxicating cannabinoids under the same roof, and ongoing oversight tied to cGMP certification.

Some in the industry see this as burdensome. Others recognize it as a necessary path toward legitimacy, and potentially a model for future federal regulation.

Compliance as a Business Strategy

For hemp businesses, the lesson is clear: don’t wait for Congress to settle the issue. Waiting for certainty in Washington is a recipe for disaster.

Instead, operators should take a page from Colorado’s playbook and prepare now. That means:

• Annual cGMP audits, and Certification: Not just because Colorado requires them, but because FDA enforcement is inevitable. Having cGMP certification through an accredited certifying body is the gold standard, and with it you show your company cares about public health enough to comply with and be certified to FDA cGMP standards.
• Documentation and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): Robust systems for change control, corrective and preventive actions (CAPAs), supplier qualification, and labeling aren’t optional. They’re what separates lasting businesses from companies that won’t make it.
• Mock audits: Working with a compliance consultant who conducts cGMP mock audits allows you to identify and correct gaps on your terms, rather than under the pressure of state or federal scrutiny. This preparation will ensure you are ready when regulators start knocking on doors.
• Market positioning: Retailers, banks, insurers, and investors are far more likely to support companies that already operate to FDA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards.

Think of it this way, the hemp ban that almost passed would have wiped out most of the industry overnight. The businesses that survive the next wave of regulation will be those that already look and act like federally regulated facilities.

The Bigger Picture: What Happens Next

Here’s where things stand:

• Senate version of the Ag bill: clean, no hemp ban language.
• House version: still includes the ban riders.
• Next step: House and Senate will reconcile their bills before the September 30 fiscal year deadline. Stricter cGMP requirements or other restrictions are likely to reappear during negotiations.
• Farm Bill 2025/26: an even larger legislative vehicle that could federally redefine hemp for the next five years.

Meanwhile, McConnell has made it clear he wants to close the loophole before his retirement. That means the industry cannot treat this summer’s Senate action as a victory. At best, it’s a reprieve.

The Senate’s decision to strip hemp ban language from its appropriations bill was good news for the industry, but it doesn’t resolve the underlying issue. The loophole remains, McConnell is determined to close it, and the House has already signaled support for stricter definitions.

For hemp operators, this moment should serve as both relief and warning. Relief, because the market won’t be upended tomorrow. Warning, because regulation is coming, whether through appropriations, the Farm Bill, or eventual FDA oversight.

The smartest path forward is to prepare now. Adopt cGMP standards and get certification. Strengthen documentation. Treat compliance not as a burden, but as your business’s best insurance policy.

Colorado’s Safe Harbor framework shows where the industry is heading. Intoxicating hemp products won’t simply be banned, they’ll be held to the same standards as food, dietary supplements, and possibly even pharmaceuticals. That future will favor the companies that take compliance seriously today.

The hemp ban didn’t happen this time. But when the next attempt comes, and it will, the businesses that survive won’t be the ones lobbying hardest in Washington. They’ll be the ones that are already cGMP certified and are prepared for federal oversight.

About the Author

Kim Anzarut, CQA, CP-FS is the CEO and founder of Allay Consulting. Direct correspondence to: kim.anzarut@allayconsulting.com.