Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Federal lawmakers have proposed delaying a new, stricter definition of cannabis hemp by about a month — a move several state attorneys general, including Indiana’s Todd Rokita, say would mean “chaos” for state enforcement efforts.
In hopes of averting another government shutdown this fall, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday released a continuing resolution that would extend government funding through Dec. 11. As part of that, the federal government’s new definition and recriminalization of hemp THC products would also be deferred from its originally slated Nov. 12 start date.
THC, which comes in different strains, is the primary psychoactive compound known for making users “high.”
Hemp industry advocates say the delay would give farmers and small businesses more time to plan for the future and work with lawmakers on a long-term regulatory solution, rather than a complete shutdown of the multi-billion-dollar sector.
“We’re all very excited about this,” said Justin Swanson, a partner with Bose McKinney & Evans and chair of the firm’s cannabis group.
But many see an extension as problematic.
On Tuesday, Rokita called on congressional leaders to reject any effort to delay, repeal, suspend or weaken the November 2025 redefinition of “hemp” — which amends its statutory definition under the act known as the 2018 Farm Bill, to make most currently available hemp-derived cannabis products illegal.
“Congress should not bow to the special interests that exploited a loophole in federal law to profit from selling unregulated intoxicating THC products that have harmed communities, jeopardized public safety, and put young people at risk,” Rokita said in a press release. “They should stand with parents, law enforcement, and legitimate hemp farmers—not the special interests profiting from selling marijuana-like products in gas stations and convenience stores. Reject the delay, keep your promise and let the law take effect.”
Rokita is co-leading a bipartisan coalition of 35 attorneys general opposed to the delay.
The attorneys general cautioned that the proposed extension would create legal issues and uncertainty for states that have already taken strict measures against the products, which contain traces of delta-9 THC.
“If the loophole is reopened or the new definition is weakened or repealed, States will face renewed litigation, inconsistent enforcement, regulatory uncertainty, increased youth access to intoxicating products, and disruption of lawful businesses that have already adjusted their operations to comply with the new federal framework,” said the attorneys general in a letter to several congressional leaders. “Equally as concerning, change at this stage would allow the return of unregulated intoxicating cannabis products that Congress appropriately chose to address.”
Both the full Senate and House of Representatives would ultimately have to approve the funding package with the hemp provision still intact.
The Senate is reportedly aiming to approve the resolution later this week before its August recess begins, but it’s unclear how the House would decide on the measure. Last month, the House approved a separate funding package which did not include extending the hemp definition.
Swanson said he is “cautiously optimistic” that lawmakers would work toward a solution other than their original, prohibitive stance from last year.
North Carolina Republican Senator Ted Budd announced Monday that he planned to offer an amendment to the committee’s resolution that would strip out the hemp extension to “ensure unregulated, dangerous intoxicants are not sold, especially to kids.”
During President Donald Trump’s first administration, the federal government passed legislation redefining “marijuana” and “hemp.” Marijuana was considered any cannabis plant containing more than 0.3% of delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis and was maintained as a Schedule I controlled substance alongside drugs such as heroin. (The federal government has also considered changing marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Indiana and Rokita sued the U.S. Department of Justice in May to block the maneuver. The case is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit.)
Hemp, however, was exempted from that scheduling, as it was defined as any part of the cannabis plant that was not more than 0.3% of delta-9 THC.
After lawmakers enacted the legislation, cannabis dealers found loopholes in it, and they started selling different strains of the cannabis plant that could still be psychoactive even as they fell under the legal threshold.
Last November, U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, slipped language into a spending bill that changed the THC limit to close the farm bill’s workarounds.
But McConnell leaned toward prohibition rather than regulation, as some industry leaders vied for. Advocates for hemp and THC products have said the redefinition would lead to the collapse of a more than $30 billion industry supporting more than 300,000 workers.
Under the current state and federal law, Indiana retailers are allowed to distribute certain cannabis products, as long as they do not contain more than 0.3% delta-9 THC. Other non-delta-9 THC cannabis products include delta-8 THC — which the Association of Cannabinoid Specialists says is less potent than its delta-9 counterpart — and cannabidiol, or CBD.
Swanson emphasized that the proposed extension would give Congress more time to engage with stakeholders to find another path forward, without gutting the industry
“(The proposed extension) is probably the most significant policy change since last November,” Swanson said.
The state attorneys general in their Tuesday letter said many states have already imposed more limits on cannabis products ahead of the new definition taking effect and have since changed their enforcement postures.
“If the redefinition is not maintained, it will almost guarantee that these state efforts at regulation will be thrown into chaos,” the letter stated.
Indiana lawmakers offered legislation this session to bring the state in line with the new federal definition, but the Indiana House of Representatives failed to pass it.
The bill brought before the chamber included an amendment from Rep. Garrett Bascam, R-Lawrenceburg, which provided a more prohibitive framework. A separate amendment authored by Rep. Steve Bartels, R-Eckert, would have taken a softer regulatory approach, continuing to permit the sale of certain cannabis products but with tighter regulations. It died in committee.
In April, Indiana Gov. Mike Braun indicated a willingness to consider legalizing marijuana and cannabis products, telling reporters that he is “going to do what makes sense.”
“You’ve got to take what’s evolved over time,” Braun said. “(If you) stick your head in the sand, you’re generally going to make the wrong decision.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.