Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Why is the U.S. government pushing to make marijuana illegal again?
Executive summary
Congress’s recent funding bill included a provision that tightens the federal definition of hemp and effectively bans many hemp-derived THC products — a move critics say threatens a $28 billion industry and reverses parts of the 2018 Farm Bill [1] [2]. Supporters say the change closes a “THC loophole” that allowed intoxicating hemp products to evade marijuana regulation, while opponents warn it could wipe out state rules and businesses that relied on the earlier definition [1] [3].
1. Why Congress acted: “Closing the THC loophole”
Lawmakers and some state attorneys general argued manufacturers were exploiting the Farm Bill’s hemp definition to extract psychoactive cannabinoids and sell intoxicating gummies, vapes and drinks outside state marijuana regimes; Congress’ provision narrows hemp’s definition to stop those products from circulating unregulated [3] [1]. Senate leaders framed the move as restoring the original intent of the hemp law and protecting public safety by preventing high‑potency items labeled as “hemp” from being used to get people — including children — intoxicated [1] [3].
2. The policy mechanics: what the new language does
The funding package bans the sale of hemp‑derived products that exceed a new, tiny THC threshold, re-criminalizing many items that had been sold nationwide under the 2018 hemp rules; reporting describes the change as reversing the earlier legalization of intoxicating hemp-derived products [4] [2]. Stateline and Axios note the provision could nullify state-level hemp regulations and complicate enforcement depending on how federal and state authorities proceed [3] [2].
3. Economic fallout: who stands to lose
Industry groups and business leaders say the restriction threatens a $28 billion hemp market and could shutter companies, cancel farming contracts, and eliminate state tax revenue streams that fund local services — consequences highlighted by CNBC and Axios [1] [2]. Farmers and manufacturers that pivoted to hemp after 2018 are particularly exposed, and trade observers warn that pushing products back underground could hamper supply‑chain traceability and public‑health oversight [1].
4. Public‑safety and political rationales: competing narratives
Supporters of the crackdown emphasize safety: they claim unregulated hemp products were mislabeled, untested, and sometimes as potent as marijuana, creating risks and undermining regulated marijuana markets [1] [3]. Opponents argue the change is a blunt instrument that disregards state regulatory frameworks and consumer access, and that it was inserted hastily into a must‑pass spending bill amid a shutdown stalemate [1] [2].
5. State versus federal tension: who decides?
Several states built regulatory systems around hemp and marijuana that permit testing, licensing and taxation; reports warn the federal change could “nullify” state laws in places with separate hemp rules, leaving confusion over enforcement and commerce [3] [2]. News outlets and trade commentary note lawmakers from affected states and industry associations voiced alarm that federal action could override their systems and revenue plans [3] [1].
6. Political context and motivations
Reporting points to political motives: Senate leaders framed correcting the hemp law as part of preserving legislative legacies (notably the Farm Bill) and defending agriculture policy, and the provision appeared late in a bill to end a federal shutdown, which limited debate and amendment [1] [2]. Advocacy groups such as the Marijuana Policy Project and Marijuana Moment tracked the appropriations process and flagged other federal maneuvers during 2025 that could slow or reverse federal progress on cannabis rescheduling or decriminalization [5] [6].
7. What’s uncertain or missing from current reporting
Available sources detail the provision’s text effects and reactions but do not yet provide comprehensive federal enforcement plans, exact thresholds that will be uniformly applied across jurisdictions, or long‑term judicial outcomes; federal rulemaking and court challenges will determine implementation and are not fully described in these stories [1] [2]. Sources also do not provide final data on how many jobs or contracts will be lost beyond industry estimates [1] [2].
8. Practical implication for consumers and businesses now
In the near term, businesses that sold hemp-derived THC products face major uncertainty and possible shutdowns; consumers may see product removal from shelves and differing rules across states as authorities decide enforcement priorities [1] [3]. Lawmakers, industry groups and state officials are signaling further fights ahead — in Congress, in state capitols, and likely in courts — over how to reconcile federal prohibition of many hemp THC products with widespread state legalization of marijuana [2] [3].