September 1, 2025
Federal cannabis compliance is on the brink of a seismic shift. The legislative fight over the federal definition of hemp is heating up in Congress, with the proposed HEMP Act of 2025 (S.2112) and parallel Farm Bill and appropriations debates squarely targeting intoxicating hemp products like delta-8 THC and THCa. For cannabis businesses, investors, and regulators, understanding the stakes and potential impacts is critical for strategic planning and compliance.
The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018—widely known as the 2018 Farm Bill—revolutionized cannabis policy by removing “hemp” from the federal definition of marijuana. It defined hemp as:
“…the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” ([source])
This charted a legal path for industrial hemp cultivation and product development nationwide. Critically, however, this definition focused exclusively on delta-9 THC, leaving a gap for other cannabinoids that could be extracted (or synthesized) from hemp and have psychoactive effects.
The unintended consequence of the Farm Bill was a surge in hemp-derived products containing intoxicating cannabinoids like delta‑8 THC, delta‑10 THC, and THCa. Because these compounds are usually present in low quantities in raw hemp, they are typically produced via chemical conversion (e.g., converting CBD to delta-8 THC). Courts and agencies have often held that if these compounds originate from legally grown hemp and the delta‑9 THC level is below 0.3%, they are federally legal—even if they produce a potent intoxicating effect.
This “loophole” led to an explosion in availability of psychoactive products outside the highly regulated state cannabis dispensary model. Many states responded with their own bans or new frameworks, but at the federal level, ambiguity persisted.
The HEMP Act of 2025 (S.2112) directly challenges the status quo. According to analysis and legislative tracking (congress.gov text), the bill would:
Key language in the HEMP Act targets chemically converted cannabinoids and closes the door on broad interpretations of "derivatives" that enabled the delta-8/THCa market’s rise. Any product containing cannabinoids synthesized or manufactured outside the cannabis plant, regardless of concentration, would be disqualified from the federal “hemp” definition ([Shipman & Goodwin analysis]).
The HEMP Act is not alone—Congress is exploring several mechanisms to tighten the definition of legal hemp, including amendments in the 2025 appropriations process and upcoming Farm Bill reauthorization. These have included:
Provisions to impose a “total THC” standard and restrict synthetic or converted cannabinoids were advanced by the House Appropriations Committee (see Foley Hoag summary), while the Senate has, for now, stripped or narrowed some of these rules amidst disagreements. The legislative debate is ongoing, but the momentum to crack down on intoxicating hemp remains strong.
If the HEMP Act passes, any product containing intoxicating levels of delta‑8, THCa, or similar cannabinoids would become federally illegal outside the regulated marijuana supply chain. Many currently legal hemp businesses would need to cease production, reformulate, or transition to state-licensed cannabis operations.
Products that are strictly non-intoxicating (CBD, CBG, etc.), with no converted or synthetic cannabinoids present, would likely remain federally legal. However, contamination or manufacturing processes involving conversion could present risk.
The interstate shipping of hemp-derived intoxicating products would instantly become unlawful, and these goods would be subject to DEA and FDA enforcement. Retailers and producers would also lose access to financial services and supply chains previously shielded by hemp’s federal legality.
States could maintain more liberal definitions, but these would conflict with narrowly redefined federal law. Many states already restrict delta‑8/THCa, but a federal ban would dramatically consolidate policy and enforcement nationwide. Conversely, cannabis-friendly states could see increased demand for licensed marijuana products, but pressure on hemp processors.
