On November 12, 2025, President Trump signed H.R. 5371, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2026 (Extensions Act), redefining hemp in a way that would ban most full-spectrum CBD and hemp-derived products in a year. However, potential delays in enacting the law, enforcement challenges, cannabis rescheduling, and the possibility of overriding legislation combine to mean that no one knows exactly what compliance will look like.

For now, brands must maintain a rigorous testing schedule for hemp to ensure their products comply with state and national laws. They must also devise innovative product development strategies for a more regulated market. 

‍

Is Compliance Possible Under the New Hemp Definition?

Compliance is possible under the new federal hemp definition, but the path may be far more limited than the one paved by the 2018 Farm Bill. 

The Extensions Act, signed by President Donald Trump on November 12, 2025, redefines hemp using a total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) threshold that includes tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA). The previous act only included Delta-9. The definition also excludes many hemp-derived cannabinoids. In practice, this language places most products on the market—including a large share of full-spectrum cannabidiol (CBD) offerings—into the Controlled Substances Act alongside cannabis and marijuana-derived THC.

These requirements will make third-party laboratory testing essential for demonstrating whether a product falls within the revised definition. Accurate total THC measurement, cannabinoid characterization, and product-level verification will be central to compliance claims.

At the same time, major questions around enforcement remain unresolved. Federal agencies face limited resources, and policymakers and industry groups continue to explore delays, revisions, or alternative regulatory frameworks to prevent widespread disruption before the new definition takes effect on November 12, 2026.

‍

What is the New Federal Hemp Definition?

Section 781 of the Extensions Act replaces the 2018 Farm Bill hemp with a more detailed, product-specific framework that includes container-level THC caps. 

‍

‍

Instead of evaluating hemp based solely on total delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the Extensions Act applies separate limits and exclusions across industrial hemp, intermediate materials, and finished consumer products. In essence, it seeks to close the loophole that created the alternative cannabinoids industry, featuring mind-altering THC analogs like Delta-8, Delta-10, and THCP. 

What is included under the New Hemp Definition

The revised definition states that hemp explicitly INCLUDES:

• Industrial hemp grown for non-cannabinoid purposes such as fiber, stalks, grain, oils, and edible greens
• Plants that contain more than 0.3% total tetrahydrocannabinols, including (THCA),  on a dry weight basis. 

What is excluded under the New Hemp Definition

1. Seeds from high-THC plants
Viable seeds are excluded if they come from a cannabis plant that exceeds 0.3% total THC (including THCA). Even if the seeds themselves are low in THC, their source plant matters.

‍

Intermediate Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Products

(Materials not yet in final consumer form, such as distillates, isolates, or bulk extracts)

2. Cannabinoids that the plant cannot naturally produce
Intermediate products are excluded if they contain cannabinoids that do not occur naturally in the cannabis plant at all.

3. Cannabinoids made outside the plant
Intermediate products are excluded if they contain cannabinoids that the plant can naturally produce, but that were manufactured or created outside the plant, rather than extracted directly from it.

4. Too much total THC or THC-like effect
Intermediate products are excluded if they contain more than 0.3% combined total THC, including THCA plus any other cannabinoids that have or are marketed as having THC-like effects, as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services.

5. Intermediates sold directly to consumers
Intermediate cannabinoid products lose hemp status if they are marketed or sold as finished products or sold directly to consumers, even if they might otherwise meet technical thresholds.

‍

Final Hemp-Derived Cannabinoid Products

(Finished consumer goods such as gummies, beverages, tinctures, or vapes)

6. Final products with non-naturally occurring cannabinoids
Finished products are excluded if they contain cannabinoids that cannot be naturally produced by the cannabis plant.

7. Final products with cannabinoids manufactured outside the plant
Finished products are excluded if they contain naturally occurring cannabinoids that were manufactured or altered outside the plant rather than extracted as-is.

8. Too much THC per container
Finished products are excluded if they contain more than 0.4 milligrams combined total THC per container, including THCA and any other cannabinoids deemed to have THC-like effects.

What’s Next

The Extensions Act directs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to publish guidance within 90 days of the bill signing, including lists of cannabinoids known to occur naturally in the cannabis plant, THC-class cannabinoids, and additional specificity around how “container” applies to finished products. This deadline means the FDA should issue their opinion by mid-February 2026.

‍

When Does It Take Effect

The amended hemp definition is scheduled to take effect one year from enactment, on November 12, 2026.  Still, lawmakers continue to explore delays and alternative approaches to address implementation complexity and the treatment of non-intoxicating cannabidiol (CBD).

‍

Issues with Enforcement

The new hemp definition changes what qualifies as hemp under federal law, but it does not clearly explain how those changes will be enforced. In practice, enforcement will depend less on the statute itself and more on how (or if) federal and state agencies choose to interpret and implement it.

According to the Congressional Research Service (source), key enforcement challenges include: 

• Federal agencies have limited capacity
  The Department of Justice and other agencies lack the resources to police every product or business, and enforcement has historically focused on larger or non-compliant operators.
  
  
• Funding limits shape enforcement decisions
  Congress has restricted how federal funds can be used to interfere with state medical cannabis programs, which may continue to influence how certain hemp-derived products are treated.
  
  
• Cannabis scheduling could change enforcement and tax treatment

If marijuana moves from Schedule I to Schedule III (as President Trump supports), hemp-derived products reclassified as marijuana could soon face lower penalties, different tax treatment, and reduced enforcement priority.

• States may respond differently
  Some states may tighten their laws to align with the federal definition, while others may not, creating confusion regarding transportation, sales, and compliance across state lines.

As a result, enforcement is likely to vary by jurisdiction and evolve over time rather than follow a single, uniform approach.

‍

Alternative Legislation & Extensions

Since the passage of the Extensions Act, industry groups and lawmakers have moved quickly to prevent the new hemp definition from taking effect next year. The U.S. Hemp Roundtable has warned that the change could eliminate more than 95 percent of hemp products currently on the market and has urged Congress to delay enforcement to allow time for a national regulatory framework. Multiple policy pathways are now shaping the debate.

‍

American Hemp Protection Act of 2025
Introduced in November 2025, the American Hemp Protection Act (AHP) would repeal Section 781 of the Extensions Act and restore the 2018 Farm Bill’s hemp definition. The proposal has not advanced and would require full approval from Congress.

‍

Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act (CSRA)
Reintroduced in December 2025, the CSRA would keep hemp legal while establishing federal guardrails, including age limits, labeling standards, potency caps, and restrictions on synthetic cannabinoids. A companion House bill is expected to be introduced in early 2026. This bill would still allow for innovation and resemble the rules enacted by regulated state markets, such as Florida and Georgia.  

‍

Federal cannabis rescheduling executive order
In December 2025, President Trump signed an executive order accelerating marijuana rescheduling. The order also directed Congress to “update the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while preserving the Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks…” This request presents a challenge for lawmakers and may push the enactment timeline later than the November 12, 2026, deadline. 

‍

HEMP Act (Hemp Enforcement, Modernization, and Protection Act)

Introduced in January 2026 by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX), the HEMP Act proposes a federal regulatory pathway specifically for hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) products intended for human use under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill does not establish a framework for other hemp-derived cannabinoids and explicitly excludes cannabis. Instead, it directs the FDA to set national safety, labeling, and milligram-based intake limits for CBD products. If the FDA does not finalize rules within three years, the law would automatically impose default limits of 5 milligrams per serving and 30 milligrams per package. The proposal aims to regulate CBD for the first time since the 2018 Farm Bill passed, and save it from the Extension Act’s proposed ban.

‍

Compliant Hemp Testing & Development in 2026 & Beyond

As the regulatory landscape continues to shift, hemp brands face a period of uncertainty. Still, more oversight, clearer definitions, and stronger product standards are likely to shape the future. In that environment, third-party laboratory testing and disciplined product development will help brands understand where they stand as the rules evolve.

‍

Near-Term Impacts for Testing and Product Development

In the short term, regulatory ambiguity places increased pressure on growers, formulators, brands, and retailers to prepare for potential changes at the end of the year. During this phase, stakeholders must review their formulas, conduct regular testing, and utilize laboratory data to inform their development decisions.

If Congress enacts the Extensions Act in its current form (and federal agents enforce it), several hemp testing- and development impacts will take shape in 2026 -2027:

• Heightened focus on total THC measurement, including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), across raw materials, intermediates, and finished products
  
  
• Greater scrutiny of formulations and inputs, particularly where synthesized or modified cannabinoids may affect product classification
  
  
• Increased importance of product-level documentation, including certificates of analysis (COAs) that clearly reflect cannabinoid composition and applicable thresholds
  
  
• More frequent reformulation cycles as brands evaluate how existing products align with evolving federal and state definitions

‍

Longer-Term Testing and Innovation Opportunities

Operators must also consider another, more optimistic future–one where legislative proposals like the CSRA shift the industry toward a regulatory framework that prioritizes testing, transparency, and product differentiation over outright bans.

Structured regulatory pathways
Future models under discussion emphasize accredited laboratory testing, manufacturing stands, standardized labeling, and format-specific potency limits. These requirements position quality and accountability as fundamental elements of market participation.

More predictable development planning
Clearer national definitions of hemp may enable longer product development timelines, more stable ingredient sourcing, and greater confidence in formulation strategy. Testing data supports these efforts by anchoring innovation to measurable standards.

Innovation within defined boundaries
As the market adjusts, innovation is likely to concentrate in categories that align with emerging frameworks, including non-intoxicating cannabinoids, functional beverage formats, wellness-oriented hemp products, and ancillary applications. Within these categories, testing supports consistency, safety, and differentiation.

‍

The Bottom Line

Taken as a whole, the Extensions Act, the CSRA, and the AHP signal a strong desire to reinvent the hemp industry as it has been known since the 2018 Farm Bill. These initiatives ask operators to adapt to a market that emphasizes accountability and safety. Hopefully, they will support continuity in the near term and enable more resilient innovation in the future. 

‍

Contact ACS Laboratory to evaluate your products, testing data, and formulation strategy ahead of the 2026 federal hemp changes.

‍

FAQs

Will most hemp-derived products still qualify as hemp under the new federal definition?

Many products that qualified as hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill may no longer qualify under the revised definition. The Extensions Act introduces total THC calculations that include THCA, excludes many hemp-derived cannabinoid products, and imposes per-container THC caps on finished goods. As a result, full-spectrum and intoxicating products face a higher risk of reclassification.

What types of testing will matter most if the new definition takes effect?

Total THC testing, including THCA, will become essential across raw materials, intermediates, and finished products. Brands will also need detailed cannabinoid characterization and product-level certificates of analysis to demonstrate whether formulations meet revised thresholds and exclusions. Testing data will play a central role in compliance, reformulation decisions, and documentation.

Should Brands Change Formulations Now or Wait for More Regulatory Clarity?

Brands should begin evaluating current products and testing data now, even as enforcement and legislative outcomes remain uncertain. Early assessment allows operators to identify risk areas, explore compliant reformulation pathways, and avoid rushed changes closer to the November 2026 deadline. Consulting legal counsel and engaging with state regulators where products are sold is essential for understanding enforcement priorities and how federal changes may be applied at the local level.