USCR Urges Congress to Keep the Hemp Loophole Closed

Federal cannabis policy has entered a period of activity unlike anything seen in decades. Lawmakers have reintroduced long‑stalled proposals on banking access, descheduling, and veterans’ medical access, and federal agencies are moving ahead on several fronts at once, including rescheduling. Against that backdrop, a significant change to hemp policy is scheduled for November 12, when federal law will close the hemp THC loophole by prohibiting hemp products containing more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC or other intoxicating cannabinoids.

The intent is to rein in the proliferation of intoxicating hemp products that followed the legalization of hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill. Those products have created a parallel intoxicating market outside state cannabis systems, prompting a national debate over how they should be regulated.

Many hemp‑sector businesses, along with a group of senators and representatives, are pushing to repeal the definitional change and replace it with a regulatory framework that would allow intoxicating hemp products to remain on the market. Others, including many regulated cannabis operators, argue that closing the loophole is necessary to bring consistency to cannabis regulation and protect consumers.

The U.S. Cannabis Roundtable has been closely tracking the issue, and its senior vice president of government relations and policy, David Mangone, said in a recent exclusive interview that the organization’s position has remained consistent since Congress enacted the definitional change last year.

USCR’s Position On Closing The Hemp Loophole

Mangone said USCR supports closing the 2018 Farm Bill loophole and requiring hemp THC products to meet the same testing, packaging, potency, and access restrictions that apply in regulated cannabis markets.

“We have been very firm on a position that we support closing the intoxicating hemp loophole,” Mangone said. “If you are going to sell a product that has similar constructs and intoxicating effects as THC that’s available in the dispensary, it should be subject to the same regulations and guardrails that our membership adheres to as part of state regulatory systems.”

He noted that the products at issue are fundamentally similar, despite being marketed under different labels.

“You’re looking at products from really the same underlying class that are being regulated tremendously differently,” he said.

USCR is excited about the possibilities of THC beverages as a product category following the closure of the intoxicating hemp loophole. Mangone said that in the context of federal cannabis legalization, the group envisions a single regulatory framework for THC beverages, regardless of whether the cannabinoid is sourced from hemp or regulated cannabis, that would hold products to the same standards as those sold in dispensaries. 

“It shouldn’t be subject to different sets of rules when you’re looking at what’s available on dispensary shelves,” he said.

Why The Senate Delayed The Loophole Closure

The Senate voted this month to delay the date for closing the hemp THC loophole by one month as part of a continuing resolution to fund the government. The House will need to agree to the 

Senate’s proposal for the delay to take effect.

Mangone attributed the Senate’s attempt to delay the coming prohibition on intoxicating hemp products to two main factors.

First, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who played a central role in advancing last year’s definitional change, has been absent from Washington for months. 

“Last November, Senator McConnell was having conversations with his Senate colleagues on the Senate floor about this issue,” Mangone said. “That, of course, was an element that was not present this go around.”

Second, the White House has taken a more active interest in the issue, creating new political pressure around the timing of the change. Combined with the fact that the hemp language was attached to a government funding bill, Mangone said many senators were reluctant to take a firm position.

“Very few senators want to stick their neck out, either on either side, frankly, to be the one who holds up government funding or stops government funding because of something related to the intoxicating hemp loophole,” he said.

He expects lawmakers to be more vocal when the House reconvenes in September and again in December if the language remains in the continuing resolution.

What Happens Next In The House

The House passed its own continuing resolution before the August recess, and their version does not extend the date for the prohibition on intoxicating hemp products to begin. Lawmakers will now need to reconcile their version with the Senate bill or choose one to advance. Mangone said the path forward is complicated by election‑year politics and narrow margins in the House.

“Nothing is easy with the margins in the House right now for Speaker Mike Johnson,” he said.

Johnson has shown a preference for avoiding divisive votes within his caucus, which could influence how the hemp language is handled.

Mangone noted that Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, chair of the House Freedom Caucus and a key figure on appropriations, has already raised concerns about the Senate’s approach. Other influential voices include Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson of Pennsylvania, chair of the House Agriculture Committee.

Because the hemp language is attached to continuing resolutions rather than moving through regular order, Mangone said the issue sits in a House “no-man’s land” without a single committee of jurisdiction.

Implications For Licensed Cannabis Operators

Mangone said intoxicating hemp products have proliferated most in states without regulated cannabis markets, including North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. In markets with regulated cannabis, states have either aligned with the federal definition change or restricted intoxicating hemp products to regulated channels.

He emphasized that closing the loophole would bring more consumers into regulated systems. Mangone cited polling showing that half of consumers currently buying intoxicating hemp products would obtain a medical card and transition to regulated cannabis if the definitional change takes effect.

“There is a willingness on the consumer side to make the transition from unregulated products to regulated products upon this definitional change going into effect,” he said.

What Congress Should Do

Mangone said Congress has already taken decisive action by changing the hemp definition last year. The recent delay, he argued, does not reflect a shift in policy.

“Congress has already definitively spoken on this,” he said. “They have not put forth any sort of new framework. They have not put forth any sort of new definition. They just bought themselves a little bit more time.”

When asked to summarize USCR’s message to Congress, Mangone kept it simple: “Keep the loophole closed.”