CRS Reveals Hemp Ban Enforcement Hurdles

WASHINGTON – The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has highlighted gaps in the federal government’s plans to enforce the upcoming ban on intoxicating hemp products, raising questions about the practical reach of the law amid the sector’s expansion.

The report examines the redefinition of hemp tucked into the November 2025 spending bill signed by President Donald Trump. Starting November 2026, the measure sets a strict cap: hemp products may contain no more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per package, effectively outlawing popular items like delta-8 gummies and THCA flower that have proliferated since the 2018 Farm Bill legalized low-THC hemp. That earlier legislation sparked a $28 billion industry, with sales of hemp-derived consumables surging to meet consumer demand for affordable alternatives to state-regulated Cannabis.

Federal enforcers, however, appear ill-equipped for the task ahead. The Justice Department has long adopted a policy of restraint toward state-legal Cannabis markets, prioritizing violent crime over routine possession cases, a stance that dates back to the Obama era and persists under subsequent administrations. Extending that deference to hemp could blunt the ban’s impact, the CRS notes, especially as the FDA and DEA grapple with stretched budgets and personnel.

Consider the numbers. The DEA’s 2025 budget allocates roughly $3.2 billion across all drug enforcement, with Cannabis-related probes claiming a fraction amid opioid priorities. Hemp’s decentralized supply chain, spanning thousands of small processors and retailers, adds layers of complexity – from lab testing backlogs to interstate commerce flows. If history offers a guide, selective targeting seems likely: high-volume distributors might draw scrutiny, while corner-store sales slip through.

Lawmakers and activists like The Dank Informer have voiced support for the ban, citing youth access and product safety, yet the CRS report flags a broader congressional role in shaping priorities. Appropriations riders could limit enforcement funds, mirroring protections for medical Cannabis in 39 states. For now, businesses face a year of flux: stockpiling inventory, reformulating recipes, or pivoting to non-intoxicating CBD lines that skirt the THC threshold.

The path forward hinges on execution more than intent. This ban tests whether federal policy can sync with a mature industry, or if it will simply drive innovation underground, much like Cannabis itself before widespread legalization. Stakeholders would do well to monitor DEA guidance expected early next year, when the contours of enforcement take sharper form.