Trump redefines hemp market: between pharmaceutical regulation and federal revenue

President Donald Trump signed legislation that effectively completely overhauls the hemp market in the United States. Inserted in the bill that ended the longest government shutdown in American history, the measure profoundly changes the definition of hemp established by the 2018 Farm Bill, a move that experts interpret not as a setback, but as regulatory sophistication with clear fiscal and pharmaceutical objectives. 

The Technical Change with Billion-Dollar Impact

The central change lies in the redefinition of the THC parameter. While the 2018 Farm Bill considered only delta-9 THC as a reference, the new legislation broadens the concept to "total THC," including THCA, delta-8 THC, and other isomers. Additionally, it sets a strict limit of 0.4 mg of total THC per package, regardless of the product type.

In practice, this makes several products that have been freely circulating since 2018 illegal, especially flowers with concentrations above 0.3% THC, broad-spectrum CBD products, and synthetic cannabinoids like delta-8 THC produced from CBD.

The FDA will have 365 days to define labeling guidelines from the date of publication, laboratory testing, and the concept of "packaging" for enforcement purposes — a transition period that will be crucial for the survival of companies in the sector.

The Strategic Interpretation: Disguised Legalization of Restriction

According to Corina Silva, CEO of USA Hemp Pharmaceuticals, the move was predictable and far from representing a setback. "I already expected this to happen. Since the Farm Bill was created, this move was already envisioned. The regulatory recomposition around delta-8, HHC, and other derived cannabinoids was a matter of time," she states.

Silva's analysis goes beyond regulatory surface. She identifies two main vectors behind the legislation: the pharmaceutical industry's interest in patenting specific molecules and the federal government's need to expand its revenue capacity.

"At the CBD base, not much should change. What should happen is much stricter scrutiny for flowers above 0.3% THC, HHC, and other cannabis derivatives. It is a first step for cannabinoids to be treated at a pharmaceutical level and with the possibility of patenting," explains the executive.

The Patent Game and Pharmaceutical Interest

One of the most revealing points of Silva's analysis concerns the pharmaceutical industry's strategy. "Today the plant cannot be patented because it is a natural extract. But when they narrow down the definitions — what CBD is, what THC is, how each compound is isolated — the pharmaceutical industry can justify its movement to patent molecules. This is a clear indication that the market will not turn back."

The executive is even more direct about the pharmaceutical sector's intentions: "Cannabinoids are being synthesized exactly for this: when I isolate and define each product, I can patent it. The pharmaceutical industry has been eyeing this for a long time; now, it has simply put its foot in the door."

This reading suggests that the new legislation is not an obstacle to the cannabis market, but rather a reconfiguration that favors major players with the capacity to invest in research, development, and patenting of specific molecules.

Federal Taxation: The Undeclared Objective

Silva is categorical in identifying the main driver of the legislative change: "It is possible to analyze the law in detail, but the central point is that the United States currently has a major goal: to collect taxes."

The executive explains that hemp products cannot be taxed in the same way as adult-use marijuana due to the particularities of state laws. "But, once you create a federal law, it becomes possible to levy taxes. This control is another form of taxation."

This economic interpretation of the measure is reinforced by her conclusion: "Today funds are allocated for studies, but the real movement is in preparation for the pharmaceutical industry."

Structured Legalization, Not Prohibition

Contrary to the initial narrative of "regression," Silva offers an opposite interpretation: "What is happening is not a movement to prohibit; it is a movement to legalize, regulate, and, from that, levy taxes."

For the executive, the movement is the result of a convergence of interests. "This movement comes from both the pharmaceutical industry and the government, which knows it can collect thousands of dollars."

Market Impact: Regulatory Natural Selection

Regarding the practical effects on the sector, Silva foresees a kind of "cleansing" in the market. "The impact on 660 will raise the bar. Companies that entered just to make money, without meeting the minimum standards required by the FDA, will not survive."

The executive sees the move as positive for the sector's maturation: "It is a necessary adjustment, aligned with what Anvisa already expects and with what the US is demanding. There will be a great cleansing in the market — low-quality brands will fall by the wayside. For Brazil, this will be very important because it helps to level and qualify the market of RDC 660."

The one-year deadline for compliance will function as a period of natural selection, where only companies with structure, quality, and regulatory compliance will be able to remain in the market.

Sector Reactions: Caution and Mobilization

The general stance of the sector has been one of strategic caution. Christiani Di Risio, CEO of Earth Wellness, states: "Our current position is one of strategic caution. Any consideration at this time is premature. We are not facing a specific government act but rather an articulation that must be closely monitored."

The Society of Cannabis Clinicians (SCC) has taken a more proactive stance, recommending that producers and consumers engage with their representatives, presenting data on jobs, revenue, and therapeutic benefits related to hemp products.

Alert for Brazil: Sovereignty and Independence

For Dr. Wilson Lessa, psychiatrist and vice president of AMBCANN (Brazilian Medical Association of Endocannabinology), the American scenario should serve as a strategic alert for Brazil. "This uncertainty about the future of hemp products in the US should at least sensitize Brazilian society to the need to strengthen patient associations and regulate cultivation and licenses for small family farmers in a cooperative model, as is being done in Morocco, to depend less and less on the political whims of other countries."

Lessa's observation touches on a strategic point: Brazil's dependence on imported products exposes the country to international regulatory fluctuations that can compromise patients' access to treatments.