Alcohol lobbyists urged attorneys general to oppose a delay in the federal hemp THC crackdown

Emails obtained by Politico show that lobbyists tied to major alcohol companies urged state attorneys general to press Congress not to delay a federal crackdown on hemp-derived THC products.

According to Politico, the emails were obtained through public records requests filed by a hemp industry representative and then shared with the publication. The messages show outreach linked to companies including Anheuser-Busch, Molson Coors and Diageo as Congress debated whether to postpone new federal limits on hemp.

One of the emails, sent in July, was signed by Todd Kranda, a partner at the law firm Kelsch, Ruff, Kranda, Nagle and Ludwig and a representative for Anheuser-Busch, according to the report. In that message, Kranda warned North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley about an effort by what he described as “some minority senators” to extend for another year what opponents call a legal loophole for intoxicating hemp products.

In August, Wrigley joined a bipartisan coalition of 35 state and territorial attorneys general that asked Congress to reject any attempt to “delay, repeal, suspend or weaken” the pending hemp restrictions, according to Marijuana Moment, which also reported on the issue. The group said the prohibition should take effect as enacted and remain in place.

The dispute centers on how federal law defines hemp and which products can legally be sold. The 2018 Farm Bill, signed by Donald Trump during his first term, legalized hemp and hemp derivatives containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight. That definition opened the door to a large market for gummies, vapes, drinks and other products that can produce intoxicating effects while technically qualifying as hemp under federal law.

According to Marijuana Moment, Trump signed new legislation in late 2025 that narrowed that definition. Under the new standard, hemp products would be legal only if they contain no more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per package, a threshold that would sharply reduce or eliminate the legal market for many current products. The change was originally set to take effect on November 12.

A funding measure signed in October pushed that deadline to December 11 for most hemp products, according to Marijuana Moment. But the delay did not apply across the board. Synthetic cannabinoids that cannot be naturally produced by Cannabis sativa L. are still set to be recriminalized on November 12.

The reporting points to a broad political fight over whether Congress should ban most hemp-derived THC products outright or replace the current system with stricter regulation. Several House Republicans, including Reps. Morgan Griffith, James Comer and Andy Barr, have backed legislation that would prevent the ban and instead impose rules such as age limits and product testing.

The White House has also asked Congress to revisit the legal definition of hemp. According to the source material, that request came through a letter and a Trump social media post calling for a framework that would preserve access to full-spectrum CBD products while keeping restrictions on products viewed as posing health risks.

The involvement of alcohol industry lobbyists adds another dimension to that fight. Hemp-derived THC beverages have grown quickly in some markets and can compete for the same drinking occasions, shelf space and distribution channels as beer, flavored malt beverages and spirits-based ready-to-drink products. A tighter federal definition of hemp could therefore reshape not only the cannabis market but also part of the broader beverage business.

The emails do not, by themselves, show that alcohol companies directed state officials’ final actions. But they do indicate that lobbyists for some of the country’s largest beverage companies were actively encouraging attorneys general to oppose any congressional effort to postpone the new federal restrictions. That pressure campaign surfaced as lawmakers, regulators and industry groups continue to argue over whether intoxicating hemp products should be banned, tightly regulated or allowed to remain on the market under revised rules.