Michigan hemp producers may head into 2026 still bound by the state’s Industrial Hemp Growers Act, if lawmakers don’t take action on measures that would transfer oversight of hemp farming to the federal government.
Two measures introduced this month remain pending: House Bill 5094 (filed Oct. 7) and Senate Bill 608 (filed Oct. 16) would repeal the state-run licensing system administered by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) and move hemp regulation to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Domestic Hemp Production Program.
Time running short
The 2025 legislative session continues through Dec. 31, giving both bills a window to progress. As of late October, each remains in committee with no recorded votes, according to legislative tracking services.
“Time is of the essence to get a bill passed … since farmers are making planting decisions soon about next season,” Robbin Pott of Pott Farms in Willis, Michigan, told Michigan Farm News.
Growers say the state framework adds unnecessary cost. Annual licensing and testing fees can exceed $1,500 per farm, sampling must occur 20–30 days before harvest, and tests must be performed by DEA-registered laboratories, according to MDARD. Any lot testing above the 0.3 percent THC limit must be remediated or destroyed within 30 days—often wiping out profits for small producers.
“The system is costly and risky,” Pott said.
The transition to federal oversight could affect the state resources and support that Michigan hemp farmers have relied upon. The state’s program had offered localized assistance, including workshops and guidance tailored to Michigan’s unique agricultural environment. The move to a federal program may mean farmers lose access to such services, potentially leaving some without the same level of support for navigating regulatory challenges.
MDARD’s 2024 report listed 36 active hemp farmers, down from 572 in 2019.
Intoxicating hemp debate
As lawmakers consider dropping the state program, they are simultaneously focused on the rapid spread of delta-8 THC and other intoxicating hemp derivatives, according to iHemp Michigan. The Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) already classifies such compounds as cannabis, requiring marijuana-industry licenses for their sale. New proposals would tighten packaging, marketing, and age-limit rules, and could merge enforcement under a single cannabis code.
Industry advocates warn that the emphasis on intoxicating hemp has overshadowed industrial hemp reform, delaying the hand-off to USDA that most farmers support. For MDARD, separating low-THC fiber and grain producers from psychoactive-product manufacturers remains an administrative challenge.
State officials acknowledge that federal oversight would simplify licensing and lower costs but say legislative approval is required. With the session still open, the bills could advance before December—but until they do, Michigan’s hemp industry remains under its own costly framework, facing high compliance costs and policy uncertainty as lawmakers divide their attention between industrial hemp and intoxicating hemp regulation.
National context
Michigan’s situation reflects a broader national trend. After the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp under federal law, states could either operate their own USDA-approved hemp programs or defer directly to federal licensing. Many initially chose state control, believing localized oversight would better support growers and processors.
Over time, several states have abandoned their independent programs due to high administrative costs, declining participation, and the complexity of maintaining USDA compliance for sampling and testing. Others, including North Dakota, New Mexico, and Maine, have transitioned to the federal framework to reduce expenses and streamline regulation.
A handful of larger states — such as Colorado, Oregon, and Kentucky — continue to manage their own hemp programs, emphasizing closer ties with research institutions and local processors. However, even in those jurisdictions, regulators acknowledge that federal standards now shape enforcement. For smaller markets like Michigan, the economic and administrative logic increasingly favors USDA oversight, which provides uniform rules and lower costs while maintaining essential compliance safeguards.