Greg Abbott Sets Out Vision for Texas THC Regulation
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has pushed for strict enforcement to ensure that THC products are not sold to people under the age of 21.
Abbott set out a vision for the future of Texas THC regulations after he vetoed a bill that would have fully banned consumable products containing the compound of marijuana that which makes it psychoactive, THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, in the state.
"We need to have a highly regulated hemp industry," Abbott told Fox 4 on Tuesday.
Newsweek has contacted Governor Abbott via email for comment.
Main: THC products seen at the Dope Daughters dispensary, Thursday, May 29, 2025, in Austin, Texas. Inset: Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks at Hill Country Youth Event Center in Kerrville, Texas.
Main: THC products seen at the Dope Daughters dispensary, Thursday, May 29, 2025, in Austin, Texas. Inset: Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks at Hill Country Youth Event Center in Kerrville, Texas.
Main: Eric Gay, Inset: Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo
Why It Matters
Abbott's approach to THC has put him at loggerheads with fellow Republicans who have supported a complete ban.
Some law enforcement leaders have said the only way to fully regulate THC use is to ban it completely and that they will not be able to fully stop smoke shops from illegally selling THC above the state-mandated dose, according to Fox 4. Abbott says regulation is possible when police are given the right resources.
What To Know
Abbott's proposal for the future of THC is to keep it regulated at its 0.3 percent legal limit. He said he will not be legalizing marijuana in the state, and will be pushing for stricter enforcement to ensure that hemp products are not sold to people under the age of 21, and that they do not contain any synthetic compounds.
He told Fox 4 that the industry can be regulated like alcohol, including making it illegal to sell products near areas frequented by children.
He added he still wanted hemp farmers and people selling the products to be allowed.
In June, Abbott vetoed Senate Bill 3, which would have fully banned THC in Texas. The bill, introduced by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, received overwhelming Republican support in the state legislature.
Critics of THC in the state say that it poses a danger to children who may find it and consume it, and have pointed to THC as a public health risk. Lieutenant Governor Patrick has said that THC consumption leads to addiction and brain alteration, as reported in The Texas Tribune.
The governor vetoed it, saying that the "legal defects in the bill are undeniable." He mentioned that a similar ban in Arkansas was stalled by lawsuits for years.
The bill would have banned hemp-derived cannabinoids in Texas, the market of which reached $2.78 billion industry in the state in 2023, according to the Baker Institute at Rice University.
On Tuesday, the Senate Committee on State Affairs passed Senate Bill 5 with a 10-0 vote. The bill would eliminate the majority of hemp products, according to The Texas Tribune.
Hemp-derived cannabinoids were made legal in Texas in 2019 following the passage of a 2018 federal law which legalized hemp. They must contain a THC limit of 0.3 percent.
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick shows products containing THC while calling for a ban on the consumables on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, at the state Capitol in Austin, Texas.
Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick shows products containing THC while calling for a ban on the consumables on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, at the state Capitol in Austin, Texas.
Jim Vertuno/AP Photo
What People Are Saying
Governor Abbott told Fox 4: "We need to have a highly regulated hemp industry to ensure that farmers are able to grow it and that hemp products that do not have an intoxicating level of THC in it can be sold in the marketplace."
Steve Dye, a police chief, told The Texas Tribune: "It would take decades, in our opinion, and millions of millions of dollars to hire and train agents to understand chemistry, potency threshold, lab testing and labeling compliance, and they will never be able to keep pace with the retailers, wholesalers and shippers."
What Happens Next
Senate Bill 5 has now advanced to the full chamber. But, according to The Texas Tribune, lawmakers in the House are more open about regulating THC products rather than banning them outright.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans, Democrats are held captive by extremes. Americans need a new party.
Does America need a viable third political party? Republicans and Democrats alike sound off – and actually agreed on something – in our latest Opinion Forum. In June – which yes, feels like a lifetime ago – billionaire and former first buddy Elon Musk began floating the idea of an "America Party" on the social media platform he's colonized. Originally a response to President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Musk viewed as an "insane spending bill," this new third party would "actually represent the 80% in the middle" and give voters back their "freedom." It's an interesting idea – and not necessarily new. America, as we're reminded every general election, does have more than two political parties, but those splintered factions rarely result in anything of consequence. Instead, our politics are an endless ping-pong match between Republicans and Democrats – which many Americans increasingly view as two sides of the same coin. So is a true multiparty system the way forward? And is Musk, as divisive as he is, the one to lead it? Those were some of the questions we asked USA TODAY readers for our latest Forum. We heard people from each political party and found some surprising consensus. Read their responses below. A third party isn't enough. America needs an entirely new system. America doesn't just need a third party – it needs a full-spectrum awakening. The system we're living in isn't just outdated ‒ it's misaligned with the reality of who we are today. Tradition has its place, but clinging to it out of habit keeps us locked into patterns that no longer serve us. The problems we face now are wildly different from those of the past, so why are we still trying to solve them with yesterday's blueprints? We need more than another political faction; we need a radical reimagining of how representation works. For too long, our politics have been stuck in black-and-white thinking: left or right, red or blue, us versus them. The idea that one person – usually male, usually from a singular political perspective – can fully represent an entire nation is outdated. Lived experience matters. And no matter how well-intentioned he may be, a man cannot truly fight for women the way a woman can. The same goes in reverse. Each brings something vital to the table, and that's why America needs more than just a third party – it needs a shared leadership model. Your Turn: President Trump, I supported you. Release the Epstein list – or resign. | Opinion Forum Imagine a presidency not defined by solo power but co-led by two individuals with contrasting yet complementary identities ‒ say, a woman and a man from different ideological spaces. Together, they could challenge groupthink, broaden empathy and offer layered approaches to complex issues. Conflict wouldn't be avoided ‒ it'd be used as a strength to build deeper solutions. Our most marginalized voices wouldn't be tokens ‒ they'd have champions on both sides. Sure, this idea may cause some readers to flip their lids. But history has shown us that progress doesn't come wrapped in comfort. It comes when someone says 'What if?' and dares to sketch it out loud. As for Elon Musk? He didn't build with a brain ‒ he built with money. He footed bills and took credit. He couldn't hold a thought together or support his own child for being themselves. That's not genius. That's cowardice. Power without empathy is a threat, not a solution. We don't need leaders who smile for the cameras while people suffer. We need firewalls, not figureheads. If you can't fight for people without cash behind them, you don't get to represent any of us. The Republican Party is consumed by extremism and fear tactics. The Democratic Party is fractured and too often indecisive. Both chase headlines while families struggle, health care costs explode and trust erodes. Neither party centers everyday people, and that's the core failure. — Kayleisha Miller, Coal Township, Pennsylvania Our political parties have been lost to oligarchs. We need a shake-up. We need a viable third party to shake up the status quo. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are being held hostage by the extreme right and left of their parties. We need a party that is not beholden to American oligarchs. It needs to govern with common sense and realize that compromise is not a four-letter word. As a nation, we used to value these traits. Now it's a take-no-hostage era. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ You can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. Musk is one of the oligarchs of the United States. He is a businessman whose sole raison d'être is to make a profit. One cannot run a nation like one runs a company. Both parties are being held captive by the extreme right and left wings of their parties. The Democrats have lost their focus on the issues that mean the most to the people. They have forgotten who the working people are in this nation. They need to realize people don't want a cradle-to-grave nanny state. The Republicans have come under the spell of authoritarian governance. As much as they profess to care about the working people, they care more about the American oligarchs. — Paul Tonello, Sparks, Nevada If we had better people in power, two parties would be enough. But we don't. If there were representatives who would vote to represent the people who elected them on different issues, rather than always being in lockstep, a two-party system works very well. A multiparty system that requires different coalitions on different issues would work better than what is happening in Congress. I believe that fiscal responsibility, compassion for those in need, smaller government and stewardship of national assets would win the greatest coalition's vote. Musk's resources are important, but getting moderates from each party to be involved would be more important. Also, getting more people who are not currently involved in politics could make it very powerful. Neither party is doing anything to make the future better for our children and grandchildren. I wish we had good people instead of people who thrive on power and ego. — LaMar Stephenson, Spanish Fork, Utah It's a matter of when, not if, a third party will emerge in America The existing two-party system limits the people's choices. They coexist in a symbiotic relationship. Much like defense and plaintiff attorneys. They need each other to exist. Loyalty among the members is first to their respective party, not the Constitution. In my sphere of connections across all of America, I have yet to meet a person who does not believe a third party is a necessity. It is my belief that the time of a two-party system has passed. A new political system is a necessity. If we have a third option, more fiscally conservative and socially moderate, this country will be better served. When, not if, this happens, the legacy parties might wake up and realize they have lost touch with the American system. It is incumbent on the news media, which has also polarized, to begin an honest reporting of this movement. A third party should be fiscally conservative and socially moderate, protecting the future of America and not buying votes by borrowing from the future. The youth of America will wake up and align with a new model. Musk has the resources to overcome the start-up challenges of a viable third party. He has clearly shown his commitment to improving government and its misdirected leadership. But he is not the person to lead the party. We need a charismatic younger leader who comes from the heartland, has been in the actual world and served his country. Service in the military is important. It's too easy to place young Americans in harm's way when they have not also made that choice. Look at how few elected officials have served or have children in service. Service can take many forms that reflect their passion for serving the United States. The two parties exist to support each other. Loyalty by their members is to the party, not the country. Congress demands this loyalty. Leadership punishes those with loyalty to country above party. — Bob Jones, Dadeville, Alabama We need a political party that isn't beholden to the rich The present political parties are beholden to the rich. We need a party that also hears the people. A better party would focus on middle-class needs, education, helping college kids with their future, present and past college bills. It would focus on the environment and upholding and advancing the ideals of the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty the pursuit of happiness and equality for all. We need a party that has a little nuance on issues and looks for ways to solve problems with compromise. Our young people need affordable housing. Medical care should not be tied to employment. And we need to restore the sense of community that we have lost in some places ‒ a sense that there is something greater than me. Musk is not the person to lead a third party. He has done too much damage by reelecting President Donald Trump and with DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. I suppose his money could be useful. The Republican Party is firmly under the control of Trump. He is corrupt, cruel and embraces chaos. The GOP should be renamed the CCCP. Most of the Democratic leaders do not know how to resist Trump. There needs to be a moral rebirth in our nation. Many are morally blind to Trump and his actions. Who are we? What does it mean to be an American? What is right and wrong? Many are under the influence of conspiracy theories and do not realize that they are being played for money. — Rick Jones, Mount Gilead, Ohio You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump isn't gutting Medicaid and food stamps. He's fixing our broken welfare system.
President Donald Trump has preserved the core of the safety net for the truly vulnerable. He and his fellow Republicans are helping millions of able-bodied adults leave welfare and find work. It's a simple question with an obvious answer: Should Americans work as a condition of receiving welfare? More than two-thirds of Americans respond with a resounding yes. But while the principle of the matter and popular opinion are clear, our country's welfare system has been a muddled mess for decades. The biggest welfare program − Medicaid − has been disconnected from helping its 84.6 million recipients find work. And while the food stamps program technically has work requirements, they're inconsistently enforced for the 42 million people who benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The result: Tens of millions of people, especially able-bodied adults, have been trapped in government dependency. But they deserve the chance to become self-sufficient. They deserve to fully share in our country's progress. And they deserve to shape that progress while pursuing their own American dream. Trump is fixing broken welfare system That is why President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is so important. The president and Republicans in Congress have started to fundamentally fix America's broken welfare system. They're finally connecting welfare to work. Your Turn: Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work. | Opinion Forum Unfortunately, many Americans haven't heard this side of the story. They've been told − by virtually every politician on the left as well as a few loud voices on the right − that Trump and his fellow Republicans are gutting the safety net that vulnerable Americans need. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the president has preserved the core of the safety net for the truly vulnerable. He and his fellow Republicans are helping millions of able-bodied adults leave welfare and find work. That's the point of the safety net: to support people who've fallen on hard times, then help them move on to better times. It was never meant to be a hammock. Yet that's what it has become, trapping millions of people in generational dependency. Trump's welfare reforms are righting this wrong. To start, Medicaid now has its first federal work requirement in history. Able-bodied adults without children as well as those without young kids will now be required to work at least part time to keep receiving Medicaid. Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion That is common sense. Medicaid was created to help the neediest people in society get health care. It wasn't intended to cover healthy adults who are capable of working but choose not to. It's good for them, and all of America, if they find jobs and raise their incomes. The same is true for food stamps. The president and Congress are closing loopholes that have allowed able-bodied adults to avoid work requirements. They've also put states on the financial hook for giving food stamps to those who aren't eligible. These reforms will help millions of people find work and boost their incomes. That's good for them and the rest of society. Work requirements will help people living in poverty Those who criticize these commonsense reforms aren't just missing the point. They're missing something profoundly American. We should want our fellow citizens to find good jobs, earn more income and put themselves on the path to everything from buying a car to buying a home. That's the ticket to a life of fulfillment − to the American dream. But we shouldn't want people to stay on welfare with no strings attached, especially able-bodied adults. We should want them to lead better lives. And we should believe in their incredible potential and innate ability to improve their lives. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Trump's welfare reforms are grounded in this deeply American principle. They will move millions of people from welfare to work, transforming lives in powerful ways. Virtually everyone intuitively understands that this is a good thing for everyone, including those on welfare and those of us who pay for it. The real question is why some politicians and pundits think it's bad to empower people on welfare to rise through work. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
Fed likely to stand pat on interest rates, stay coy on September cut amid Trump pressure
When the Federal Reserve feels confident it's getting closer to raising or lowering interest rates based on a clear-cut outlook for the economy and inflation, it often signals its plans at the prior meeting to avoid surprising markets. Now is probably not one of those times. At a two-day meeting that concludes Wednesday, the Fed is widely expected to hold its key interest rate steady despite President Donald Trump's monthslong campaign aimed at browbeating Fed Chair Jerome Powell and his colleagues into cutting rates. At a meeting with Powell at the Fed on Thursday, Trump said he's unlikely to try to fire the Fed chief, whose term expires in May. Two of the Fed's Republican governors, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, have backed Trump's call for a rate cut as soon as this week's meeting and they could dissent, said JPMorgan Chase economist Michael Feroli. It would mark the first time two Fed governors have dissented since 1993, Feroli said. Will the Fed reduce interest rates again? The drama, however, will center around whether Powell or the Fed's post-meeting statement will hint at a likely rate cut in September – a move that's forecast by fed fund futures markets. Investors expect a total of two rate decreases by year's end. 'It's really going to come down to Chair Powell,' said Nationwide Chief Economist Kathy Bostjancic. 'What type of…guidance does he provide?' Yet Trump's trade war has left a haze of uncertainty over the economy since January. And while the contours of his tariffs are taking shape, many of the import fees and their effects on inflation and the economy are still playing out. 'It's a long way to September,' Morgan Stanley wrote in a note to clients. 'The Fed needs more time to determine how the economy is evolving versus its goals.' In a research note, Ryan Sweet, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, said he doesn't expect the 'central bank to tip its hand, as it will want to remain flexible because of the lingering uncertainty of where tariffs will ultimately settle, the magnitude of the boost to core goods prices, and whether tariffs are bleeding into other prices.' What happens when the Fed adjusts interest rates? The Fed chops rates to lower borrowing costs and juice a flagging economy and job market. It raises rates or keeps them higher longer to curtail inflation by cooling the economy. But economists expect Trump's levies to both reignite inflation and hamper growth as cost-burdened households reduce spending, leaving officials torn between their two mandates. Powell has said the Fed is taking a wait-and-see approach to assess which tariff-related hazard poses a bigger problem. The Fed lowered its benchmark short-term rate by a percentage point late last year after a pandemic-related inflation spike eased but has since been on hold. What are the current tariffs in the US? Some of Trump's tariff plans and their effects on prices are becoming clearer. In the spring, Trump announced a 90-day pause on high double-digit reciprocal tariffs for China and many other countries, easing recession fears and reversing a stock market sell-off. White House officials extended the reprieve to Aug. 1 to provide more time for negotiations. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has announced trade deals with the UK, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Phillipines and China, but the agreements still impose relatively high duties of 15% to 30%. Earlier this month, the president announced plans to raise the tariff rate on many Canadian imports from 25% to 35% and impose a blanket 15% to 20% duty on most other countries, up from 10%. He also threatened 30% tariffs on all imports from Mexico and the European Union, though the U.S. is still negotiating with those countries. Trump also has announced a 50% tariff on imported copper and all imports from Brazil. Already in effect: a 50% levy on metals, 25% on cars and 30% on China. How are tariffs affecting inflation? For months, the fees had little effect on inflation, but they appeared to leave a bigger imprint in June as Chinese-made products got a bit more expensive, according to the consumer price index. Apparel prices rose by 0.4%; furniture, 1%; video and audio products, 1.1%; and toys, 1.8%. Overall, an underlying inflation measure the Fed follows closely ticked up from 2.8% to 2.9%, and many economists said the tariff effects were still mild. Yet that's largely because many retailers and manufacturers stocked up on goods before the fees took effect or absorbed the costs – tactics that forecasters say have run their course. Amid the uncertainty, Powell will likely take a middle-ground approach, Morgan Stanley says. The June inflation numbers 'should provide some confirmation to the (Fed) that the tariff push to inflation has begun, but not so much that would lead Powell to downplay the possibility of rate cuts this year,' Morgan Stanley wrote. How is the current economy in the USA? The economy is sending similarly mixed signals. A key measure of retail sales increased 0.5% in June. But economist Samuel Tombs of Pantheon Macroeconomics said that's largely because of rising prices. Sales volumes appeared weak, he wrote. Morgan Stanley predicts a report Wednesday will reveal the economy grew a solid 2.2% in the April-June quarter, but it traces most of the gain to a reversal of a tariff-related import surge in the first quarter that caused the economy to shrink. (Imports are subtracted from gross domestic product because they're made in foreign countries.) How is the job market in the USA now? And wWhile employers added a sturdy 147,000 jobs in June, the private sector added just 74,000, mostly in health care. For many months, job gains have been concentrated in just a few sectors – health care, state and local governments, and leisure and hospitality. That's not a good omen for overall job growth in the months ahead, Bostjancic said. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expect a report Friday to show the U.S. added just 118,000 jobs in July. With the labor market slowing, tariff tensions easing and their effects on inflation still modest, Bostjancic believes Powell could warm slightly to the idea of trimming rates in September. 'I would think he can sound a little more open to cutting rates just because of the data,' Bostjancic said. She expects the average U.S. tariff to rise from about 2% earlier this year to about 20%. That, she said, would push inflation from 2.7% to 3% by December – above the Fed's 2% goal but below the 3.4% many forecasters predicted a few months ago. At the same time, she noted that Trump's attacks on Powell and the Fed's independence have caused investors to worry officials ultimately may cut rates for political – rather than sound economic – reasons, driving inflation higher. As a result, market-based measures of inflation expectations have risen in recent weeks, a trend that could push up long-term rates and ironically undermine Trump's demands for lower borrowing costs. 'I don't think he'll send a hard signal,' Bostjancic said of Powell. 'I think he'll leave it open.'
