Dr. Mehmet Oz is urging the Senate to block a bipartisan amendment that would effectively ban hemp products nationwide and strip millions of seniors of affordable CBD coverage through Medicare — and whenever both parties agree on taking something away from the public, it pays to ask who profits from the restriction.
The amendment, sponsored by Republican Sen. Ted Budd, is hitched to a must-pass continuing resolution funding the government through Dec. 11. It would slash the legal definition of hemp from 0.3% Delta-9 THC — roughly 3 milligrams per serving under the 2018 Farm Bill — down to 0.4 milligrams of total hemp-derived THC per container. That change, set to take effect Nov. 12, 2026, would wipe out nearly every hemp product on the market. Not just gas station edibles. Everything.
Oz, who now oversees Medicare and Medicaid as a Trump administration official, warned in a letter to the Senate that the amendment "would undo significant gains that have been made to make clinically-appropriate full-spectrum hemp-derived CBD accessible to the senior citizens and individuals with disabilities that rely on the Medicare program for their healthcare."
At stake is Oz's own CMS pilot program — the Substance Access Beneficiary Engagement Incentive — which allows eligible Medicare beneficiaries at participating providers to purchase $500 worth of hemp-derived products annually for medical purposes like chronic pain, cancer pain, and seizure disorders. The program uses the 2018 Farm Bill definition of hemp. If Budd's amendment passes, the pilot program goes into disarray.
Oz wrote that Budd's amendment "would rip away from millions of seniors and disabled Americans the opportunity to benefit from these new programs."
Budd fired back on X, framing the debate around intoxicating hemp products sold at gas stations: "Why do unregulated intoxicating edibles need to be available at gas stations for CMS to continue studying hemp-derived pain relief?" He asked why these products should stay on shelves "when someone could make a decision that will alter their future by buying them."
It's a convenient frame. The Washington Examiner reported Budd's gas-station argument prominently but never pressed on who lobbied for the tighter definition in the first place. The 2025 language was quietly slipped into another funding bill and signed into law by Trump before the administration reversed course on cannabis policy. POLITICO, for its part, didn't cover the hemp fight at all — its feed was occupied with Trump's bid to remove Fed governor Lisa Cook, another institutional power struggle with its own revolving-door dynamics.
Here's what neither outlet explored: the hemp ban doesn't just target gas-station gummies. It criminalizes the CBD products seniors are already using under a federal pilot program to replace pricier pharmaceuticals. When the uniparty agrees to eliminate a cheap, plant-based alternative to prescription pain management, the pharmaceutical industry — which spends more on lobbying than any other sector — stands to gain the most. Drug safety groups are already challenging the CMS pilot in court. The ban effectively does their work for them.
The hemp debate has stalled the Senate's effort to pass the continuing resolution before August recess, risking a government shutdown at the end of September.
The question isn't whether gas-station intoxicants need ground rules. It's why the only solution the uniparty ever offers is a total ban that hands the market back to Big Pharma while the Americans who can least afford it lose access first.
