The Swamp Strikes Back: D.C. Sneaks Hemp Ban That Hits Texas Farmers First
After forty-one days of furloughs, stalled paychecks, and shuttered government offices, the U.S. Senate late Monday finally passed H.R. 5371, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, ending the longest government shutdown since 2018. But hidden deep inside the stopgap spending bill that reopens Washington lies a provision that may devastate one of America’s fastest-growing agricultural and manufacturing industries—the hemp market.
What was meant to keep the lights on in D.C. may soon snuff out the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of farmers, processors, and small business owners across the country.
A Hidden Sting in a Lifeline Bill
The Senate approved the measure by a 60-40 vote just before midnight on November 10, ensuring that federal agencies would receive temporary funding through January 30, 2026. On paper, the legislation restores pay to federal workers, secures funding for food assistance programs, and prevents further disruptions to air travel and the military.
But tucked among those spending provisions is language that rewrites federal hemp law—with implications few Americans realize. The so-called “hemp loophole,” which since 2018 has allowed hemp-derived THC products such as delta-8 and delta-10 to be sold legally in most states, has now been effectively closed.
Under H.R. 5371, any consumable product exceeding 0.4 milligrams of total THC per serving, a threshold so low that it disqualifies nearly every existing hemp-derived THC product, will be banned nationwide. The restriction applies to edibles, beverages, tinctures, vapes, and even topicals marketed for personal or household use. Only non-intoxicating CBD and industrial hemp for fiber or seed will remain exempt.
“This Isn’t Regulation—It’s Eradication”
Within hours of passage, hemp producers across the country flooded social media with outrage. Jim Higdon, co-founder of Cornbread Hemp, called the bill “a declaration of war against an entire American industry.” Farmers in Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and North Carolina—many of whom had transitioned from tobacco or cotton to hemp after the 2018 Farm Bill—now face the prospect of bankruptcy.
“This isn’t regulation,” said one Texas grower, J. L., who runs a small hemp processing facility near Waco. “It’s eradication. The federal government just made my business illegal overnight.”
Industry analysts estimate the decision could wipe out more than $10 billion in annual economic activity and eliminate up to 400,000 jobs, many of them in rural communities that have few other viable cash crops… all for nothing more than a two and a half month continuing resolution. Poof. It’s all gone.
A Battle Between the Bluegrass and the Beltway
Ironically, the most heated debate came not from Democrats but from within the Republican Party. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) staged a procedural delay to block the bill, warning that the hemp provision would “obliterate” Kentucky’s hemp farmers—many of whom had relied on federal assurances since 2018 that hemp was a lawful, profitable crop.
But Paul’s effort failed. His amendment to strike the ban was tabled 76–24 after intense lobbying from Senate leadership, including Mitch McConnell, the same Kentucky senator who had shepherded hemp legalization into the 2018 Farm Bill.
McConnell, once hailed as the industry’s patron, has since become one of its fiercest critics. He now argues that the “unintended consequences” of hemp legalization—chiefly the unregulated sale of psychoactive THC derivatives in gas stations and convenience stores—have created a public health crisis.
Paul, in floor remarks before the vote, shot back that McConnell’s about-face “betrays the very farmers he once claimed to champion.”
The Texas Angle: Cruz and Cornyn Back the Ban
Both Texas Senators, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, voted in favor of H.R. 5371. Their “Yea” votes helped secure the 60-vote threshold needed to end the shutdown—and, in doing so, endorsed the controversial hemp restrictions which has put thousands of Texas farmers out of business.
The move stunned many Texas growers who had looked to Cruz and Cornyn as defenders of market freedom and state-level autonomy. “It’s disappointing,” said one Central Texas farmer who shifted to hemp after drought destroyed his corn crop in 2023, according to High Times Magazine. “They talk about fighting big government, but this was Washington picking winners and losers. And we just lost.”
The Political Chess Behind the Hemp Ban
Supporters of the ban, including Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and a bipartisan coalition of 38 state attorneys general, claim the new restrictions are necessary to curb youth access to intoxicating products that have flooded the market. Patrick had previously pushed for similar restrictions in Texas under Senate Bill 3, which was vetoed by Governor Greg Abbott earlier this year.
But critics suggest corporate money and political convenience played as large a role as public safety.
Documents reviewed by industry watchdogs show major beer and spirits lobbies have quietly funneled campaign donations to lawmakers who supported the hemp restrictions. Hemp-infused seltzers and THC beverages have been eating into alcohol sales, and the new federal limit—0.4 mg per serving—essentially eliminates that competition.
“The alcohol lobby couldn’t regulate us out of existence at the state level,” said Higdon, “so they went to Washington.”
Economic Fallout Already Underway
The hemp sector, which ballooned from a niche market to a $30 billion industry in just seven years, now faces a regulatory cliff. Distributors and manufacturers that invested heavily in delta-8 and delta-10 production facilities may be forced to shutter within months.
“We’ll lose 70% of our revenue,” said C. M., owner of a hemp beverage company in Austin. “We employ local people. We pay taxes. Now Washington has lumped us in with drug cartels.”
Even as markets reel, state officials warn of ripple effects far beyond small business closures. Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, who has supported hemp as a diversification crop, said in a statement that “federal overreach like this punishes responsible farmers and rewards black markets.”
The ban’s 90-day implementation window gives agencies until February 2026 to issue enforcement rules. The FDA and DEA will jointly determine which cannabinoids are deemed “naturally occurring” and which are prohibited. Businesses caught in the gray area could face criminal penalties for noncompliance.
Political Consequences on the Horizon
Strategists are already warning that the move could alienate younger and libertarian-leaning voters ahead of the 2026 midterms. A Gallup poll from November 2025 found that only 40% of Republicans still support marijuana legalization, but nearly 70% of voters under 40 favor looser restrictions on cannabis and hemp.
“The GOP just handed the Democrats a culture-war gift,” one Republican campaign consultant said privately. “You can’t preach free markets and then destroy an entire industry because a beer company made a few phone calls.”
Still, the political establishment appears unmoved. President Trump has not publicly commented on the hemp ban but is expected to sign H.R. 5371 into law, given his administration’s emphasis on “law and order” and curbing intoxicating products.
The Road Ahead
The House is expected to approve the bill swiftly, eager to claim credit for ending the shutdown before Thanksgiving. Once signed, the hemp restrictions will take effect within three months, leaving the industry little time to adjust.
In Kentucky, Texas, and dozens of other states, warehouses filled with unsold hemp beverages and gummies may soon become evidence in federal enforcement actions.
What began in 2018 as a bipartisan success story—an effort to revive rural economies and replace illicit markets with legitimate commerce—has ended in yet another cautionary tale of Washington politics.
The Senate’s passage of H.R. 5371 may reopen the government, but in doing so, lawmakers—including both Texas senators—have closed the door on a generation of American entrepreneurs who staked their livelihoods on the promises of deregulation and innovation.
For them, the lights in Washington may be back on—but the future of the Republican Party just went dark.
FATE, TX – A document containing unproven allegations, some of which could raise defamation concerns if false, and stamped with a warning against distribution, is now at the center of a growing political storm in Fate, Texas, after a student’s testimony revealed it was nonetheless handed out at a public recall event targeting the mayor.
At the March 23, 2026 Fate City Council meeting, Gus Richardson, a local debate student, stepped forward during public comment and described attending a petition signing event tied to the ongoing recall effort against Mayor Andrew Greenberg, Councilman Mark Hatley, Councilman Rick Maneval, and Councilwoman Martha Huffman.
According to Richardson’s testimony, he was provided a document outlining reasons for removing the mayor by individuals he identified as being involved in the recall effort.
The document was marked with a warning that read: “This document is for reference purposes only. Distribution and photographs are strictly prohibited.” Despite the printed warning, Richardson proceeded to photograph the document, and the organizer then removed the document from his hands, Richardson stated.
[Video of presentation of Gus Richardson to Fate City Council]
That contradiction, a document marked for secrecy but distributed in a public setting as reasons for the removal of an elected Mayor, quickly became the focal point of Richardson’s remarks. While Richardson questioned the validity of some of the allegations made in the document, his primary focus was on the process and transparency behind their circulation.
Pipkins Reports has obtained a copy of the document and presents it here as part of this report. We note that notices of, “DISTRIBUTION AND PHOTOGRAPHS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED”, generally do not carry clear legal enforceability in a public setting.
Notably, one of the document’s central allegations involves the recording of city officials, and it is a matter of public record that Mayor Greenberg did record at least one phone call with Councilwoman Codi Chinn, a recording later released by Pipkins Reports, though the motivations and context surrounding that call remain disputed.
The document itself is structured as a list of allegations under several headings, including “Abuse of Power,” “Charter Violations,” “Texas Ethics Commission Errors,” and “Code of Ethics Violations.” It presents the claims in declarative language, offering no citations, supporting documentation, or sourcing within the text.
Under “Abuse of Power,” the document asserts that Mayor Greenberg secretly recorded city officials and staff for personal benefit, used his position to secure special privileges, and intentionally misled citizens about city governance and charter provisions. It further claims he used his authority for actions benefiting his private interests and threatened board members with removal if they questioned city officials.
Another claim alleges that the mayor allowed what the document describes as “potential electioneering” during a city council meeting, suggesting unequal treatment between certain speakers and regular citizens. Additional points accuse him of interfering in administrative staffing decisions and engaging with city staff without the required council authorization.
The section labeled “Texas Ethics Commission Errors” raises campaign-related concerns, including an allegation that required political advertising disclosures were omitted from campaign signs and that semiannual campaign finance reports were not filed on time in July 2025 and January 2026. It further states that only one of those reports has been remedied, though no official findings from the Texas Ethics Commission are cited in the document itself.
Other portions of the document claim violations of the city’s code of ethics, including representing private interests before the council, and paint a broader picture of what is described as a “lack of transparency.” The final section, labeled “Loss of Confidence,” includes assertions that the mayor has failed to keep citizens informed, does not understand the city charter, and has placed the city at risk of retaliation and lawsuits.
None of the claims included in the document were accompanied by evidence within the material reviewed, and the organizers explanation to Richardson, he states, was that the document “wasn’t verified yet and was simply what they believed.” However, the language used presents the allegations as statements of fact, rather than opinion, a distinction that carries legal implications if the claims cannot be substantiated.
Richardson’s testimony only briefly touched on how be believed the printed allegations were false. Instead, he focused on what he characterized as an inconsistency, that a document warning against distribution was nonetheless handed out to members of the public at an organized event. His remarks, measured in tone, appeared aimed at prompting greater transparency from those involved in the recall effort.
The City Council did not provide a response during the meeting regarding the document or its contents. This is typical of the Public Comments section of the agenda.
Mayor Greenberg’s Comment
Pipkins Reports reached out to Mayor Greenberg for comment. Regarding the document, he stated, “It’s a list of broad accusations without real evidence or specifics, and that’s just not a fair or productive way to have a conversation. If you’re going to make claims, don’t hide behind a command not to take photos or share-if they are strong enough to try to get people upset, they should be strong enough to be share publicly and examined. If someone disagrees with my policies, that’s completely fair, but pushing baseless accusations this way is disappointing.“
Christopher Rains Comment
We also reached out to Christopher Rains, the petition organizer, who it appears was also the person to whom Richardson spoke to. He stated, “It [the conversation] is not how I remember the exchange. I was talking with two people, both combative in nature and upon recognizing that they were not in support tried to exit the exchange as quickly as possible. If I misspoke, I am not above admitting as much. I am not a politician and have no aspirations to become one, I am not afraid to say I am wrong. But, I stated and reiterated many times that I was there because I believe there were charter violations based on my understanding of the charter. He claimed that I said they broke the law, I clarified that I did not believe it was criminally illegal, but a civil violation and morally questionable.“
Ashley Rains was also respectful to our request for comment and provided the following statement: “I was not surprised to see Gus Richardson, or his mother, at the City Council meeting Monday evening. If anything, I was proud and impressed to see Gus in attendance and participating. Proud because I firmly believe it’s imperative that our younger generations become interested and involved in the future of our government, at all levels. Our current political climate may not be where it is today if that had been the case sooner.
I was simultaneously impressed by his willingness to speak publicly on such a controversial topic. Not many young people have the wherewithal or courage to do so. I applaud him for that.
However, I was surprised to hear my name casually mentioned, while presenting as though he was unsure who the gentleman was he speaking with.
Gus and his mother approached our table while I was engaged in conversation with another citizen. But my husband is both cordial and a business professional. He shakes your hand and introduces himself, every time, with every new person we encounter in a mutually respectful setting.
I was unable to join their conversation until the last couple of minutes of their exchange. To hear my name referenced in the speech Gus delivered Monday evening was surprising, as the premise of the delivery seemed to be geared more toward attacking my campaign rather than presenting the facts of the exchange as the truly were.
I still applaud his involvement and courage. I also recognize the true potential he has to offer our society, political or otherwise. But, truthfully, I would’ve preferred to hear the recollection of events delivered less politically and more forthright.“
As the recall effort continues to unfold, the emergence of this document and the circumstances surrounding its distribution are likely to draw increased scrutiny from both the public and those directly involved. Richardson’s testimony has added a new layer to an already contentious political environment, raising questions not only about the claims themselves, but about how information is being presented to voters in the course of the petition process.
For now, the allegations outlined in the document remain unverified, and no formal findings by relevant authorities have been publicly confirmed. As the situation develops, the focus may shift toward greater transparency from all parties involved, particularly as residents weigh the credibility of the information being circulated in connection with the recall effort.
FATE, TX – Voters in Fate may soon face a familiar name on the ballot, but beneath the surface of Allen Robbins’ political comeback lies a record that could reshape how residents view his return. As the May 2026 city council election approaches, Robbins, a former Fate councilman, is seeking another term, bringing with him a documented voting history that raises pointed questions about taxes, fees, and development decisions that directly affected residents’ wallets and the city’s character.
Public records from the City of Fate show that during his previous tenure, Robbins not only introduced a series of consequential motions, but in each instance, those motions ultimately passed the council. The result was a slate of enacted policies that increased costs and advanced higher-density development, leaving a clear legislative footprint for voters to evaluate.
Below are seven key actions tied to Robbins’ record that voters may weigh as they consider his candidacy.
1. Ratifying a Property Tax Increase
Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-036, ratifying a property tax increase embedded in the adopted budget for fiscal year 2023–2024. The motion passed, formally locking in the increased tax burden tied to that budget cycle.
2. Supporting a 5.96 Percent Tax Rate Increase
Robbins also made the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 0-2023-037, setting the property tax rate at $0.26421, an effective increase of approximately 5.96 percent. The council approved the measure, resulting in a higher rate applied to property owners across the city.
3. Approving Increased Solid Waste Fees
Through Ordinance No. O-2023-038, Robbins moved to approve updated rates for solid waste and refuse collection services. The motion passed, leading to increased service charges for residents.
4. Road Fee Adoption
Although introduced by another council member, Robbins voted to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-039, establishing a $3 road fee for both single-family and multi-family residential units. The measure adds a recurring fee impacting nearly all households.
5. Zoning Change with Financial Penalties
Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. O-2023-021, which amended zoning classifications on approximately 3.18 acres from Mixed Use to Mixed Use Transition for a Townhouse Development.
6. Approval of a 179-Unit Townhome Development
Through Resolution No. R-2023-055, Robbins moved to approve a Type III development plan for a 179-unit townhome project on approximately 13.9 acres. The council approved the motion, clearing the way for the higher-density development to proceed.
7. Advancing a Maximum Tax Rate Above Key Thresholds
Robbins also made the motion to approve Resolution No. R-2023-058, setting a maximum tax rate that exceeded both the no-new-revenue rate and the voter-approval rate, within the de minimis threshold allowed under Texas law. The motion passed, advancing the process for adopting the higher rate and triggering required public notices and hearings.
Context and Verification
Each of these actions is documented in official City of Fate council records from 2023. Motions made by a council member are a critical procedural step in municipal governance, and in these cases, each motion successfully resulted in council approval, meaning the policies were not merely proposed, but enacted.
Municipal leaders often justify such decisions as necessary responses to growth, infrastructure demands, and service costs. Fate, like many North Texas communities, has experienced rapid expansion, increasing pressure on roads, utilities, and public services.
The Stakes in 2026
As Robbins seeks a return to office in May 2026, voters are presented with a clear and verifiable record of policy actions that translated into tangible outcomes, higher taxes, new fees, and expanded development density.
Whether those outcomes are viewed as responsible governance or excessive government expansion will likely shape the election.
Opinion: A Pattern, Not an Accident
Seven motions. Seven approvals. One consistent direction.
That pattern is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. Robbins’ record reflects a governing philosophy that leans toward increasing revenue through taxation and fees while accommodating denser residential growth.
Supporters may argue these were necessary decisions in a growing city. That is a fair argument. Growth requires infrastructure, and infrastructure costs money.
But voters should also ask whether every increase was necessary, whether alternatives were explored, and whether the cumulative impact on residents was fully considered.
Because while each individual vote might be explained away, together they tell a broader story, one of a councilman comfortable with expanding both the cost and scope of local government.
In a community like Fate, where many families moved seeking affordability and space, that story carries weight.
And in May 2026, voters will decide whether it carries enough weight to keep Allen Robbins out of office, or return him to it.
TEXAS, 15th Congressional District – A South Texas congressional race, veered into the realm of bizarro when a decades-old video clip resurfaced, casting a blanket over a newly minted Democratic nominee. What should have been a straightforward primary victory became a flashpoint, as a Republican incumbent Monica De La Cruz amplified a controversial video clip of her Democratic opponent, Bobby Pulido.
Tejano singer Bobby Pulido, a well-known figure in Texas music circles, secured the Democratic nomination earlier this month in Texas’ 15th Congressional District, according to results reported by the Texas Secretary of State and coverage from regional outlets including The Texas Tribune. Pulido, who has built a career as a performer with a loyal following across South Texas, entered politics as part of a broader Democratic effort to reclaim the historically competitive district.
His opponent in the general election, Republican Rep. Monica De La Cruz, wasted little time drawing contrasts. Within days of the primary result, De La Cruz reposted a video clip circulating online that appears to show Pulido under a blanket, making suggestive movements that some viewers interpreted as simulating a “sexual act”. The video’s origin is not entirely clear, though it has been described in online discussions as footage from earlier in Pulido’s entertainment career.
De La Cruz’s campaign did not produce the video, but her decision to repost it on social media drew immediate attention. According to archived posts and reporting from local political blogs, the video had already been circulating among political activists before it reached a broader audience through the congresswoman’s platform.
Pulido has not denied that the video depicts him, but allies have characterized the clip as an out-of-context moment from a performance or comedic setting, arguing that it is being weaponized for political gain. As of this writing, Pulido’s campaign has not issued a detailed public statement addressing the specifics of the video, though supporters have pushed back on what they describe as a “smear tactic.”
The 15th Congressional District, which stretches from the Rio Grande Valley northward toward Seguin, has become a political battleground in recent cycles. De La Cruz flipped the seat for Republicans in 2022, defeating Democratic incumbent Vicente Gonzalez after redistricting reshaped the district’s partisan balance. National observers, including Cook Political Report and Sabato’s Crystal Ball, have since rated the district as competitive, making it a target for both parties.
Pulido’s candidacy reflects a Democratic strategy aimed at leveraging cultural recognition and regional identity. As a Tejano artist, he carries name recognition that traditional political candidates often lack, particularly among Hispanic voters who form a majority in the district. His campaign messaging has emphasized economic opportunity, healthcare access, and immigration reform, themes consistent with broader Democratic priorities.
De La Cruz, for her part, has leaned into a law-and-order message and economic conservatism, aligning closely with House Republican leadership. Her campaign website highlights border security, energy independence, and opposition to what she describes as “Washington overreach.”
The resurfaced video has complicated what might otherwise have been a conventional contrast between policy agendas. Political analysts note that such controversies can have unpredictable effects, particularly in districts where personal image and cultural familiarity carry weight.
“Voters often say they want substance, but moments like this can dominate the narrative,” one South Texas political consultant told The Monitor. “The question is whether it sticks, or whether it backfires.”
There is also the matter of tone. While negative campaigning is hardly new, the use of suggestive or potentially embarrassing footage raises questions about where campaigns draw the line. The Federal Election Commission does not regulate the content of political speech in this context, leaving such decisions largely to candidates and, ultimately, voters.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login