Executive Order GA-56: What Abbott Can and Cannot Do

Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order GA-56 on September 10, 2025, directing state agencies to regulate hemp-derived products more aggressively. This order followed the Legislature's failure to pass new regulations during the regular session and two special sessions. Abbott had vetoed SB 3 because it banned THC, and his instructions to legislators consistently sought regulation, not prohibition. When lawmakers failed to deliver, Abbott turned to existing executive authority.

The order represents political maneuvering as much as policy. Abbott demonstrates leadership on hemp regulation while avoiding constitutional overreach that courts might invalidate.

Executive Authority in Texas

Executive orders carry legal force only within existing statutory authority. The governor can direct agencies how to exercise their current powers, set enforcement priorities, and reallocate resources. He cannot create new law, expand agency jurisdiction, or override statutes.

This limitation is crucial. Abbott can accelerate rulemaking and coordinate enforcement, but fundamental changes—redefining hemp, creating taxes, banning products—require legislative action. GA-56 operates within these constraints.

What the Order Does

Age VerificationGA-56 directs the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) to prohibit hemp product sales to anyone under 21. Retailers must check government-issued identification. Non-compliance risks license revocation. Both agencies have existing authority over licensed retail operations.

Rules Review

The order requires DSHS to review its existing rules within ten business days. Abbott asks whether testing should measure "total THC" including THCa, whether licensing fees should increase to cover enforcement costs, whether labeling requires strengthening, and whether recordkeeping standards need enhancement.

This review has limits. DSHS must operate within Chapter 443 of the Health and Safety Code. The agency can examine current regulations against Abbott's priorities, but it cannot expand beyond legislative authority. Consider "total THC" testing: federal law and Texas HB 1325 define hemp by delta-9 THC content. DSHS cannot rewrite this definition through rulemaking. The review will likely reveal this limitation.

Enforcement Coordination

DSHS and TABC must develop joint protocols for compliance checks, data sharing, and operations. Agencies may transfer funds between them for enforcement. TABC must provide regular compliance reports to DSHS.

Regulatory Study

The order mandates studying regulatory frameworks similar to failed House Bill 309. Multiple agencies must evaluate implementation costs, funding mechanisms, intoxication detection methods, and law enforcement coordination. This study provides the blueprint for future legislation.

Law Enforcement

The Department of Public Safety must coordinate with regulatory agencies for uniform statewide enforcement.

What the Order Does Not Do

GA-56 does not ban hemp products, hemp flower, or synthetic cannabinoids. It imposes no potency limits or new taxes. It does not immediately change rules—it requires review through formal rulemaking with public comment. Most importantly, it does not override legislative authority.

Broader restrictions from HB 309—product bans, comprehensive testing, manufacturing standards—remain unavailable without new statutes. These await the next regular session in January 2027.

The Political Calculation

Abbott's approach shows political sophistication. He addresses youth access concerns through age verification while leaving industry structure intact. The ten-day review timeline virtually guarantees DSHS will identify areas lacking authority, building the case for legislative action while showing Abbott has exhausted executive options.

The governor bought the hemp industry time while maintaining reform pressure. He prefers regulation to prohibition, coordination to chaos.

Industry Impact

Businesses must prepare age verification systems and staff training. Enhanced enforcement coordination suggests increased retail scrutiny. Robust compliance programs become more valuable.

Long-term implications depend on agency reviews and whether studies influence future legislation. Industry engagement in comment periods proves critical—both for workable regulations and demonstrating cooperation with state oversight.

Abbott has shown his preference: regulation over prohibition. The hemp industry should respond accordingly, engaging constructively in the regulatory process while preparing for eventual legislative action. The governor has provided a framework for measured reform. How the industry and Legislature respond will determine whether future regulation serves prohibition or pragmatic oversight.