As cannabis becomes a booming global industry, America is stuck on the sidelines. While countries like Canada, Portugal and Colombia ship products around the world, U.S. federal laws block companies from exporting — and that delay could be costing up to $10 billion a year in lost trade, jobs and influence.
When I first asked whether the U.S. was missing out on the global cannabis boom, the response was overwhelming. Investors, CEOs, policymakers—they all know it’s happening. This follow-up zeroes in on one missed opportunity too big to ignore: exports.
According to an analysis from Matt Karnes at GreenWave Advisors, the U.S. could be missing out on up to $10 billion a year simply by sitting on the sidelines of global cannabis trade.
Ten. Billion. Dollars.
That’s not just market share: that’s jobs, tax revenue and influence, slipping away while other countries like Canada, Portugal and Colombia race ahead.
And here’s the kicker: cannabis isn’t a niche market anymore. It’s shaping up to be one of the world’s fastest-growing regulated industries—much like alcohol, tobacco and pharma before it.
The U.S. once led all three globally. Why should cannabis be any different?
The $10 Billion Blindspot
When Karnes crunched the numbers, he wasn’t guessing. He started by looking at how much America already exports in other sectors: wine, beer, tobacco, pharmaceuticals.
- In pharma, about 18% of U.S. production is exported.
- In alcohol and tobacco, the figure hovers around 1%.
For cannabis, he took the middle ground. Assuming the U.S. market reaches $100 billion at maturity—a widely cited projection—Karnes estimates that even modest export participation could represent at least $10 billion a year.
Yet today, that figure is closer to zero.
Why? The same century-old federal prohibition everyone else has already outgrown. Without national legalization—or at minimum, export-friendly regulations—American cannabis can’t legally leave the country.
And while Washington rewrites the rules in reverse, the world moves on.
In late 2025, Washington didn’t just fail to fix the problem – it doubled down on it. As part of the deal to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, Congress rewrote the federal hemp definition so that most hemp-derived products will be treated as Schedule I again starting in November 2026. Instead of turning hemp into a bridge toward export-ready cannabinoid production, the U.S. is pulling one of its only quasi-national markets back into prohibition just as the rest of the world normalizes it.
The Race For Global Cannabis Leadership
Countries like Canada, Portugal and Colombia aren’t waiting. They’re building cannabis supply chains that look a lot like the early days of global wine, tobacco and pharma trade.
Canada exported roughly CA$218 million (~$189 million at the time) worth of medical cannabis in the 2023–24 fiscal year, a 36% increase from the previous year. What’s more, in the first half of 2024 alone, the country exported 67,475 kilograms of dried medical cannabis flower, nearly doubling the 34,115 kilograms exported during the same period in 2023.
Portugal shipped 32,558 kilos of medical cannabis abroad in 2024—almost tripling its volume in a single year. Colombia’s exports hit $10.7 million in 2024, according to Colombian tax authority data.
And those three are only the beginning.
Germany imports. Australia imports. Israel imports. South Africa, Lesotho, Morocco and Uganda are all scaling up cannabis exports with clear federal frameworks designed to chase global market share.
Meanwhile, American growers—many sitting on some of the world’s best cannabis genetics and production capacity—can’t even ship products across state lines, let alone to Berlin, Tel Aviv or Sydney.
According to Karnes, “The potential of a meaningful competitive advantage is at stake—the U.S. has the expertise to dominate the global cannabis industry and if federal law remains status quo, we will be unable to maximize this opportunity.”
If you think wine, coffee or tobacco are powerful cultural exports… imagine what California cannabis could have been—and still could be.
But every year the U.S. delays, the window narrows.
What America Could Win—If It Acted
The U.S. isn’t starting from scratch.
It already has the talent, the infrastructure, the brands. California alone has spent more than three decades perfecting genetics, growing techniques and consumer culture that the rest of the world admires—and, let’s be honest, wants to buy.
If federal export barriers were lifted, the impact could be immediate. Graham Farrar, president of Glass House Brands, one of California’s largest growers, put it plainly: “If you were to ask 100 people around the world if they wanted cannabis from California or anywhere else, 99 of the 100 will pick California. And for good reason.”
“If you were to ask 100 people around the world if they wanted cannabis from California or anywhere else, 99 of the 100 will pick California.”
California isn’t just a brand: it’s an agricultural force. It dominates global exports in crops like citrus, wine and almonds not because it talks about quality, but because it delivers. Cannabis could easily follow that same path.
Farrar explains: “The California market, where cannabis has been legal for nearly 30 years, is the most educated and discerning market on the planet. Everything that makes California a powerhouse in agriculture applies to cannabis.”
Beyond California, the U.S. could lead in genetics, technology, innovation and branding—fields where American companies already dominate sectors like biotech, and food and beverage.
“U.S. cannabis is the definition of American exceptionalism,” says Todd Harrison, founding partner at CB1 Capital and author of the Cannabis Confidential newsletter. “But the longer it takes for the federal bureaucracy to unwind the war on drugs, the more ground we’ll lose to proactive nations like Canada that have already forged international inroads and alliances.”
And the stakes are only rising. “The race is on,” Harrison adds. “Given an even playing field—including access to U.S. banks and stock exchanges, and a normalized tax rate—the U.S. would presumably lead the evolution of the global marketplace.”
And yet, he warns, “onerous federal regulations continue to punish the pioneers and entrepreneurs that have historically made America great.”
More Than Just Money: Influence, Standards And Soft Power
Missing out on $10 billion in potential exports is bad. But the real cost may be even bigger.
In global cannabis, first movers don’t just capture sales—they help write the rules. Countries like Canada, Portugal and Colombia aren’t just exporting flower or oil. They’re exporting GMP-certified processes, setting the bar for lab testing, documentation, traceability and pharma-grade compliance. They’re building relationships with regulators, defining what “quality” means in this industry.
The U.S., by contrast, is absent from the negotiating table.
Julian Wilches, co-founder of Clever Leaves and a key voice in Colombia’s export sector, sees it clearly: “The United States is late to the race for the global medical cannabis market.” While U.S. operators have focused on fragmented state-level systems, countries like Colombia “designed a model oriented toward exports”—built from the ground up with EU-GMP standards and international compliance at its core.
And those early efforts are paying off. In 2024, Colombian cannabis exports reached $10.7 million, according to tax authority DIAN. Clever Leaves, one of the few companies with EU-GMP–certified production in the region, exports to Germany, Australia and Brazil—markets most U.S. companies can’t touch.
“The difference,” says Wilches, “is understanding how regulators operate in other countries, what certifications are needed and how to build an international supply chain with pharma-grade consistency.”
That’s not just an operational edge; it’s a soft power advantage. If the U.S. wants a say in how cannabis is regulated, consumed and distributed around the world, it needs to show up with more than brands. It needs infrastructure, standards and legal pathways to participate.
Until then, other nations will keep shaping the future. And America will keep watching from the bleachers.
Built For Exports—Or Not
Countries like Colombia didn’t stumble into the global market—they designed for it. As Wilches explains, “From the beginning, Colombia created a regulatory framework that demands traceability, strict sanitary compliance and pharmaceutical-grade quality standards.” That export-first approach allowed Clever Leaves to become one of the few companies operating at scale under EU-GMP conditions.
Meanwhile, the U.S. model has remained inward-facing. Operators have mastered the art of navigating 50 different state regulations, but that hasn’t translated into global readiness. “To compete in global trade,” Wilches adds, “it’s not enough to be efficient locally—you need to understand how foreign regulators work, what certifications are required and how to build a pharmaceutical-grade supply chain at international scale.”
Even with recent conversations around federal reform, few in Washington are openly discussing exports. But they should be. Global trade isn’t optional anymore; it’s where the market is heading. And the longer the U.S. waits, the more space it cedes to those who moved first.
What Needs To Change
It’s not that the U.S. can’t compete globally—it’s that it’s not allowed to.
For American cannabis companies to participate in the global market, the first and most obvious hurdle is federal prohibition. As long as cannabis remains federally illegal, interstate commerce is blocked and exports are off the table.
That contradiction now extends to hemp as well. A shutdown-era rewrite of the hemp definition is set to pull most hemp-derived products back under Schedule I in 2026, closing off one of the few cannabinoid segments that had started to operate at a national scale.
Karnes breaks it down: “Removing barriers to interstate commerce enables the ability to export.” Without it, American companies are stuck playing small ball while the rest of the world opens up.
That means the U.S. needs:
- A federal framework that allows licensed exports.
- International trade agreements that include cannabis.
- Regulatory harmonization with importing nations (think EU-GMP).
And maybe most urgently: a tax and compliance system that makes global competition viable. As Karnes puts it, “The uncertainty around tariffs and excise taxes makes it difficult to estimate potential gains. But even a modest federal tax could unlock 5% of sales in revenue.”
It’s not just policy—it’s perception. As long as cannabis is treated differently from alcohol, tobacco or pharma, the U.S. will keep forfeiting ground.
As Harrison has argued, the federal status quo continues to penalize the very innovators who built the U.S. cannabis industry in the first place.
Until federal law changes for both cannabis and hemp-derived products, U.S. operators will remain locked in a local affair inside a global economy.
The Final Call: Will America Show Up?
Global cannabis is no longer a what-if—it’s a what-now. Countries around the world are setting the rules, signing the trade deals and building the infrastructure to serve billions in future demand. The U.S., despite its legacy of innovation and cultural influence, isn’t just late to the game; it hasn’t even shown up.
But it still could.
With the right policy changes—interstate commerce, export licenses, regulatory alignment—the U.S. could unlock an entirely new layer of growth. Think Napa Valley, but for cannabis. Think Silicon Valley, but for cannabinoids. The raw material, the know-how, the demand—it’s all there. What’s missing is permission.
As Karnes warned, the longer this drags on, the more opportunity we lose. And it’s not theoretical—it’s measurable. Ten billion dollars a year. That’s what federal inaction could be costing us.
Global cannabis trade is moving forward—with or without the U.S. To lead in this emerging market, America will need to shift from local debates to global action.
Because while America argues over the finish line, the rest of the world is already cashing checks.
This story was originally published on Forbes in May 2025 and has been updated and adapted for High Times to reflect new developments in U.S. hemp policy.
Photo: Shutterstock
