S-618-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Sponsored by Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)
What it does
This bill would prohibit persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the direction of the governments of China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea from purchasing or leasing U.S. agricultural land — both public federal land and private land. It would also bar those same persons from participating in most U.S. Department of Agriculture programs if they hold or lease agricultural land in the U.S. The bill would strengthen disclosure requirements under the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 by expanding the definition of a reportable "interest" to include leases and security interests, raising civil penalties for violations, and requiring the USDA to publish publicly accessible, machine-readable datasets of all foreign agricultural land holdings.
Who benefits
U.S. farmers and ranchers who compete with foreign-linked entities for agricultural land. Rural communities concerned about foreign control of nearby farmland. Domestic food producers and agribusinesses that may gain competitive advantage. National security and intelligence agencies that would receive new biennial intelligence reports on foreign agricultural land ownership. Researchers, journalists, and the public who would gain access to improved transparency datasets. States that have passed their own foreign farmland restrictions and would see federal law align with their efforts.
Who is hurt
Foreign nationals and entities connected to China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea who currently own or lease U.S. agricultural land and would be barred from future acquisitions (though existing holdings are not required to be divested). U.S. landowners who wish to sell or lease to covered persons and would lose that pool of potential buyers or tenants. Agricultural commodity markets that may see reduced foreign capital investment. U.S. subsidiaries or joint ventures with partial foreign adversary ownership that could be classified as "covered persons." Legal permanent residents with ties to covered countries who may face additional documentation burdens to participate in USDA programs. USDA, which would bear new administrative and reporting costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that foreign adversary governments — particularly China — have dramatically increased agricultural land holdings near U.S. military installations, raising documented national security concerns; a 2023 USDA report found Chinese-linked entities held interests in over 380,000 acres of U.S. farmland. They contend that control of agricultural land by adversary-linked entities poses dual threats: potential surveillance of military facilities and long-term leverage over U.S. food supply chains. Supporters further argue the bill closes a gap in existing law by covering leases and security interests, which prior disclosure rules largely excluded, and that the transparency provisions give federal and state authorities the data needed to enforce restrictions already enacted by more than two dozen states.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's definition of "covered person" — drawn from existing IEEPA regulations — is broad enough to sweep in U.S.-based companies with minority foreign adversary shareholders, potentially chilling legitimate agricultural investment and raising Due Process concerns about vague coverage standards. They contend that existing review mechanisms, including CFIUS and the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act, already provide tools to address genuine security threats without a categorical ban, and that a blanket prohibition may violate equal protection principles by targeting persons based on national origin rather than demonstrated conduct. Opponents also note the bill does not require divestiture of existing holdings, leaving the most significant current security concerns unaddressed while imposing compliance costs on future transactions.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to restrict foreign ownership of land and to regulate foreign investment flows through interstate commerce rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) and the President's IEEPA powers, which the bill explicitly invokes. Because the bill delegates broad implementation authority to the President via IEEPA's Sections 203 and 205, post-Loper Bright courts would independently assess whether that delegation and any resulting agency rules stay within the statutory text, rather than deferring to executive interpretations; the major questions doctrine under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) could also be raised if implementing regulations extend to economically significant categories of transactions not clearly covered by the bill's text.
Checks and balances
The executive branch — specifically the President and USDA — gains significant new authority to define and enforce covered-person prohibitions and program exclusions, with Congress retaining oversight through mandatory biennial reports from USDA, the Director of National Intelligence, and the GAO.
Historical precedent
The Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 established the first federal framework for tracking foreign agricultural land ownership, and multiple states (including Texas, Florida, and Arkansas) have enacted their own foreign adversary farmland bans since 2021, though no prior federal statute has imposed a categorical purchase-and-lease prohibition of this scope.