H.R. 1438 (119th)Bill Overview

Protecting America’s Agricultural Land from Foreign Harm Act of 2025

Agriculture and Food|Agriculture and Food
Cosponsors
Support
Lean Republican
Introduced
Feb 18, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

The bill bars certain foreign-adversary-associated persons from purchasing or leasing U.S. agricultural land and from participating in most USDA programs if they own or lease such land.

It expands Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) reporting to include security interests and leases, requires public, machine-readable disclosure of reports, mandates USDA, DNI, and GAO reports on foreign holdings and risks, and authorizes use of IEEPA authorities and penalties to enforce the prohibitions.

Passage35/100

Content aligns with security concerns but is broad and interventionist; Senate and legal hurdles lower overall probability.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention48/100

Use of IEEPA and scope of executive authority

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Targeted stakeholdersTargeted stakeholders
Likely helped
  • Targeted stakeholdersLimits potential national security risks from land control by governments of the listed countries.
  • Targeted stakeholdersIncreases transparency through required public, machine-readable datasets on foreign agricultural holdings.
  • Targeted stakeholdersProvides stronger enforcement tools via IEEPA authorities, civil penalties, and liens on violating properties.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersMay reduce foreign investment and available capital for agricultural land, potentially raising land acquisition costs.
  • Targeted stakeholdersPublic disclosure of purchase prices and owner identities could raise privacy, safety, and competitive concerns.
  • Targeted stakeholdersImplementation and enforcement will increase administrative burden and resource needs for USDA and other agencies.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Use of IEEPA and scope of executive authority
Progressive75%

Likely generally supportive of restricting state-associated adversaries from controlling U.S. farmland and of stronger transparency.

Would press for civil liberties safeguards, narrow targeting of state-linked entities, and clear limits on executive power.

Leans supportive
Centrist65%

Pragmatically favors measures that protect national security and agricultural integrity but worries about execution, costs, and overbroad emergency authorities.

Would seek clearer definitions, congressional oversight of IEEPA use, and funding for implementation.

Split reaction
Conservative85%

Generally strongly supportive as a national-security measure to keep adversarial states from acquiring U.S. farmland.

May accept limits on some program participation but will watch for excessive bureaucratic cost and ensure measures strongly enforced.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood35/100

Content aligns with security concerns but is broad and interventionist; Senate and legal hurdles lower overall probability.

Scope and complexity
86%
Scopesweeping
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Potential constitutional or takings litigation risk
  • Administrative cost and appropriations needs not specified
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Use of IEEPA and scope of executive authority

Content aligns with security concerns but is broad and interventionist; Senate and legal hurdles lower overall probability.

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Protecting America’s Agricultural Land from Foreign Harm Act o…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis