H.R. 1576 (119th)Bill Overview

Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2025

Foreign Trade and International Finance|AsiaChina
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Feb 25, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the S…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill amends section 721 of the Defense Production Act to add the Secretary of Agriculture as a Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) member for transactions involving agricultural land, biotechnology, transportation, storage, or processing. It requires CFIUS to consider certain ‘‘reportable agricultural land transactions’’ notified by the Secretary that involve acquisitions by persons from China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran, and allows CFIUS to determine whether to review or take other action.

Why people may split

Security emphasis versus civil-liberties and nondiscrimination concerns

Watch point

Narrow national-security amendment with low fiscal cost may attract bipartisan support, though investment-rights advocates could oppose.

This bill amends section 721 of the Defense Production Act to add the Secretary of Agriculture as a Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) member for transactions involving agricultural land, biotechnology, transportation, storage, or processing.

It requires CFIUS to consider certain ‘‘reportable agricultural land transactions’’ notified by the Secretary that involve acquisitions by persons from China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran, and allows CFIUS to determine whether to review or take other action.

The reporting and review requirement for those named countries sunsets if removed from the list of foreign adversaries in 15 C.F.R. §791.4.

Passage45/100

Focused, security-framed tweak with modest cost improves prospects, but regulatory concerns, industry pushback, and Senate obstacles lower probability.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention50/100

Security emphasis versus civil-liberties and nondiscrimination concerns

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesStates

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitIncorporates USDA expertise into CFIUS agricultural national security reviews.
  • Federal agenciesStrengthens federal oversight of foreign acquisitions in critical agricultural supply chains.
  • Potential benefitMay reduce foreign control of U.S. agricultural land owned by listed adversaries.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenMay reduce foreign investment in agricultural land, potentially limiting farm capital availability.
  • Potential burdenCreates additional administrative and reporting burdens for USDA and CFIUS staff.
  • StatesCould delay or complicate real estate transactions, affecting market liquidity and timing.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Security emphasis versus civil-liberties and nondiscrimination concerns
Progressive65%

Generally supportive of added agricultural oversight to protect domestic food systems and workers, but cautious about civil liberties and discriminatory effects.

Sees value in including the Secretary of Agriculture for subject-matter expertise while seeking safeguards against unfair targeting of immigrants or U.S. residents with foreign ties.

Split reaction
Centrist75%

Likely to view the bill as a prudent, targeted national-security adjustment that brings subject-matter expertise into CFIUS.

Supports the measure if administrative burden and legal clarity are managed, and if costs and unintended property impacts are minimized.

Leans supportive
Conservative95%

Strongly favorable as a national-security measure protecting critical farmland and ag supply chains from hostile foreign governments.

Views adding the Secretary of Agriculture as commonsense, and applauds explicit focus on China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

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 likelihood45/100

Focused, security-framed tweak with modest cost improves prospects, but regulatory concerns, industry pushback, and Senate obstacles lower probability.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No Congressional Budget Office cost estimate included
  • Possible legal challenges over property or takings claims
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

Security emphasis versus civil-liberties and nondiscrimination concerns

Focused, security-framed tweak with modest cost improves prospects, but regulatory concerns, industry pushback, and Senate obstacles lower…

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 American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries 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