Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
This bill amends Section 721 of the Defense Production Act to bring U.S. agriculture explicitly within the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) remit. It adds the Secretary of Agriculture as an agriculture representative to CFIUS, expands covered transactions to include those that could give foreign control of U.S. agricultural businesses, and designates agricultural systems and supply chains as critical infrastructure and critical technologies.
Progressives emphasize transparency and small‑farmer protections
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly integrates agriculture into the CFIUS/Defense Production Act framework and establishes reporting requirements.
This bill amends Section 721 of the Defense Production Act to bring U.S. agriculture explicitly within the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) remit.
It adds the Secretary of Agriculture as an agriculture representative to CFIUS, expands covered transactions to include those that could give foreign control of U.S. agricultural businesses, and designates agricultural systems and supply chains as critical infrastructure and critical technologies.
The bill also requires annual analyses and reports by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Comptroller General on foreign investment, influence, threats, and agriculture-related espionage.
Targeted, security-focused changes increase bipartisan potential, but regulatory impact and likely stakeholder opposition lower probability without concessions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly integrates agriculture into the CFIUS/Defense Production Act framework and establishes reporting requirements. It specifies statutory changes and responsible actors, but leaves important operational and resourcing details to subsequent regulation or omission.
Progressives emphasize transparency and small‑farmer protections
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize transparency and small‑farmer protections
Generally supportive of stronger safeguards for food security and protecting agricultural workers and communities from foreign adversary control.
Cautious about expanding national security authorities without transparency and safeguards for civil liberties, small farms, and trade partners.
Sees the reporting requirement as useful but wants clear, equitable implementation.
Supportive of measures that close national security gaps while seeking clear implementation and cost controls.
Views the bill as a reasonable update to include agricultural supply chains in CFIUS scope, but wants specific definitions, regulatory clarity, and assessment of economic effects.
Generally favorable because it strengthens protection of U.S. food security and prevents adversarial foreign control, especially from strategic rivals.
Concerned about expanding federal bureaucracy and possible unintended limits on economically beneficial investment; prefers narrow targeting of true adversaries.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Targeted, security-focused changes increase bipartisan potential, but regulatory impact and likely stakeholder opposition lower probability without concessions.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize transparency and small‑farmer protections
Targeted, security-focused changes increase bipartisan potential, but regulatory impact and likely stakeholder opposition lower probability…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly integrates agriculture into the CFIUS/Defense Production Act framework and establishes reporting requirements. It sp…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.