Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
The SOIL Act of 2025 expands national security review and reporting of foreign involvement in U.S. agricultural land and nearby real estate. It amends the Defense Production Act’s CFIUS authorities to cover certain acquisitions, transfers, and long leases by nationals of nonmarket-economy countries or countries identified in the DNI Annual Threat Assessment, and adds review for real estate within 50 miles of military installations.
Progressives worry about civil-rights implications and targeting.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory package that clearly targets existing authorities (CFIUS and AFIDA) and specifies concrete new triggers and reporting requirements.
The SOIL Act of 2025 expands national security review and reporting of foreign involvement in U.S. agricultural land and nearby real estate.
It amends the Defense Production Act’s CFIUS authorities to cover certain acquisitions, transfers, and long leases by nationals of nonmarket-economy countries or countries identified in the DNI Annual Threat Assessment, and adds review for real estate within 50 miles of military installations.
The bill prohibits Federal assistance (including subsidies) to agricultural real estate holdings owned by such foreign persons.
Moderate, security-focused changes have mixed prospects: administratively plausible and narrower than sweeping reforms, but restrictions on assistance and expanded review create opposition and procedural barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory package that clearly targets existing authorities (CFIUS and AFIDA) and specifies concrete new triggers and reporting requirements. Its statutory integration is strong and many mechanisms are explicit, but the bill provides limited guidance on resourcing, enforcement mechanics, and handling of edge cases; also the text contains at least one incomplete clause that reduces execution clarity.
Progressives worry about civil-rights implications and targeting.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives worry about civil-rights implications and targeting.
Generally supportive of increased oversight and transparency to protect national security and farmland, but cautious about civil rights and unintended harms.
Concerned about potential targeting of nationals, racial profiling, and effects on agricultural workers and smallholders.
Wants strong due-process, privacy protections, and narrowly tailored restrictions.
Supportive of targeted national-security updates and improved reporting, while wanting precise definitions and limited, evidence-based scope.
Sees value in protecting bases and farm infrastructure but worries about costs and unintended market impacts.
Would seek implementation details and periodic review.
Strongly favorable because it strengthens national-security protections and limits adversarial state influence on U.S. land.
Appreciates prohibition of federal assistance to holdings tied to nonmarket or DNI-flagged countries.
Some caution about preserving property rights and avoiding overbroad economic disruption.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Moderate, security-focused changes have mixed prospects: administratively plausible and narrower than sweeping reforms, but restrictions on assistance and expanded review create opposition and procedural barriers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives worry about civil-rights implications and targeting.
Moderate, security-focused changes have mixed prospects: administratively plausible and narrower than sweeping reforms, but restrictions on…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory package that clearly targets existing authorities (CFIUS and AFIDA) and specifies concrete new triggers and reporting requirements. Its sta…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.