Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
The bill bars persons associated with certain foreign governments (Iran, North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, and Russia) from purchasing or leasing U.S. agricultural land (public and private) and from participating in most USDA programs if they own or lease such land. It directs the President to use authorities including IEEPA to implement prohibitions, creates reporting and transparency requirements for foreign agricultural interests (including leases and security interests), expands data publication about foreign holdings, adds enforcement tools (liens and civil penalties), and requires periodic reports from the Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of National Intelligence, and the GAO.
Progressives stress privacy, due process, and community impacts.
National-security framing could attract bipartisan support, but business, property-rights, and civil‑liberties concerns reduce consensus.
The bill bars persons associated with certain foreign governments (Iran, North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, and Russia) from purchasing or leasing U.S. agricultural land (public and private) and from participating in most USDA programs if they own or lease such land.
It directs the President to use authorities including IEEPA to implement prohibitions, creates reporting and transparency requirements for foreign agricultural interests (including leases and security interests), expands data publication about foreign holdings, adds enforcement tools (liens and civil penalties), and requires periodic reports from the Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of National Intelligence, and the GAO.
Targeted national‑security appeal helps, but substantial federalism, legal, economic, and procedural hurdles lower overall odds.
How solid the drafting looks.
Progressives stress privacy, due process, and community impacts.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress privacy, due process, and community impacts.
Generally supportive of restricting hostile foreign-state influence in U.S. agriculture, while cautious about civil liberties and equity impacts.
Will welcome transparency and national-security reporting, but want strong privacy protections, due process, and attention to impacts on farmworkers and local communities.
Cautiously supportive of targeted national-security limits on adversary-affiliated landholders, but concerned about implementation costs and economic side effects.
Will focus on clarity, measurable benefits, and avoiding unintended market disruption.
Strongly supportive as a national-security and sovereignty measure restricting adversary influence over U.S. farmland.
Views expanded reporting and IEEPA-backed prohibitions as appropriate tools to prevent potential strategic vulnerabilities.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Targeted national‑security appeal helps, but substantial federalism, legal, economic, and procedural hurdles lower overall odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress privacy, due process, and community impacts.
Targeted national‑security appeal helps, but substantial federalism, legal, economic, and procedural hurdles lower overall odds.
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.