HB1438 would bar the purchase or lease of United States agricultural land by persons connected to certain foreign governments, defining a narrow set of “covered persons.” It extends the prohibition to both publicly owned land and privately held farmland, and it empowers the President to use emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement the ban. The measure also expands reporting, transparency, and program participation rules to ensure monitoring and enforcement, and it strengthens penalties for violations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The President must prohibit covered persons from purchasing or leasing public agricultural land owned by the United States or private agricultural land in the United States. Enforcement can draw on IEPA authorities (Sections 203 and 205) to carry out the prohibition, with penalties aligned to the IEPA framework.
Who It Affects
Covered persons—defined to include entities and individuals connected to Iran, North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, or the Russian Federation—are directly affected, as are U.S. landowners, agricultural lenders, and federal/state agencies administering land programs.
Why It Matters
This sets a national-security‑oriented boundary around foreign influence in land ownership, increases data transparency on ownership, and creates explicit enforcement mechanisms that tie land ownership to broader regulatory authorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill begins by establishing its short title and key terms. It then imposes a broad prohibition: no covered person may buy or lease agricultural land in the United States, whether that land is publicly owned and managed by federal agencies or privately held.
The executive branch is given authority to use tools under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement and enforce the ban, and penalties mirror those in IEPA for violations. The measure also prevents covered persons from participating in most Department of Agriculture programs that involve land ownership, with narrow carve-outs for essential safety and health programs and for Farm Service Agency administration of this act and AFIDA.
To support enforcement, the bill expands the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act’s reporting to include security interests and leases, imposes liens for penalties, and requires public data sets detailing land ownership and the foreign actors involved. Finally, it requires regular reporting from both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Director of National Intelligence on foreign ownership, malign influence, and related motives, with oversight by Congress and the GAO.
The overarching design is to deter foreign manipulation of U.S. land resources while increasing transparency and accountability in ownership data.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a narrow set of 'covered persons' tied to Iran, North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, or the Russian Federation.
It prohibits purchasing or leasing both public and private U.S. agricultural land by covered persons.
Enforcement relies on authorities in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
It expands AFIDA reporting to include security interests and leases and imposes liens for penalties.
Public data sets must be created and updated to show ownership details and foreign holdings by land area and ownership type.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the Act’s formal citation as the Protecting America’s Agricultural Land from Foreign Harm Act of 2025, signaling the scope and purpose that guide the rest of the bill.
Definitions
Key terms are defined: 'agricultural land' mirrors AFIDA and includes ranching land; 'covered person' ties to foreign adversaries (Iran, North Korea, PRC, Russia) with an exclusion for U.S. citizens and permanent residents; 'Secretary' refers to the Secretary of Agriculture. These definitions establish the scope of the prohibitions and who is subject to them.
Prohibition on Purchase or Lease of Agricultural Land
Notwithstanding other laws, the President must prohibit covered persons from buying or leasing public U.S. agricultural land or private agricultural land. Enforcement can use IEPA authorities, aligning the remedy with national-security tools. Penalties track the IEPA framework, ensuring consequences for violations.
Prohibition on Participation in USDA Programs
Except as otherwise provided, the President shall bar covered persons who own or lease U.S. agricultural land from participation in USDA programs. There are carve-outs for programs related to food inspection, safety, and certain health and safety requirements, as well as for administration under AFIDA via the Farm Service Agency.
Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act Reforms
AFIDA is amended to treat security interests and leases as ‘interests’ in land, broadening reporting. Civil penalties are adjusted (15–30% range) and liens are imposed for nonpayment. Public data sets will be published and updated to show purchase prices, values, and foreign ownership by category.
Reports
The Secretary of Agriculture must deliver a biennial (every two years) report on foreign ownership in rural areas, misrepresentation risks, and the monitoring of reporting accuracy, including state and local roles. The DNI must provide an unclassified (with possible classified annex) analysis of foreign malign influence and motives by covered persons, with detailed congressional recipients. The GAO will assess resources and recommend changes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Family farmers and ranchers seeking stability in land tenure and ownership structures.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture and state/local agencies administering land programs and data collection.
- Congress and national security agencies that gain clearer insight into land ownership and foreign influence.
Who Bears the Cost
- Covered persons that own or lease land may face prohibitions, penalties, and potential divestment.
- Agricultural lenders and landowners with exposures to cross-border ownership may experience shifts in financing and market liquidity.
- USDA, state and local agencies will incur administrative costs to implement, monitor, and enforce the new provisions, including data curation and compliance checks.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing national-security protections against property rights, investment flows, and potential chilling effects on legitimate foreign investment, while ensuring accurate reporting and practical enforcement across federal, state, and local levels.
The bill creates a robust framework to restrict foreign involvement in U.S. farmland, but it raises potential implementation challenges. Definitional scope—especially the definition of a 'covered person' and the list of foreign adversaries—could affect a broad set of actors and complicate enforcement across jurisdictions.
Expanding AFIDA to include security interests and leases intensifies reporting requirements and raises questions about data privacy and the handling of personally identifiable information. The reliance on IEPA authorities for land-use restrictions invites scrutiny of due process and the balance between national security imperatives and property rights.
The transparency provisions, while valuable for oversight, may reveal sensitive ownership structures and commercial arrangements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.