The FARMLAND Act of 2025 amends the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) to beef up monitoring and enforcement of foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land. It raises enforcement tools (civil‑penalty availability and public disclosure of violators), requires transaction due diligence and certification by intermediaries, creates a public, audited database of foreign‑owned agricultural land, and establishes a senior Department of Agriculture official and staff to investigate national security risks.
The bill also expands the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review authority to cover certain real‑estate purchases by “foreign entities of concern,” adds USDA and FDA to CFIUS, and mandates reporting on purchases by covered countries.
For stakeholders—real‑estate actors, Farm Service Agency (FSA) participants, investors, state registrars, and federal agencies—the bill substitutes administrative surveillance and new compliance obligations for the prior disclosure regime. That changes who collects, certifies, and audits ownership information, shifts several enforcement costs onto intermediaries and investors, and creates potential legal and operational friction points (including a study of retroactive divestment).
The law would concentrate more decisionmaking and investigative capacity inside USDA and CFIUS while increasing transparency about noncompliance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends AFIDA to (1) expand enforcement (civil penalties made available for enforcement and public naming of violators), (2) require due diligence certifications by buyers/agents/title companies, (3) direct USDA to build a public database of foreign‑owned agricultural land and audit it, and (4) add agricultural real‑estate transactions by ‘‘foreign entities of concern’’ to CFIUS review thresholds.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include foreign persons and investors with U.S. agricultural holdings; real‑estate brokers, agents, title companies and auctioneers who must perform due diligence and certify compliance; Farm Service Agency program applicants; and federal agencies (USDA, DHS, Treasury, DOJ, FBI, FDA) that will have roles in review, investigation, or enforcement.
Why It Matters
The measure reframes agricultural land ownership as a national‑security issue by tying disclosure, enforcement, and interagency review directly to food security, biosecurity, and espionage concerns. Professionals in compliance, agricultural lending, land transactions, and national‑security policy need to plan for new reporting requirements, potential CFIUS filings, and expanded audit and enforcement activity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The FARMLAND Act recasts AFIDA from a disclosure statute into an active monitoring and enforcement regime. It modifies AFIDA’s civil‑penalty provisions so penalties are treated as available funds for enforcement, requires the Secretary of Agriculture to publish the names of penalty payers, and directs a national outreach program targeted at landlords, county appraisers, appraisal firms, and auction houses to improve reporting compliance.
Separately, the bill inserts an explicit due‑diligence requirement that makes any party involved in a land purchase or transfer—buyers, sellers, brokers, agents, title companies—responsible for conducting due diligence on agricultural parcels and certifying compliance with AFIDA to USDA.
To hunt down national‑security risks the bill creates a Senior Executive Service position in USDA—Chief of Operations for Investigative Actions—with staff authority to investigate “malign efforts,” coordinate with DOJ/FBI/DHS/Treasury and state partners, conduct annual audits of the database, and refer troubling transactions to CFIUS. The statute imports the statutory ‘‘foreign entity of concern’’ definition used in the NDAA and adds the term ‘‘malign effort’’ to frame investigations toward espionage, intellectual‑property theft, and disruption of critical infrastructure.The legislation expands CFIUS’s remit under the Defense Production Act to include purchases, leases, or concessions of private or public U.S. real estate by foreign entities of concern when the deal exceeds $5 million (or aggregates to $5 million within three years) or the acreage exceeds 320 acres (or aggregates to that acreage within three years), and the land is primarily used for agriculture, fuel/energy, or extraction of critical materials.
It also adds USDA and FDA as regular participants in CFIUS deliberations and instructs CFIUS to weigh food‑security, biosecurity, and environmental protection risks in its factor analysis.On transparency and tracking, the bill directs USDA and DHS to build a public database of foreign‑owned agricultural land using AFIDA submissions and FSA–153 forms and to make it publicly available within three years, subject to appropriations. The Chief of Operations must audit that database annually and report accuracy and compliance recommendations to Congress.
Lastly, the Act prohibits a foreign person who owns or operates land from participating in FSA programs, authorizes civil penalties (recoverable in federal court) of up to 125 percent of improper program benefits, and appropriates $35 million for secure workspace and database development and $9 million annually for other activities for FY2026–2030.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires intermediaries (buyers, sellers, brokers, agents, title companies, and title firms) involved in agricultural land transactions to conduct due diligence and certify compliance with AFIDA to USDA.
USDA must build a public, searchable database of foreign‑owned agricultural land using AFIDA filings and FSA–153s and make it available within three years (subject to appropriations), with annual audits by USDA’s new investigative office.
CFIUS review is extended to cover purchases, leases, or concessions by 'foreign entities of concern' that exceed $5,000,000 (or aggregate to that in 3 years) or exceed 320 acres (or aggregate to that in 3 years) where the land is used for agriculture, energy, fuel, or extraction of critical materials.
USDA must create a Chief of Operations for Investigative Actions (SES) to lead investigations of 'malign efforts,' coordinate with DOJ/FBI/DHS/Treasury, refer risky transactions to CFIUS, and publish annual summaries of AFIDA reports.
Foreign persons who own or operate agricultural land are barred from participating in Farm Service Agency programs; civil penalties for violations can reach up to 125% of the monetary benefits improperly received and are recoverable in federal court.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Tightened penalties, public naming, outreach, and due‑diligence duty
This part retools AFIDA’s enforcement mechanics: civil penalties for failure to report or for knowingly false reports become funds USDA can spend to enforce AFIDA, the Secretary must publish the names of penalty payers, and USDA must conduct a nationwide outreach program targeted at the practical actors who touch farmland reporting (landlords, county appraisers, appraisers, auction firms). Importantly, the bill inserts a new statutory duty requiring any entity that participates in a land purchase or transfer to perform due diligence on the parcel and certify to USDA that, to the entity’s knowledge, the transaction complies with AFIDA—shifting legal risk and frontline compliance onto brokers, title companies, and other intermediaries.
Annual congressional reports on land held by covered foreign countries
Section 3 compels USDA (with DHS and other agencies) to produce an annual unclassified report to specific congressional committees describing acres owned or managed by covered foreign persons (China, Russia, state sponsors of terrorism, and other countries named by DHS or USDA) by State; percentage ownership by State; analyses of food security, biosecurity, environmental and espionage risks; and farm‑program costs tied to foreign ownership. The statute allows a classified annex where necessary and makes this an explicit recurring national‑security assessment rather than a one‑off inventory.
New Chief of Operations and investigative apparatus inside USDA
USDA must appoint a Senior Executive Service Chief of Operations for Investigative Actions, authorize staff, provide classified workspace and clearance support, and empower that office to monitor compliance, coordinate investigations with DOJ/FBI/DHS/Treasury and state/local law enforcement, audit the foreign‑ownership database annually, and refer concerning transactions to CFIUS. The section also codifies 'foreign entity of concern' and defines 'malign effort,' orienting investigations toward espionage and intentional disruption of U.S. agriculture.
Real‑estate transactions by foreign entities of concern added to CFIUS review
Amendments to the Defense Production Act add certain real‑estate transactions to CFIUS’s reviewable universe: purchases, leases, or concessions by a foreign entity of concern that exceed $5 million (or aggregate to $5 million over three years) or exceed 320 acres (or aggregate to that acreage over three years) when used primarily for agriculture, energy, fossil fuels, or critical materials. The bill adds USDA and FDA as parties to CFIUS deliberations and requires CFIUS to consider follow‑on national‑security effects to food security and biosecurity. The legislation also asks Treasury to study retroactive divestment feasibility and requires CFIUS/Executive Branch annual reporting to include a list of U.S. real estate held by foreign entities of concern.
Public, consolidated FSA–153/AFIDA database with mandated audit
USDA and DHS must jointly develop a publicly available database of foreign‑owned agricultural land using existing AFIDA filings and FSA–153 forms within three years (subject to appropriations). Each database entry must reflect applicable FSA–153 data fields. The Chief of Operations must audit the database within 180 days of public launch and annually thereafter, report on accuracy, and recommend compliance improvements—creating a recurring feedback loop linking registration data, field audits, and congressional reporting.
Prohibition on FSA program participation for foreign persons and appropriation lines
The bill bars any owner or operator who is a foreign person from being a participant in Farm Service Agency programs. USDA gains authority to monitor compliance, require ownership certification on applications, and pursue civil penalties recoverable in federal court up to 125 percent of the monetary benefits improperly obtained; collected penalties are available for enforcement. Finally, the Act authorizes $35 million (FY2026) for secure workspace build‑out and database development and $9 million annually (FY2026–2030) for ongoing activities.
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
- U.S. national‑security agencies and intelligence community—gain statutory channels, staffing, classified workspace, and data to investigate agricultural espionage and coordinate cross‑agency reviews.
- Domestic producers, seed developers, and processors—benefit from greater visibility into foreign ownership patterns and additional mechanisms intended to deter intellectual‑property theft and contamination risks.
- State and local governments, county appraisers, and the public—gain access to a consolidated public database that improves transparency for land ownership and supports local planning and risk assessment.
Who Bears the Cost
- Foreign investors and entities of concern—face increased compliance burdens, public disclosure risk, higher enforcement exposure, and potential CFIUS scrutiny that can delay or block transactions.
- Real‑estate intermediaries (brokers, agents, title companies, auction firms)—must implement due‑diligence procedures, carry certification risk, and may face liability or reputational harm if associated transactions are later found noncompliant.
- USDA/Farm Service Agency and partner Federal agencies—must stand up a new investigative office, audit and operate a public database, and absorb operational costs even with targeted appropriations, creating administrative and coordination burdens.
- Existing foreign‑owned family farms and small operators—could lose access to FSA programs if classified as foreign persons, even where operations are local and longstanding, producing redistributional effects in program eligibility.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting food security and preventing malign foreign influence—and preserving an open, efficient agricultural land market with predictable property rights. Strengthening surveillance, public naming, and CFIUS review lowers espionage and biosecurity risks but increases transaction friction, compliance costs, and legal exposure for private parties; it also concentrates discretionary power in federal agencies, creating trade‑offs between security gains and impacts on investment, rural liquidity, and property rights.
The bill tightens enforcement and transparency but fronts several implementation challenges. The database requirement assumes consistent, high‑quality underlying data (AFIDA and FSA–153), yet registration completeness and county‑level recordkeeping vary widely; the mandated audit can identify gaps but not instantly fix decentralized land records.
Due‑diligence obligations shift substantial legal risk to private intermediaries who lack uniform federal guidance on scope, evidence standards, or liability protections—raising the likelihood of conservative over‑compliance (deal delays or refusals) or, conversely, inconsistent application across firms.
Expanding CFIUS to certain agricultural real‑estate deals and adding USDA/FDA to the Committee calibrates national‑security oversight to food and biosecurity risks but risks chilling legitimate foreign capital flows, especially where ownership is complex, layered, or held through U.S. entities. The bill’s study of retroactive divestment raises serious constitutional and takings issues; while intended as a deterrent, retroactive remedies could provoke litigation, diplomatic pushback, and lengthy legal uncertainty.
Finally, the FSA participation ban is administrable on paper but will require careful identity‑and‑ownership verification processes that may be gamed by proxies or obscure ownership structures, imposing enforcement costs disproportionate to the program savings in some cases.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.