The Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2025 is a proposed law aimed at safeguarding U.S. farmland and agribusiness from foreign control, especially by countries considered national security threats. By enhancing oversight on foreign investments in agriculture, the bill seeks to protect America's food supply and rural economies.
What This Bill Does
The Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2025 proposes changes to the Defense Production Act of 1950. It specifically focuses on how foreign investments in U.S. agriculture are reviewed and regulated. One of the main changes is adding the Secretary of Agriculture as a permanent member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This means the Secretary will have a say in decisions about foreign investments in agricultural land and businesses.
The bill also expands the jurisdiction of CFIUS to require mandatory reviews of foreign investments from countries considered national security threats. This includes any transactions involving farmland, agribusinesses, or related infrastructure. The goal is to prevent foreign adversaries from gaining control over critical parts of the U.S. food supply chain.
Additionally, the bill mandates that CFIUS prioritize and report annually on foreign investments in agriculture. If any risks are identified, measures like requiring divestitures could be implemented to mitigate those risks. These changes aim to align agriculture with other critical sectors like energy and technology, which already have similar protections in place.
Why It Matters
This bill could have significant impacts on everyday Americans by ensuring that the country's food supply remains secure and under domestic control. By preventing foreign adversaries from owning large portions of U.S. farmland, the bill aims to keep food prices stable and protect local economies.
Farmers and ranchers, particularly in the Midwest and Plains states, could see changes in how quickly they can sell land to foreign buyers. The bill could also affect rural communities by stabilizing land prices and preventing job losses that might occur if foreign entities took control of local agribusinesses. For consumers, the bill aims to ensure that food remains affordable and that the supply chain is not disrupted by foreign interests.
Key Facts
- Cost/budget impact: The bill does not include direct appropriations, but it could require $2-5 million annually for additional CFIUS staffing.
- Timeline for implementation: The bill would take effect immediately upon passage, with full implementation expected within 90 days.
- Number of people affected: The bill could impact 2 million farmers and ranchers, particularly in the Midwest and Plains states.
- Key dates: Introduced on February 27, 2025, and currently in the committee phase.
- No new resources: The bill does not provide additional funding for CFIUS, potentially straining existing resources.
- Real-world examples: Similar measures have been implemented at the state level and in other countries, such as Canada.
- Historical context: The bill follows a history of legislative efforts to protect U.S. industries from foreign control, particularly in times of heightened national security concerns.
Arguments in Support
- Protects food supply chain sovereignty: Supporters argue that the bill prevents foreign adversaries from controlling U.S. farmland, which is crucial for maintaining a stable food supply.
- Enhances national security reviews: By making the Secretary of Agriculture a permanent member of CFIUS, the bill closes gaps in the review process for foreign agricultural investments.
- Boosts rural economies: The bill aims to block predatory foreign purchases that drive up land prices, making it easier for American farmers to afford land.
- Aligns with bipartisan consensus: The bill mirrors successful expansions of CFIUS in other sectors and has broad bipartisan support.
- Prevents espionage and tech theft: By targeting foreign investments in agricultural technology, the bill seeks to protect against potential espionage.
Arguments in Opposition
- Harms legitimate foreign investment: Critics argue that the bill could deter beneficial foreign investments, raising capital costs for U.S. farmers.
- Increases bureaucracy and delays: Mandatory reviews could slow down transactions, creating uncertainty for farmers looking to sell land.
- Hurts U.S. exporters: There is a risk of retaliation from countries affected by the bill, which could harm U.S. agricultural exports.
- Redundant with state laws: Many states already have laws restricting foreign ownership of farmland, making the federal bill potentially unnecessary.
- Potential discrimination: Labeling certain countries as "countries of concern" could lead to international disputes and claims of bias.