The ownership of American land, especially farmland, by foreign entities has become a growing concern in recent years. It’s not just about who owns the land — it’s about what’s happening to it. Farmland in the U.S. is disappearing at an alarming rate. Over the past few decades, millions of acres of farmland have been lost to development, urban sprawl, and consolidation by large corporations. According to the American Farmland Trust, we lose 2,000 acres of farmland every day, equating to nearly 11 million acres of agricultural land between 2001 and 2016 alone. At the same time, the land business in America has seen a surge in interest from foreign buyers. From 2009 to 2019, foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land more than doubled, reaching over 40 million acres by 2022, according to USDA data. These trends raise serious questions about food security, national sovereignty, and the future of family farming in America.
As someone who values the importance of American agriculture and its role in our economy and culture, I believe we need to take a hard look at these trends and rethink policies around land ownership. In this analysis, we’ll explore the growing foreign investment in U.S. farmland, what it means for our country, and how we can protect one of our most valuable resources for future generations.
The Current Landscape of Foreign Ownership
Foreign ownership of U.S. land, including agricultural, timber, and industrial land, has grown significantly over the past decade. According to the USDA’s 2022 Land Ownership Report, foreign entities owned over 40 million acres of agricultural land in the United States, representing approximately 3% of all privately held farmland. This is a sharp increase from 27 million acres in 2010, reflecting a nearly 50% rise over a decade.
Who Are the Buyers?
The buyers of U.S. land are a mix of private corporations, government-affiliated entities, and individuals, with their purposes ranging from agricultural production and resource extraction to real estate speculation and strategic investment.
Canadian Entities: Canadian investors are the largest foreign landholders, controlling approximately 12 million acres, primarily in timberland and pastureland. These purchases are often made by Canadian forestry companies such as Resolute Forest Products and Weyerhaeuser Canada, which acquire land to support timber production and related industries.
Chinese Entities: While Chinese ownership remains smaller in comparison, at approximately 383,000 acres, it has sparked significant national security debates. Some Chinese acquisitions are tied to corporations with potential government links, such as the purchase of a North Dakota farmland plot near a U.S. Air Force base by Fufeng Group, raising concerns about espionage risks. Chinese buyers have also acquired land for food production and processing facilities, catering to domestic demand in China.
Mexican Entities: Land acquisitions by Mexican buyers, often along the southern U.S. border, are primarily aimed at cattle grazing and crop production. These properties support binational agricultural trade and serve as logistical hubs for exports.
European Buyers: Investors from countries such as the Netherlands, Italy, and Germany collectively own millions of acres, primarily vineyards and specialty crop farms. Notable examples include European conglomerates investing in California’s wine industry, leveraging U.S. land to meet global demand for high-quality wines.
Middle Eastern Sovereign Funds: Sovereign wealth funds from countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have also acquired land in the U.S., often for water-intensive agricultural purposes like alfalfa production, which is exported back to their home countries to feed livestock.
Purpose of Land Ownership
Foreign land ownership in the U.S. is not limited to agricultural use. The purposes vary widely:
Agriculture and Food Production: Much of the farmland acquired by foreign buyers is used for growing crops, raising livestock, or producing specialized goods like nuts, berries, and wine.
Timber and Natural Resources: Timber companies, particularly Canadian ones, dominate ownership of forested areas for logging and related industries.
Energy and Infrastructure Development: Land acquisitions in states like Texas have also included areas with oil, gas, and renewable energy potential.
Strategic Investments: Some purchases are viewed as speculative investments or for strategic geopolitical purposes, such as proximity to critical infrastructure or military installations.
Geographic Distribution
Foreign-owned land is unevenly distributed across the U.S., with specific states standing out:
Texas: Over 4.4 million acres of foreign-owned land make Texas the leader, with investments spanning agriculture, energy production, and timber.
Maine: Foreign buyers own vast tracts of timberland in Maine, accounting for over 15% of the state’s privately held forest land.
California: European and Canadian buyers are heavily invested in California’s agricultural sector, particularly in specialty crops like wine grapes, almonds, and pistachios.
Midwest and Southern States: States such as Alabama and Arkansas have seen increases in foreign ownership, often tied to timber, poultry farming, and food processing facilities.
The rapid increase in foreign land ownership has raised concerns about food security, water rights, national security, and rural community sustainability. Critics argue that foreign-owned land near military installations or critical infrastructure poses risks, while others worry that foreign ownership inflates land prices, making it harder for American farmers to compete. As these trends continue, it is clear that foreign ownership of U.S. land extends beyond simple investments and carries significant economic, security, and cultural implications. A comprehensive reevaluation of policies governing foreign ownership is essential to safeguard America’s long-term interests. Historical Context and Legislation
The issue of foreign land ownership has deep roots in American history, with legislation aimed at regulating or restricting such ownership dating back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Alien Land Laws (1880s–1940s): These laws were enacted in several Western states, including California, Washington, and Oregon, to prevent Asian immigrants—particularly Japanese farmers—from owning or leasing agricultural land. California’s Alien Land Law of 1913, for example, barred “aliens ineligible for citizenship” from owning land, a provision explicitly targeting Japanese immigrants. These laws were designed to prevent monopolization by foreign entities and to preserve land for local use. Although many of these laws were overturned by mid-century, their intent highlights long-standing concerns about foreign influence in landownership.
The Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) of 1978: This federal legislation marked a shift toward transparency rather than outright restriction. Under AFIDA, foreign entities acquiring U.S. agricultural land are required to report their holdings to the USDA. While the law aimed to track foreign ownership trends, it imposed no restrictions on purchases, leaving regulation largely in the hands of individual states. AFIDA’s effectiveness has been criticized due to inconsistent enforcement and the lack of penalties for incomplete or inaccurate reporting.
Recent Legislative Efforts
In recent years, growing concerns about national security, food sovereignty, and rural sustainability have prompted new legislative efforts to regulate foreign land ownership at both state and federal levels.
State-Level Legislation:
Iowa: The ban on foreign ownership of agricultural land in Iowa has been in effect since the late 1970s and continues to be enforced. This law applies broadly to foreign entities, reflecting the state’s strong stance on preserving agricultural land for local use.
Texas: The Texas Senate Bill 147, introduced in 2023, sought to prohibit land purchases by entities from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia near critical infrastructure and military installations. While the bill gained significant public and legislative support, it had not yet been fully enacted into law as of January 2025. However, parts of the proposal have been adopted into other regulatory frameworks at the state level, restricting some foreign land purchases.
Florida: Florida’s 2023 law restricting land purchases by Chinese entities near military bases and agricultural areas was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis and is currently in effect. It includes provisions for stricter reporting requirements and penalties for violations, making it one of the most aggressive state-level regulations targeting foreign land ownership. Federal-Level Legislation:
Prohibition of Agricultural Land for the People's Republic of China Act (2022): This bill was introduced to block Chinese government-owned companies, corporations, and individuals from purchasing U.S. agricultural land outright. The legislation reflects bipartisan concerns over food security and potential espionage risks. However, as of January 2025, this bill has not been signed into law by the President. It remains under review in Congress, with ongoing debates about its implications and potential enforcement mechanisms.
The Food Security is National Security Act (2017): This act empowers the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to scrutinize foreign acquisitions of agricultural assets to protect critical food production and supply chains. Unlike the Prohibition of Agricultural Land for the People’s Republic of China Act, this act was successfully passed and signed into law in 2017. It is actively in effect and has been used to review transactions involving foreign entities seeking to acquire agricultural land or infrastructure.
While these legislative efforts mark progress, enforcement remains a challenge. The AFIDA database is often criticized for incomplete or outdated records, making it difficult to accurately assess the extent of foreign ownership. Additionally, state-level laws vary widely, leading to a patchwork regulatory landscape. Critics argue that without uniform federal restrictions, foreign buyers can exploit loopholes in states with weaker regulations.
Why Reconsidering Foreign Landownership is Critical
The issue of foreign landownership in the United States extends beyond economic implications — it touches on national security, food sovereignty, and the long-term sustainability of American agriculture. The rapid increase in foreign ownership of U.S. land, particularly farmland, raises serious concerns about how these trends could undermine core national interests.
National Security Risks Foreign ownership of land near military installations or critical infrastructure has become a significant concern, as certain acquisitions have raised fears over potential risks to national security. Recent examples of land purchases near sensitive sites have sparked bipartisan concerns about espionage, surveillance, and data collection activities that could pose threats to national defense. The proximity of foreign-owned land to critical infrastructure has highlighted the potential for such acquisitions to compromise U.S. security, particularly when entities from nations with adversarial interests are involved in strategic land acquisitions.
Food Security Challenges Farmland is a finite resource, and foreign ownership can exacerbate food insecurity during crises. Sovereign funds and foreign corporations, particularly from the Middle East and Asia, have been purchasing land to secure food supply chains for their own countries. For instance, Saudi-owned companies use U.S. farmland to grow alfalfa, a water-intensive crop, for export back to feed livestock in the Gulf region. This reduces the availability of critical resources for domestic production, leaving U.S. consumers more vulnerable to global food supply disruptions.
Economic Sustainability and Rural America
The economic fabric of rural America is being eroded as family farms vanish at an alarming rate. According to the USDA, the number of family farms in the U.S. has declined by more than 4 million since the 1930s. Foreign investors often outbid local farmers for agricultural land, driving up prices and making it increasingly difficult for the next generation of American farmers to compete. This trend not only threatens rural economies but also undermines the cultural identity tied to family farming.
Policy Recommendations
To address these challenges, the following policy measures should be implemented:
1. Establish a Federal Cap on Foreign Landownership Introduce a nationwide cap on the amount of land foreign entities can own, with specific restrictions on farmland. Countries with longstanding alliances, such as Canada, could be granted limited exemptions, but the primary goal should be to preserve domestic control over critical resources. This cap would ensure that foreign ownership does not reach levels that jeopardize food security or economic stability.
2. Strengthen and Enforce AFIDA Regulations The Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) should be revised to include stricter reporting requirements, enhanced enforcement mechanisms, and substantial penalties for non-compliance. The USDA must be empowered to maintain an up-to-date and publicly accessible database of foreign-owned land. Greater transparency will enable policymakers and the public to monitor and respond to trends effectively.
3. Prohibit Landownership by Adversarial Nations Enact federal legislation to ban entities from countries or regions deemed national security risks from purchasing land in the United States. Such legislation should focus on protecting strategic locations, including areas near military installations, critical infrastructure, and essential water resources. By targeting these sensitive areas, the policy would address potential espionage threats, safeguard strategic assets, and ensure greater control over resources critical to national security. This approach allows flexibility to adapt the list of restricted countries or regions as geopolitical conditions evolve.
4. Provide Incentives for Domestic Ownership Introduce tax breaks, subsidies, or low-interest loans for American farmers and agricultural cooperatives. These incentives would make it easier for domestic buyers to compete with foreign investors and preserve farmland for local use. Such policies could also encourage younger generations to remain in farming, ensuring the continuity of American agriculture.
5. Prioritize Family Farms in Estate Transfers Reform estate tax laws to exempt farmland passed down within families, encouraging generational continuity in farming. This policy would help prevent family farms from being sold to foreign or corporate buyers due to financial pressures during inheritance.
6. Implement State-Level Zoning Restrictions
Encourage states to adopt zoning laws that prioritize agricultural use and limit speculative purchases by non-agricultural entities. For instance, states could prohibit the conversion of farmland into industrial or residential developments by foreign investors, preserving its agricultural utility.
Securing the Future of American Farmland
The increasing foreign ownership of American land, especially farmland, is a multi-faceted issue with far-reaching implications for national security, food sovereignty, and rural economic sustainability. As family farms disappear and farmland becomes concentrated in fewer hands, the United States risks losing control over critical resources essential for its citizens' well-being and national interests.
Adopting a comprehensive policy framework that includes federal caps on foreign ownership, stricter reporting and enforcement mechanisms, and targeted incentives for domestic buyers is essential. These measures, aligned with the America First agenda, will protect American farmland, safeguard national security, and ensure the long-term viability of domestic agriculture.
Preserving the legacy of American agriculture is not just an economic imperative — it is a national responsibility. By taking decisive action now, we can secure this vital resource for future generations and maintain the independence and resilience that define the United States.
Comments