Foreign ownership of agricultural land is becoming one of the most active issues in ag policy, according to Harrison Pittman, director of the National Agricultural Law Center. Activity is building at the federal and state levels, within the executive branch, and in ongoing litigation.
“In 2021 things really cranked up in a way that the tail of that tiger is still swinging around.” Pittman says.
For farmers, that means foreign-owned land is no longer just a reporting topic. It is increasingly a political and transactional issue that could affect who can buy land, how deals are structured, and how much due diligence is required.
Pittman says AFIDA data show roughly 46 million acres in the U.S. are held under some form of foreign ownership, equal to about 3.6% of private agricultural land. AFIDA, the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978, is the federal law requiring foreign persons to report certain interests in U.S. agricultural land.
State laws may matter most in the short term
Pittman says state action has accelerated sharply in recent years and may have the most immediate effect on land transactions. He describes 2021 as the start of the current surge, with proposals broadening significantly in 2023.
In the early wave of activity, 12 states proposed laws, with Indiana and Arkansas enacting measures. By 2023, more than half the states had at least one proposal, 15 states enacted new laws, and eight amended existing statutes. Pittman says the trend continued in 2025, when more than half the states again had at least one proposal, and in 2026, when seven states amended prior laws.
A key shift, he says, is that states moved away from broad country-of-origin restrictions and toward laws focused on “foreign adversaries” or “countries of concern,” making legislation easier to pass politically and more targeted in scope.
Federal AFIDA rules may be headed for a major rewrite
Pittman also says the federal AFIDA reporting system may be facing its biggest administrative rewrite in decades.
A proposed federal rule would go well beyond a technical update. In Pittman’s view, it would shift AFIDA oversight into USDA’s Office of Homeland Security, remove the current regulatory framework in 7 CFR Part 781, and replace it with a new structure in 7 CFR Part 5100.
If finalized in a form similar to the proposal, the change could make foreign land reporting more centralized, more modernized, and more closely tied to national security review. Pittman says the proposal would also broaden key definitions, add new reporting requirements, and establish a different penalty and appeals process.
Definitions remain unclear
Pittman says one of the biggest challenges is that many of the most important legal terms remain unsettled. Among them are “affiliated with,” “acting in concert with,” “beneficial owner,” and relationships involving contract, direction, or control.
“As long as these definitions stay foreign adversary, foreign adversary controlled entity — if it stays as proposed, anything materially close to that — you’re going to get on the radar, you’re going to stay on the radar and you’re probably never going to get off the radar,” he says.
That uncertainty could affect how future land deals are reviewed and whether some buyers are considered eligible, depending on how regulators interpret those terms.
China is only part of the picture
Although public attention often centers on China, Pittman says the issue is broader than one country. He notes that AFIDA data show less than a quarter-million acres are tied in some manner to Chinese investors and that Chinese-linked holdings declined by nearly 30,000 acres in the latest data year.
At the same time, many of the new laws are aimed at a broader set of countries included on “foreign adversary” or “countries of concern” lists, meaning the legal questions often turn on whether a buyer is directly or indirectly linked to a restricted country or entity.
More compliance — and more legal fights — likely ahead
Even where a transaction is legal, Pittman says added scrutiny is likely to mean more due diligence around beneficial ownership, investor relationships, control rights, and possible ties to restricted entities.
He also says the issue is extending beyond land ownership itself into university research, ag contracts, and partnership review in some states.
Because so much of this area depends on evolving definitions, new legislation, and ongoing court challenges, Pittman’s bottom line is clear: farmers, landowners, and ag businesses should expect the rules to keep changing.
You can watch the Ag Law Center’s webinar on the topic here.
