The SOIL Act of 2025 would expand federal oversight of foreign ownership and control of U.S. agricultural land and certain real estate transactions. It amends the Defense Production Act’s CFIUS review provisions to require review of acquisitions or transfers of interests in agricultural land by persons tied to countries designated as nonmarket economies or identified in the Intelligence Community’s Annual Threat Assessment as national security risks. It also adds CFIUS review for non-residential real estate transactions within 50 miles of a military installation when the buyer or transferee is connected to those same categories of foreign countries.
The bill further bars federal assistance, including subsidies, for agricultural real estate holdings that are wholly or partly owned by persons connected to those countries. In addition, it broadens the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act by requiring reporting of long-term leases of agricultural land, eliminating the minimum-acreage threshold that could exclude land from disclosure, and directing the Agriculture Secretary to publish an annual public report on foreign holdings of agricultural land, including state-by-state and county-by-county data and specific analysis of holdings linked to China, Russia, and other countries the Secretary deems appropriate.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would significantly expand federal screening, disclosure, and reporting requirements for foreign involvement in U.S. farmland and nearby real estate, while also restricting access to federal agricultural assistance for certain foreign-owned holdings. It would amend the Defense Production Act and the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978, increasing the scope of transactions subject to review and the amount of public information collected and released about foreign land ownership. The bill would affect foreign investors, agricultural landowners, federal agencies administering subsidies, and state agriculture departments that receive the reports.
Sentiment
Based on the bill’s sponsorship and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to reflect a strong national-security and transparency-oriented approach to foreign land ownership. The sponsors’ framing suggests concern about foreign influence over agricultural assets and land near military installations. No contrary sentiment is documented in the provided record, but the bill’s structure indicates support for tighter oversight rather than deregulation.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the foreign-country triggers, the 50-mile military-installation buffer, and the elimination of the minimum-acreage threshold for disclosure. Critics could argue that the bill is overinclusive because it ties restrictions to broad country classifications and could capture routine agricultural or real estate transactions with limited security risk. Supporters are likely to emphasize national security, supply-chain resilience, and transparency, especially regarding Chinese and Russian-linked holdings and land near sensitive defense sites.