Protecting U.S. Farmland and Sensitive Sites From Foreign Adversaries Act
Sponsored By: Representative Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]
Introduced
Summary
This bill would create an intensified federal review regime focused on foreign purchases of U.S. farmland and land near sensitive national-security sites. It defines an "elevated risk real estate transaction," raises the evidentiary bar for approval, and requires parties to make mandatory declarations for such deals.
Show full summary
- Farmers and rural communities would face closer scrutiny of foreign purchases of agricultural land and agricultural biotechnology, because reviews must consider current and long-term U.S. needs for food, water, and related products.
- Investors from listed "foreign adversary" countries (including China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela) would see purchases or leases near an exhaustive list of sensitive sites treated as higher risk, subject to a presumption that the transaction is unresolvable unless proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- Federal oversight would increase and be more coordinated. The Department of Agriculture would join reviews, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States would get expanded real estate authority, and agencies must issue rules within 120 days while state laws limiting foreign purchases of agricultural land remain preserved.
Your PRIA Score
Personalized for You
How does this bill affect your finances?
Sign up for a PRIA Policy Scan to see your personalized alignment score for this bill and every other piece of legislation we track. We analyze your financial profile against policy provisions to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.
Bill Overview
Analyzed Economic Effects
4 provisions identified: 0 benefits, 0 costs, 4 mixed.
Broader list of sensitive sites
If enacted, the bill would define a wide set of "sensitive sites" that drive elevated risk for nearby property deals. The list would include military installations and training areas, intelligence and security facilities, NASA and federally funded research centers, many airports and maritime ports, major telecom backbone nodes (including submarine cable landings), and powerplants designated by DHS. The Defense or Homeland Security Secretary could also add other sites. This broad definition would expand where the government watches for national security risks tied to land and facilities.
New farm and food security review
If enacted, the Secretary of Agriculture would join national-security reviews for transactions involving agricultural land, agricultural biotechnology, and other agriculture-related deals the Secretary identifies. CFIUS would have to consider current and long-term national, regional, and local needs for food, water, and other agricultural products when it reviews a transaction. The change would likely increase scrutiny of foreign investment in farm land and ag biotech, while aiming to protect U.S. food security.
New limits on foreign land deals
If enacted, the bill would let the federal review committee (CFIUS) cover purchases, leases, or concessions of U.S. real estate when the buyer is a listed foreign adversary or an entity they control. It would create a new "elevated risk" category for property deals that are at a port, near a sensitive site, could help collect intelligence, could expose national security activities, or are AFIDA-covered agricultural land. Parties to those deals would have to file a declaration and face a presumption the deal is a national security risk unless CFIUS finds by clear and convincing evidence otherwise. These rules would likely lengthen reviews, add legal and reporting costs, and could reduce the buyer pool for some properties.
States keep land rules; agency deadline
If enacted, the bill would say federal changes do not stop States, DC, or U.S. territories from enforcing general laws that limit foreign-adversary purchases or leases of land, as long as those laws are generally applicable and do not target specific deals. The bill would also require the federal committee (CFIUS) to issue implementing rules within 120 days after enactment. This preserves state-level land controls and sets a firm federal deadline for writing the new rules.
Sponsors & CoSponsors
Sponsor
Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2]
MI • R
Cosponsors
Thompson (CA)
CA • D
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Rep. Hinson, Ashley [R-IA-2]
IA • R
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26]
CA • D
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Rep. Dunn, Neal P. [R-FL-2]
FL • R
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Bilirakis
FL • R
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Johnson (SD)
SD • R
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Rep. Nunn, Zachary [R-IA-3]
IA • R
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1]
TX • R
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4]
WA • R
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]
NJ • D
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Rep. Harrigan, Pat [R-NC-10]
NC • R
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19]
CA • D
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Feenstra
IA • R
Sponsored 5/7/2026
Roll Call Votes
No roll call votes available for this bill.
View on Congress.gov