USDA Tightens Rules on Foreign Farmland Ownership

On June 25, the USDA published a proposed rule that would dramatically reshape how the government tracks foreign ownership of American farmland—the first major overhaul of the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) since 1978.

The changes matter because they’re aimed at closing loopholes exploited by foreign investors and their domestic shell companies to hide control of U.S. agricultural land. Right now, foreign interests hold 46 million acres of U.S. farmland, up 1.3 million acres from 2023. Most is held by Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and the UK—but the rule targets a shift: institutions (pension funds, private equity, investment syndicates) now control farmland that was once family-owned, driving out the next generation of growers.

The Loopholes the Rule Would Close

Under current AFIDA rules, foreign investors can hide behind domestic entities if they own less than 50% outright. The proposed rule cuts that threshold to 10%—meaning a foreign fund that bankrolls a domestic shell company with just a 10% stake could trigger disclosure. It also introduces a new “beneficial owner” definition, which cracks down on shell structures that obscure who really controls the land.

The rule also tightens leasehold loopholes. Today, short-term leases (under 10 years) don’t require reporting. The proposed rule would shrink that exemption to one year—except for entities tied to countries designated as “foreign adversaries,” where the exemption would disappear entirely. That targets scenarios where a Chinese or Russian entity leases prime Midwest acreage through a straw domestic corporation for strategic control without reporting.

Enforcement With Teeth

The proposed rule transfers oversight of AFIDA from the Farm Service Agency (which has historically underenforced the law) to the USDA’s Office of Homeland Security. It introduces a tiered penalty structure with steeper fines for violations by foreign adversary countries—reframing farmland ownership as a national security issue rather than just a data-collection exercise.

The Timing

The proposal lands as Congress debates the Farmland for Farmers Act, which would bar foreign investors from buying U.S. agricultural land outright. The acts complement each other: AFIDA makes foreign investors more visible; the Farmers Act would restrict them. Together, they signal a shift—from assuming farmland is tradeable commodity to treating it as critical infrastructure.

What’s Next

The public comment period closes on August 10, 2026. Farm groups, law firms, and foreign investors are already weighing in. Some applaud the tightening; others warn it will slow legitimate agricultural investment or saddle small operators with compliance costs. Expect industry pushback on the “foreign adversary” language, which could invite litigation over what countries qualify and how narrowly the definition applies.

The rule doesn’t limit what foreign investors can own—just who reports it and how. Real protection for family farmers will depend on legislation like the Farmland for Farmers Act, paired with enforcement that actually uses the data AFIDA requires. For now, the proposed rule is a step toward transparency in a market that has thrived on opacity.

Cross-read

• Farmland for Farmers Act Bans Corporate Land Consolidation
• Rural Communities Push Back Against Factory Farm Expansion
• Seed Patent Monopoly Blocks Farmer Breeding Rights