Foreign agricultural land deals have a paperwork trail. Whether that trail reaches national-security reviewers quickly enough is another question. The Government Accountability Office’s AFIDA investigation and recommendation tracker says USDA’s process for sharing detailed, timely foreign-land transaction data with relevant federal agencies was still open in its July 2026 update.
The gap GAO found
GAO says the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, may review transactions that pose national-security risks, including land near sensitive military installations. The 2024 GAO report found USDA did not routinely give CFIUS agencies sufficiently timely, detailed AFIDA information. Defense officials told GAO they needed information more specific and more frequent than an annual publication. GAO also identified weaknesses in USDA’s collection and verification of filings. A public acreage total cannot substitute for a transaction record in a time-sensitive review.
There has been movement. USDA announced an online AFIDA filing portal in January 2026, and GAO’s recommendation tracker records a May 2025 USDA–Treasury agreement to share forms from certain countries of concern and other transactions USDA believes may pose a national-security risk. But GAO says that as of July 2026 it had not received evidence of a Defense Department agreement or of USDA sharing AFIDA information with Defense through the portal or another means. GAO also said USDA had not supplied the evidence it needed to verify the portal’s operation. That is GAO’s assessment of what it could verify, not proof that no agency ever exchanged a filing.
A portal does not settle the ownership question
USDA’s latest public AFIDA report covers holdings through December 2024. USDA’s detailed-data page cautions that manual entry can introduce errors. GAO’s investigation found its older data included a Chinese-associated holding counted twice. A new way to submit forms can help, but GAO’s still-open recommendations on sharing and verification show why submission, accuracy and access each need scrutiny.
This is a narrower claim than “foreign ownership is unchecked.” GAO says USDA and Treasury have a sharing agreement, and CFIUS has a review role. The live question is whether the right agencies receive current, reliable transaction details when they need them. Farmers and neighbors should be able to ask for that evidence without treating every foreign-held acre as a security threat. USDA’s own AFIDA data show a mix of forest, cropland and pasture, held through different kinds of interests. The policy test is a transparent, accurate record and a functioning review process.
