Since January 2021, a notable shift has occurred across U.S. states regarding foreign investments in agricultural land, reflecting rising concerns over national security and economic sovereignty. The number of states with laws governing foreign ownership of agricultural land has surged from fourteen to twenty-five, with nineteen states proposing new legislation in 2025 alone. As state legislatures reconvene, the momentum to limit foreign investments, particularly from nations deemed adversarial, is likely to intensify.
Among the states taking action, Alabama, Illinois, and Indiana are at the forefront, each introducing measures aimed at curbing foreign ownership of agricultural land. Alabama’s approach is encapsulated in the Alabama Property Protection Act, enacted in 2023. This law prohibits foreign principals—defined as entities from countries like China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia—from acquiring agricultural or forest property. However, ambiguity surrounds the law’s application to lease agreements, prompting Alabama Representative Scott Stadthagen to pre-file House Bill 68 for the 2025 legislative session. This proposed amendment seeks to explicitly prohibit foreign principals from leasing agricultural or forest land, thereby closing a potential loophole in the existing legislation. If passed, these changes would take effect on August 1, 2025, further tightening the grip on foreign interests in Alabama’s agricultural sector.
Illinois is also grappling with the implications of foreign ownership. Currently, the state allows noncitizens to acquire real property but mandates disclosure of foreign landholdings to the Illinois Director of Agriculture. In response to growing concerns, State Representative Chris Miller has introduced the Foreign Land Ownership and Foreign Countries of Concern Act (House Bill 1162). This proposed legislation aims to restrict foreign principals from acquiring interests in agricultural land, with a focus on entities from countries such as China and Russia. Notably, the bill would require foreign investors to register their agricultural landholdings and would impose penalties for violations, including potential forfeiture of land. Additionally, it seeks to protect critical infrastructure by prohibiting foreign ownership within a 10-mile radius of military installations and essential facilities. A parallel measure, Senate Bill 48, specifically targets Chinese entities, echoing similar restrictions enacted in Florida that have faced legal scrutiny.
Indiana’s legislative landscape has seen a series of measures aimed at foreign ownership as well. The state enacted Senate Bill 388 in 2022, which restricts foreign business entities from acquiring agricultural land. This legislative trend continued in 2023 with further restrictions on agreements related to critical infrastructure with foreign adversaries. In 2024, House Bill 1183 expanded these restrictions to cover all real property, effectively barring individuals and entities from designated foreign adversaries from acquiring or leasing land within Indiana. The list of foreign adversaries currently includes nations such as China, Cuba, and Russia, reflecting a broader national sentiment against foreign influence in critical sectors.
The implications of these legislative trends are profound. As states grapple with the complexities of foreign ownership, the actions taken in Alabama, Illinois, and Indiana could serve as a blueprint for other states considering similar measures. The increasing scrutiny of foreign investments in agricultural land raises questions about the balance between attracting foreign capital and protecting domestic interests. Stakeholders in the agricultural sector, including farmers and landowners, may find themselves navigating a more complex regulatory environment as these laws evolve.
Moreover, the push for tighter restrictions may lead to tensions between state and federal policies regarding foreign investments. With the Biden administration also scrutinizing foreign ownership in critical industries, the interplay between state and federal regulations will be crucial in shaping the future landscape of agricultural investments in the U.S. As these discussions unfold, the agricultural community and policymakers alike will need to consider the long-term impacts of restricting foreign ownership while fostering an environment conducive to investment and growth.