Why this matters:
- Foreign entities now hold 3.5% of privately owned U.S. agricultural land, prompting growing attention from lawmakers.
- In 2023 alone, more than 30 U.S. states introduced bills seeking to restrict foreign ownership of farmland.
- An MSU study analyzed over 140 bills and the actions of 6,700 state legislators to better understand what’s driving these legislative activities.
- Findings show these legislative efforts are driven more by national security concerns and political ideology than by economic factors.
A growing number of state legislatures across the U.S. have introduced bills in recent years aimed at restricting foreign ownership of agricultural land — an issue that has sparked headlines, political debate and a patchwork of policy responses.
Now, new research from Michigan State University brings much-needed clarity to this evolving policy landscape. Published in the journal Food Policy, the study analyzed 143 bills introduced across 34 states, along with the actions of more than 6,700 state legislators, offering one of the most comprehensive empirical assessments to date on the drivers behind these legislative efforts.
“This is a topic that touches on agriculture, land access, food security and international investment,” said David Ortega, professor and the Noel W. Stuckman Chair in Food Economics and Policy at MSU. “Our goal was to understand what’s motivating this surge in state-level action.”
The study was prompted by Ortega’s testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry during a 2023 hearing on foreign ownership in U.S. agriculture.
The study’s findings come amid heightened public attention to foreign landownership, prompted in part by reports of Chinese companies acquiring land near military bases and broader geopolitical tensions. Although Chinese investors account for less than 1% of all foreign-held U.S. farmland, bills targeting “foreign adversaries” have become increasingly common in statehouses across the country.
“While many of these proposals are framed around safeguarding agricultural land, our analysis finds that broader geopolitical concerns and the current political climate are shaping how legislators respond,” Ortega said.
Legislative activity reflects broader concerns
Foreign ownership of agricultural land has become a flashpoint for debates over national interest, with several high-profile land acquisitions by foreign investors sparking calls for greater oversight.
“Some of these legislative responses are about more than just farmland,” said Lin Lin, a doctoral candidate and lead author of the study. “They reflect a broader set of concerns that go beyond land use itself.”
The study sheds light on the factors that influence lawmakers’ decisions to propose and support restrictions, offering new insights into how concerns about agriculture, national security and foreign investment intersect in the policymaking process.
Political context matters — but it’s not the full story
The analysis found that legislators’ political affiliation and committee roles were significant predictors of their likelihood to propose or support restrictive bills. However, researchers note that political ideology is only one piece of a much larger puzzle.
“We examined a wide array of influences: from district-level to state-level demographics and economic conditions, as well as the presence of military installations,” Lin said. “This dual focus allows us to capture both individual policymaker motivations and broader regional policy dynamics. What we found was that legislative activity is shaped by both local and systemic factors.”
A need for thoughtful policy approaches
More than 20 states have enacted some form of restriction on foreign ownership of agricultural land. Yet these laws vary widely in their definitions, scope and intent — some targeting specific countries, while others apply to all foreign investors.
“This is a sensitive and multifaceted issue,” Ortega said. “Our hope is that this research can support more informed, balanced discussions around how to manage land access while safeguarding economic and national interests.”
The study also found that many states proposing new restrictions already had existing regulations on the books, pointing to a trend of tightening policies. While the legislative momentum is clear, the researchers underscore the need for reliable Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act data and continued evaluation of how foreign-held agricultural land influences market dynamics and long-term food security. They also stress the importance of grounding future policy in evidence and considering potential unintended consequences, particularly for local economies and communities. These consequences include reduced investment in local communities, deprivation of rights for lawful immigrant landowners, discrimination concerns, trade retaliation and diplomatic strain, and costly legal challenges.
