New SOIL Act Blocks Federal Farm Aid for Land Tied to 'Flagged' Foreign Owners, Expands Military Base Scrutiny

The new Security and Oversight for International Landholdings Act of 2025—the SOIL Act—is designed to put serious federal muscle behind tracking and restricting foreign ownership of U.S. farmland and real estate near military bases. This bill isn't just about disclosure; it introduces real financial consequences for landowners and dramatically expands the government’s ability to scrutinize property deals.

The New Gatekeepers: CFIUS Gets an Upgrade

If you’re a farmer or a property developer, you need to know about the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). This is the federal group that reviews foreign investments for national security risks, and the SOIL Act gives them a massive jurisdiction boost (Sec. 2 & 3). CFIUS must now review any acquisition or transfer of agricultural land involving an entity from a country that’s either a “nonmarket economy” (think certain major global competitors) or one flagged in the annual worldwide threats report by the Director of National Intelligence. This means that if a family farm sells a tract of land to a corporation controlled by an entity from one of these countries, the deal now gets the full national security treatment.

Even if you’re not dealing with farmland, the bill adds scrutiny for real estate near military bases (Sec. 3). CFIUS must now review any purchase or transfer of non-residential real estate within 50 miles of a military installation if the buyer is from one of those flagged countries. While there’s a narrow exception for residential property, this is a clear move to prevent adversarial nations from gaining a foothold near sensitive U.S. defense infrastructure.

The Federal Aid Blacklist

This is where the bill hits landowners directly in the wallet. Section 4 introduces a strict new rule: if you own agricultural land, you are now ineligible for any federal agricultural assistance—think subsidies, conservation payments, or disaster relief—if that land is partially or fully owned by a citizen or entity from one of those two classes of flagged countries (nonmarket economies or national security threats).

Imagine a U.S. citizen operating a mid-sized farm who, years ago, brought in a small minority investor from a flagged country to help finance a major equipment purchase. Under the SOIL Act, that farm now loses access to critical federal programs, even if the U.S. owner is managing the day-to-day operations. This provision puts U.S. farmers in a difficult spot, potentially forcing them to unwind complex investment structures or risk losing their federal safety nets.

No Acreage Is Too Small to Report

The bill also tightens the rules for disclosing foreign ownership of farmland, impacting the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) of 1978 (Sec. 5). First, the definition of holding agricultural land is expanded to include leasing agreements that last longer than five years. So, a long-term lease now requires the same reporting as an outright purchase.

Second, and more importantly, the bill removes the Secretary of Agriculture’s ability to set a minimum acreage threshold for reporting. Previously, the government might only have required reporting for land holdings over, say, 10 acres. Now, any size of land holding by a foreign entity must be reported. This will create a massive increase in administrative tracking, both for the foreign entities involved and for the USDA, which will have to process disclosures for even tiny parcels of land.

Finally, the Secretary of Agriculture is required to produce a detailed annual public report on foreign-held agricultural land, breaking down ownership by state, county, and even specifically tracking holdings by countries like China and Russia (Sec. 6). This will provide unprecedented transparency on who owns what, but it also signals a clear policy focus on identifying and monitoring specific foreign actors within the U.S. food supply chain.