Who really owns America’s farmland, and how could anyone know if it changed hands overnight? GAO findings on foreign investment in U.S. farmland reveal a deeper problem: the federal government’s struggle to track, verify, and act on critical foreign investment action. This gap has consequences for national security and agricultural policy.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land reached nearly 45 million acres in 2023. In 2022, Congressional members contacted the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to express concerns about a U.S. subsidiary of a business from the People’s Republic of China purchasing cropland near Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. The 2024 GAO report highlighted that the accuracy and comprehensiveness of this data remain uncertain, raising questions about the true extent of foreign landholdings and their potential security implications.
Background
The Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA) is USDA’s governing statute, requiring foreign persons who acquire or transfer agricultural land to file an FSA-153 disclosure form with USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). The GAO has only audited this issue three times. The first GAO report, released on July 30, 1979, established the need for an information system to collect data on foreign adversaries purchasing farmland in the U.S. The second GAO report, released on December 20, 1979, discussed the implementation of the information system outlined in the newly enacted AFIDA statute. The following GAO study did not occur until January 18, 2024, marking a 45-year gap in oversight.
GAO Serves an Important Role in Identifying Information System Hazards
The GAO’s most recent report has become the primary source, exposing an outdated information-collection system for foreign adversaries purchasing farmland. AFIDA data is still collected on paper and mailed to a county FSA office, where transactions take a year to reach the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), hindering the speed of the oversight process. Although statutorily mandated, accurate AFIDA data hinges on voluntary participation in completing and submitting the FSA-153.
Nevertheless, the 2024 GAO report notes that only five presidential decisions, to block transactions, have been issued since 2013, and only eight penalties were assessed for AFIDA late or non-filing entities between 2012 and 2021. This indicates that while a system for oversight exists, its effectiveness is compromised by its own vulnerabilities. In the absence of real-time data, adequately trained county FSA agents, and a modernized digital form that captures more comprehensive information, the government risks remaining oblivious to potential threats. Currently, four recommendations remain unresolved. The USDA has obtained funding to develop an online database; however, no information has been provided about the timeline or specifics of this new technology. The form has yet to be updated, though public input was solicited in 2023 and 2025.
Congress and the Executive Turn to GAO Recommendations on Enhancing AFIDA Policy Priorities
Congress has taken action through the Agricultural Risk Review Act (H.R. 1713), which has passed in the House and awaits Senate consideration. This legislation represents a positive step forward, allowing the USDA to determine civil penalty amounts for an AFIDA violation, require annual compliance audits of at least 10% of reports, provide targeted training to state and county personnel and, most importantly, it would require the USDA to annually research foreign investment in agricultural land, and submit this report to Congress, reinforcing a sense of progress and accountability. Accordingly, on September 30, 2025, the USDA’s Office of Inspector General released a report that addressed the GAO’s findings and acknowledged national security in agriculture as an emerging challenge.
On July 8, 2025, the Trump Administration unveiled a comprehensive plan, aligned with GAO’s recommendations, to address national security risks in agriculture, including establishing an online filing system, enhancing coordination with USDA and the Department of the Treasury (DOT), and a new online portal for farmers and ranchers to report false or noncompliance issues related to AFIDA.
Interestingly, in early September, Politico reported that White House budget director Russ Vought said the GAO is “a quasi-legislative independent entity … something that shouldn’t exist.” However, the GAO has identified many vulnerabilities and recommended many of the actions that Congress and the Trump Administration are taking today. Without the GAO, Congress would lack critical visibility into system deficiencies. How would the U.S. government know how to enhance oversight of AFIDA without the GAO’s analysis?
Effective oversight is essential to protect U.S. interests, which should encourage policymakers and stakeholders to act with a sense of urgency. Congress and the Trump Administration have both used the GAO’s guidance to advance their policy priorities. Undermining the GAO’s role in detecting governmental inefficiencies is concerning. Without the GAO, the executive branch would lack guidance on improving its policy priorities, and Congress would struggle to address issues it cannot otherwise see.