Technical corrections only. The changes between v3 and v4 reflect the bill's procedural movement from the House to the Senate, including the addition of the House Clerk's name. No substantive policy changes were made.
Agricultural Risk Review Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lucas, Frank D. [R-OK-3]
- Committees
- Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2025
Bottom line
The bill expands CFIUS's authority and expertise to specifically address national security risks posed by foreign investment in the U.S. agricultural sector, particularly from adversarial nations.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include the Secretary of Agriculture as a member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for transactions involving agricultural land, agricultural biotechnology, or the broader agriculture industry. It also mandates that CFIUS review certain 'reportable agricultural land transactions' involving foreign persons from the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, or the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill strengthens national security by protecting critical agricultural infrastructure and resources from foreign adversaries. They contend that agriculture is a vital sector, and current CFIUS oversight may not adequately address its unique vulnerabilities, especially concerning land ownership and biotechnology. Including the Secretary of Agriculture ensures specialized expertise is brought to bear on these sensitive transactions.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for foreign investment, potentially deterring beneficial capital inflows into the agricultural sector. They might also raise concerns about the broad definition of 'agriculture industry' and the potential for overreach or politicization of CFIUS reviews, impacting economic competitiveness without clear national security benefits.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for understanding its provisions.
Section 2, amending Section 721(k) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4565(k))
Inclusion of Secretary of Agriculture on CFIUS for Agricultural Transactions
This provision adds the Secretary of Agriculture as a permanent member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for any covered transaction that involves agricultural land, agricultural biotechnology, or the broader agriculture industry, including transportation, storage, and processing. This ensures that agricultural expertise is directly involved in reviewing foreign investments in these sensitive areas, enhancing the committee's ability to assess national security risks related to food systems.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Secretary of Agriculture's inclusion is crucial for providing specialized knowledge on the unique risks associated with foreign investment in agriculture, such as food security, supply chain resilience, and biosecurity, which other CFIUS members might not fully grasp.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against adding relevant agency heads to CFIUS for their areas of expertise, as it is generally seen as enhancing the committee's effectiveness. However, some might express concern about potential bureaucratic slowdowns or increased administrative complexity.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for specialized expertise in national security reviews with the potential for increased administrative complexity in the CFIUS process.
Section 3, amending Section 721(b)(1) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4565(b)(1))
Mandated CFIUS Review of Adversarial Agricultural Land Acquisitions
This provision requires CFIUS to determine if certain 'reportable agricultural land transactions' are covered transactions and, if so, whether to initiate a review. A reportable transaction involves the acquisition of an interest in agricultural land by a foreign person from China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran, identified by the Secretary of Agriculture (in cooperation with the intelligence community) as potentially a covered transaction requiring disclosure under the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978. The requirements sunset if a country is removed from the list of foreign adversaries in 15 CFR 791.4.
This subsection defines a 'reportable agricultural land transaction' as a transaction that the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe is a covered transaction (based on intelligence community information), involves the acquisition of an interest in agricultural land by a foreign person from China, North Korea, Russia, or Iran, and requires a report to the Secretary of Agriculture under section 2(a) of the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA).
Section 3, amending Section 721(b)(1)(I)(ii) of the Defense Production Act of 1950
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define terms and cross-reference existing statutes and regulations for precision. However, it requires external knowledge of AFIDA and CFIUS definitions to fully grasp the scope.
Case for: Supporters would argue that precise definitions are necessary for legal clarity and to ensure the provision targets specific, identified national security risks without overreach. Referencing AFIDA leverages an existing reporting framework, streamlining the process.
Case against: Critics might argue that the reliance on multiple external references makes the scope less transparent to the public and potentially complex for affected parties to understand their obligations without legal counsel, potentially increasing compliance costs.
Estimated impact: This definition directly determines which transactions trigger mandatory CFIUS review, significantly impacting foreign investment activities in U.S. agricultural land by specified adversarial countries.
This subsection includes a sunset clause stating that the mandatory review requirements for foreign persons of the respective foreign country will terminate on the date that the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, or the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the case may be, is removed from the list of foreign adversaries in section 791.4 of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations.
Section 3, amending Section 721(b)(1)(I)(iii) of the Defense Production Act of 1950
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice for sunset clauses to be placed at the end of a provision. However, the reliance on an external regulatory list makes its future impact dependent on administrative decisions outside the bill itself, potentially obscuring the conditions for its termination.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides flexibility, allowing the restrictions to be lifted if geopolitical circumstances change and a country is no longer deemed an adversary, thus avoiding permanent, potentially outdated, prohibitions that could hinder future relations.
Case against: Critics might argue that tying the sunset to an administrative list (15 CFR 791.4) rather than a legislative process could reduce congressional oversight over which countries are subject to these restrictions, potentially politicizing the process.
Estimated impact: This clause determines the duration and conditional nature of the mandatory review for specific countries, impacting long-term investment strategies and diplomatic relations.