Protecting Our Farms and Homes from China Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to prevent Chinese-affiliated entities from owning or leasing U.S. agricultural land and temporarily restricts their purchase of residential real estate, citing national security and economic concerns.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits certain foreign entities, broadly defined as those connected to the People's Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party, from acquiring or leasing U.S. agricultural land and from purchasing U.S. residential real estate. It mandates divestment of currently held interests within one year and establishes significant penalties, including fines, criminal charges, and forfeiture, for non-compliance. The bill also nullifies noncompete agreements for employees of covered foreign entities that own or lease agricultural land.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for safeguarding U.S. national security, protecting the domestic food supply chain, and preventing adversarial foreign governments from gaining control over critical American assets. They contend that foreign ownership of agricultural land and residential property by entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party poses significant risks to economic stability and national defense, and that proactive measures are necessary to counter these threats.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that such broad prohibitions could lead to unintended economic consequences, potentially deterring legitimate foreign investment and impacting property values. Concerns could also be raised regarding the expansive definition of 'covered foreign entity,' which some might view as overly broad or potentially discriminatory, leading to legal challenges based on international trade agreements or property rights.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(1)
Definition of Agricultural Land
This provision broadly defines 'agricultural land' to include land used for farming, ranching, or timber production, land used for food processing, and idle land that was used for these purposes within the previous five years. This comprehensive definition ensures that various types of land critical to the food supply and natural resources are covered by the bill's prohibitions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a broad definition of agricultural land is necessary to comprehensively protect the U.S. food supply and critical infrastructure from foreign adversaries, ensuring national security and economic resilience.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that an overly broad definition could inadvertently restrict legitimate foreign investment in areas not directly related to sensitive national security concerns, potentially hindering economic growth or development in rural areas.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between ensuring comprehensive protection of agricultural resources and avoiding overreach that could stifle beneficial economic activity or create administrative burdens.
Section 2(2)
Definition of Covered Foreign Entity
This section defines a 'covered foreign entity' as a corporation incorporated in the People's Republic of China (including Hong Kong and Macau), any individual or organization acting on behalf of the Government of the PRC, any individual or organization affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, or entities owned/controlled by such individuals/organizations. It also includes board members, executive officers, or senior officials of such entities. This broad definition is central to determining who is subject to the bill's prohibitions.
Section 3(a) and 3(b)
Prohibition on Agricultural Land Acquisition and Divestment
This provision makes it unlawful for a covered foreign entity to acquire or lease any interest in U.S. agricultural land. Furthermore, any covered foreign entity that currently owns or leases such land must divest itself of those interests within one year of the bill's enactment, with a letter of intent to divest required within 180 days. This aims to eliminate existing and future control of agricultural land by specified foreign entities.
Section 3(c) and 3(d)
Penalties and Criminal Enforcement for Agricultural Land Violations
This provision establishes a civil penalty of $100 per acre per day for covered foreign entities that violate the agricultural land acquisition or divestment prohibitions. Additionally, it introduces criminal penalties, including fines under Title 18, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. Any agricultural land owned in violation of the act is subject to forfeiture to the U.S. government, which must then be sold via public auction. These measures are designed to ensure strict compliance and deter violations.
Section 3(e)
Nullification of Noncompete Agreements
This provision states that any noncompete agreement entered into between a covered foreign entity that owns or leases U.S. agricultural land and an employee of that entity shall have no force or effect. This aims to prevent covered foreign entities from using noncompete clauses to restrict former employees from working in the agricultural sector after divestment or cessation of operations.
Section 4(b) and 4(c)
Temporary Prohibition on Residential Real Estate Purchase and Divestment
This provision prohibits covered foreign entities from purchasing residential real estate in the United States for a 'covered period,' initially set for two years but extendable by the President. Additionally, any covered foreign entity that owns residential real estate must divest itself of those units within one year of the bill's enactment. This aims to address concerns about foreign influence in the housing market.
The definition of 'covered foreign entity' explicitly includes corporations incorporated in the People's Republic of China, specifically mentioning 'including the Special Administrative Regions of China, including Hong Kong and Macau.'
Section 2(2)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for precision in definitions, ensuring the scope of the bill is clear and inclusive of regions that might otherwise be ambiguously treated under 'China.'
Case for: Supporters would argue this explicit inclusion is critical for preventing covered entities from circumventing the law by operating through Hong Kong or Macau, which have distinct legal systems but are ultimately under PRC sovereignty.
Case against: Critics might argue that treating Hong Kong and Macau identically to mainland China disregards their unique economic and legal statuses, potentially harming legitimate businesses and individuals in these regions who may have limited ties to the CCP.
Estimated impact: This inclusion significantly broadens the scope of entities subject to the prohibitions, impacting a larger number of corporations and individuals with business ties to these regions.
The definition of 'covered foreign entity' includes 'an individual or organization affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party' and 'an individual that is a member of the board of directors, an executive officer, or a senior official of a corporation or organization described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D)'.
Section 2(2)(C) and (E)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for comprehensive definitions, aiming to prevent evasion by targeting individuals who might act on behalf of or control covered entities.
Case for: Proponents would argue that these provisions are essential to prevent individuals from acting as proxies for the Chinese government or CCP, ensuring that the spirit of the law, not just the letter, is upheld.
Case against: Opponents might argue that 'affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party' is an ambiguous and potentially difficult-to-prove standard, raising concerns about due process, potential for arbitrary enforcement, and the chilling effect on individuals with distant or indirect connections. Including corporate officers also broadens the scope significantly.
Estimated impact: This significantly expands the reach of the bill beyond corporate entities to individuals, potentially impacting a large number of people with any level of connection to the CCP or leadership roles in covered corporations, making compliance and enforcement more complex.