A Democratic bill with no cosponsors · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Farmland for Farmers Act of 2026" aims to prohibit unauthorized legal entities from acquiring or holding ownership interests in agricultural land. It establishes strict definitions for "authorized legal entities," requiring that they consist of no more than 25 owners who are all natural persons actively engaged in farming. The bill provides several exceptions, including for public institutions of higher education, certain nonprofits, and municipal corporations. To ensure compliance, the Act requires entities to submit sworn affidavits regarding their status. It also establishes rigorous enforcement mechanisms through the Secretary of Agriculture and the Attorney General.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +8
Would farmers be better off under this?
The bill is designed specifically to favor independent family farmers over large corporate entities.
- Scored +6
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The bill directly supports independent family farmers by attempting to prevent them from being outbid by well-capitalized corporations.
- Scored +6
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill seeks to protect the economic and social stability of rural communities by preserving local farming families.
The opposite· 3 of 6
- Scored -8
Would billionaires be better off under this?
The act creates significant barriers for the large-scale corporate and pension fund structures often used by the ultra-wealthy.
- Scored -7
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
The bill specifically targets the large-scale investment strategies common among ultra-high-net-worth institutional entities.
- Scored -6
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
The bill limits the ability of large, highly capitalized entities to acquire significant land assets.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Support for Family Farms: The bill seeks to foster and encourage the family farm system, which is described as essential to the social and economic wellbeing and national security of the United States (Section 2).
-
Protection of Land as a Resource: By restricting corporate ownership, the bill addresses concerns that large investors focus on short-term profits rather than long-term land conservation (Section 2).
-
Increased Accessibility for Independent Farmers: The Act aims to counter the advantage held by well-capitalized corporate interests that can outbid independent family farmers due to rising land prices (Section 2).
-
Preservation of Local Communities: The findings suggest that limiting corporate expansion helps protect the well-being and security of residents in rural communities (Section 2).
-
Protection of Generational Wealth: The bill recognizes agricultural land as a source of wealth, including generational wealth, for the people of the United States (Section 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Strict Compliance Burdens: Legal entities must sign and submit affidavits under penalty of perjury at the time of acquisition and again with their Federal tax returns (Section 5).
-
Significant Financial Penalties: Violators may face civil penalties of up to two times the fair market value of the land in question (Section 6).
-
Risk of Imprisonment: Natural persons who knowingly violate the Act as shareholders, partners, members, or beneficial owners could face up to five years in prison (Section 6).
-
Forced Sale of Land: If a court finds a violation, an entity may be required to divest its interest within one year or face a public sale of the land (Section 6).
-
State-Level Regulatory Burdens: States are authorized to create even more restrictive regulations, which could be more burdensome for owners residing outside of that specific state (Section 7).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The act is designed to preserve the social and economic well-being of residents in rural communities by favoring local family farms. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill's findings suggest that limiting corporate ownership can favor long-term land conservation over short-term profit extraction.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill directly supports independent family farmers by attempting to prevent them from being outbid by well-capitalized corporations. Is this likely to create jobs? — By restricting large corporate acquisitions, the bill may make more land available for independent family farmers to expand their operations. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The restriction on large-scale corporate investment in agricultural land may reduce overall capital inflow into the agricultural sector.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — The bill is designed specifically to favor independent family farmers over large corporate entities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill seeks to protect the economic and social stability of rural communities by preserving local farming families. Would business owners be better off under this? — Independent family farmers and small agricultural businesses gain a competitive advantage through these restrictions. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill aims to protect the ability of independent farmers to build and maintain generational wealth. Would billionaires be better off under this? — The act creates significant barriers for the large-scale corporate and pension fund structures often used by the ultra-wealthy. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill specifically targets the large-scale investment strategies common among ultra-high-net-worth institutional entities. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — The bill limits the ability of large, highly capitalized entities to acquire significant land assets. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Large-scale institutional investors and high-net-worth entities will face significant restrictions on their ability to acquire agricultural land.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill explicitly authorizes states to implement even more restrictive regulations on agricultural land ownership than those established federally.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The bill aims to protect the generational wealth and economic stability of local rural farming families. Does this make housing cost less? — The bill does not directly address housing, though it targets land ownership which is a related asset class.
- 4/27/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont