Opinion
Farmland, and more broadly real estate, has been a great investment over the past twenty years, but that has produced some consequences for those on the outside of the price appreciation. In both Canada and the U.S., sky-high land prices have been identified as a barrier to entry or growth for some farmers and ranchers.
How to make land more affordable, while not tanking prices for existing land owners, is a tedious balancing act for policymakers. It also sounds a lot like the challenges in dealing with home affordability for our non-farming counterparts, which bears watching, as it's always possible that policies made for one sector spill over into others.
This week, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would move to ban "institutional investors" (i.e. Wall Street) from buying single-family homes, arguing that housing should be for people, not corporations. While the proposal is aimed squarely at addressing housing affordability, it raises a broader question that agriculture cannot ignore: what happens if similar thinking is applied to farmland ownership?
If the housing policy proposed by President Trump reaches farmland, it would raise major questions around who can own farmland — and we don't just mean foreign ownership from China, but ANY institutional investors.
In running a"what if" parallel policy for farmland, there is one very notable difference: society is not making more farmland in North America, while we can build more houses. The irony is that the reduction in farmland is connected to the expansion of housing around growing cities.
If governments begin restricting ownership based on perceptions of fairness or affordability in housing, what criteria would justify similar limits in agriculture? Market share? Residency? Farm size? Corporate structure? Acres under control? Number of provinces or states operating in?
It's easier to say Bill Gates shouldn't be the largest farmland owner in the U.S. or that Montana doesn't need another ranch owned by a movie star, but what about a growing family corporation that is operating in three states and has over 100,000 acres in cropland? At some point, this discussion leads you to capping the size of farms, which may be creating major inefficiencies and hurting productivity. Having more farmers with a lower average farm size may create other financial problems down the road that are unforeseen at this time.
And what would those new rules mean for land values, succession planning, credit access, and producers who rely on leased land? You don't have to own land to farm but forcing someone to do so would negatively impact some current business plans. It’s also important to recognize that farmland ownership is rarely simple. Many farms already operate within layered structures involving families, lenders, landlords, and investors. Institutional ownership itself spans a wide range of models, from passive landholding to long-term partnerships designed to keep land in production.
I expect this topic generates a wide swath of reaction, from "land affordability is not an issue," to worry about a suggestion of extreme government intervention.
I asked farmers who were guests on the January 8th, 2026 episode of RealAg Radio for their opinion on the policy parallel and possible solutions, and each of them identified the complexity of the issue immediately. One farmer told me they dislike government intervention but also understood why some in the industry are concerned about who is allowed to own land.
Please send you perspectives and thoughts to shaney@realagriculture.com
Before you jump to your answer on this discussion, let's remember that this conversation has layers, complexity, grey areas and likely unintended consequences, no matter your position.
The housing debate centres on rising prices, tight supply, and barriers for first-time buyers. Institutional investors, despite owning a relatively small share of U.S. housing stock, have become a political focal point. The issue is as much about perception and public frustration as it is about market share. The middle class dream is owning a home, and rising prices have pushed that dream for many out of reach, especially for young first-time buyers. Sounds like farming.
Agriculture faces a parallel conversation.
BREAKING: President Trump announces steps to ban large institutional investors from buying single-family homes.
"People live in homes, not corporations." - President Donald J. Trump ?? pic.twitter.com/MvG2mGodR2
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 7, 2026
Farmland values remain historically high across North America, and access to land is one of the biggest challenges for new and expanding farmers. At the same time, pension funds, investment firms, and other institutional players have become more visible in farmland markets, often through lease-based arrangements rather than direct farm operation. Similar to institutional house ownership, the Wall Street ownership of farmland is a low percentage, relatively speaking.
Does institutional ownership help facilitate farm transitions and inject needed capital, or does it contribute to higher land prices and reduced access? Does outside investment strengthen long-term food production, or weaken local control? Does that institutional interest in farm land provide a floor to farmland prices, which benefits the ability for traditional farmers to keep their debt-to-equity ratios in healthier shape and within the bank covenants?
Historically, farm policy in Canada and the U.S. has focused on production, risk management, and food security, not on prescribing who should own land. But political pressure around affordability and consolidation is changing the tone of that discussion but has mainly focused on foreign ownership and not investor type.
The housing example is not a prediction, but it is a useful thought experiment to explore from a policy perspective. Concerns about consolidation and entry barriers are real. So is the need for capital, flexibility, and scale in a globally competitive industry.
As I said, there are no real easy answers to solve farmland housing affordability and restricting who owns it too much may be a great headline but produce unintended results.
