Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
There was a time when Kim Reynolds, the governor of Iowa, had no problem with Chinese investment. In 2012, when she was the state’s lieutenant governor, she met Xi Jinping, then China’s vice-premier, on a visit to Beijing. In 2017, as governor, she visited again, this time posing with Vice-Premier Wang Yang. No longer. In her Condition of the State address to Iowa’s legislature on January 9th, Ms Reynolds claimed that “China continues to grow more aggressive, and buying American land has been one of the many ways they have waged this new battle.” Later this year she intends to introduce a new law that would toughen land-ownership reporting rules in Iowa. “American farmland should stay in American hands,” she says.
Ms Reynolds joins a chorus of state and federal politicians who worry about Chinese land grabs. On January 2nd Missouri’s governor, Mike Parson, issued an executive order banning “foreign adversaries” from buying land within ten miles of a military facility. Last October Arkansas ordered a Chinese-owned agricultural firm to sell 160 acres of land. Laws to restrict Chinese ownership of land have spread to Florida and Texas. In recent years the number of states with restrictions on foreign ownership has grown from 14 to 24, according to Micah Brown, of the National Agricultural Law Centre in Arkansas. Federal politicians are getting in on the act, too. Jon Tester, the Democratic senator from Montana, is among those to have proposed tighter federal laws on foreign land ownership.
Yet there is little reason to think that Chinese firms are really buying much American land—whether near military bases or otherwise. If official data are to be believed, Chinese landholdings are both tiny and shrinking. Chinese investment into America has collapsed in the past few years. Is it all a storm about nothing?
Since 1978 foreign owners of agricultural land have been required to declare it to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The agency’s data show that, at the end of 2022, around 3% of privately held land nationwide was declared foreign-owned. The biggest holders were firms and individuals from Canada, followed by the Netherlands and Britain. Declared Chinese entities held less than 1% of all foreign-owned land, or 0.03% of the total. People in Luxembourg own more. Foreign land ownership has grown by 40% since 2016, but China is not evidently the driver. From 2021 to 2022 the total amount of land owned in full or in part by Chinese firms shrank from 384,000 acres to 347,000. In Iowa, Chinese holdings totalled just 281 acres—an area smaller than the state fairgrounds in Des Moines.
So why the panic? Mr Brown says that the surge of lawmaking is driven by a change in the political climate, caused by two relatively high-profile incidents of Chinese land purchases near military bases. One was for a grain-milling plant in North Dakota, a few miles away from Grand Forks Air Force Base. The other was land purchased to build a wind farm in southern Texas, near Laughlin Air Force base. Those, combined with the shooting down of a Chinese spy balloon last year, meant that: “Nobody wanted to stand up against restricting [Chinese] purchases of land,” says Mr Brown. Politicians of various stripes have suggested that the Chinese either want to spy, or to control America’s food supply, or both.
The patchiness of official data does not help. That 281 acres in Iowa is owned by Syngenta, an agricultural-science firm. The firm was purchased outright by ChemChina, a state-owned chemicals firm, in 2017. But until 2021 the land was listed as Swiss-owned in the USDA records—as were several other Syngenta sites. Late last year, tax records revealed that Chen Tianqiao, a Chinese billionaire with past links to the Communist Party, who lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, owns almost 200,000 acres of forestry land in Oregon, which was not declared as foreign-owned. (Mr Chen’s firm now says that, following media questions, it has submitted the relevant USDA filings.) A review by the Government Accountability Office published on January 18th found that the Treasury and Defence departments need timelier and more accurate data to judge security risks.
Still, it is unlikely that data gaps hide a surge of secret Chinese purchases. Overall Chinese investment into America peaked in 2016, and has fallen off a cliff since the pandemic, says Derek Scissors, who maintains a database of Chinese foreign investment for the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank. What investment is continuing is generally confined to the supply chain for electric vehicles. The flood of Chinese land purchases that began a decade or so ago was more to do with wealthy Chinese people trying to get their money out of China than about spying, according to Mr Scissors. The new laws are a bit like ones “preventing snow emergencies in Florida”, he says. That is to say, pointless.
From California to the New York island
Some politicians are frustrated with the endless focus on land. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democratic congressman who is the ranking member of the House select committee on China, admits that enforcement of filing requirements for USDA’s database is “pretty lax”. But some laws intended to stop any Chinese-origin individuals buying any land at all, such as one passed in Florida last year that restricted even residential-property purchases, drift into “outright racism and xenophobia”, he complains. He wishes politicians would focus more on improving American competitiveness in general. Sadly that is harder than blustering about farmland. ■
Correction (January 23rd 2024): This article was updated to note that Chen Tianqiao no longer has links to the Chinese Communist Party.
Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter, which examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
Andersen Ross Photography Inc | Digitalvision | Getty Images
Wall Street is warning that the U.S. Department of Education’s crack down on student loan repayments may take billions of dollars out of consumers’ pockets and hit low income Americans particularly hard.
The department has restarted collections on defaulted student loans under President Donald Trump this month. For first time in around five years, borrowers who haven’t kept up with their bills could see their wages taken or face other punishments.
Using a range of interest rates and lengths of repayment plans, JPMorgan estimated that disposable personal income could be collectively cut by between $3.1 billion and $8.5 billion every month due to collections, according to Murat Tasci, senior U.S. economist at the bank and a Cleveland Federal Reserve alum.
If that all surfaced in one quarter, collections on defaulted and seriously delinquent loans alone would slash between 0.7% and 1.8% from disposable personal income year-over-year, he said.
This policy change may strain consumers who are already stressed out by Trump’s tariff plan and high prices from years of runaway inflation. These factors can help explain why closely followed consumer sentiment data compiled by the University of Michigan has been hitting some of its lowest levels in its seven-decade history in the past two months.
“You have a number of these pressure points rising,” said Jeffrey Roach, chief economist at LPL Financial. “Perhaps in aggregate, it’s enough to quash some of these spending numbers.”
Bank of America said this push to collect could particularly weigh on groups that are on more precarious financial footing. “We believe resumption of student loan payments will have knock-on effects on broader consumer finances, most especially for the subprime consumer segment,” Bank of America analyst Mihir Bhatia wrote to clients.
Economic impact
Student loans account for just 9% of all outstanding consumer debt, according to Bank of America. But when excluding mortgages, that share shoots up to 30%.
Total outstanding student loan debt sat at $1.6 trillion at the end of March, an increase of half a trillion dollars in the last decade.
The New York Fed estimates that nearly one of every four borrowers required to make payments are currently behind. When the federal government began reporting loans as delinquent in the first quarter of this year, the share of debt holders in this boat jumped up to 8% from around 0.5% in the prior three-month period.
To be sure, delinquency is not the same thing as default. Delinquency refers to any loan with a past-due payment, while defaulting is more specific and tied to not making a delayed payment with a period of time set by the provider. The latter is considered more serious and carries consequences such as wage garnishment. If seriously delinquent borrowers also defaulted, JPMorgan projected that almost 25% of all student loans would be in the latter category.
JPMorgan’s Tasci pointed out that not all borrowers have wages or Social Security earnings to take, which can mitigate the firm’s total estimates. Some borrowers may resume payments with collections beginning, though Tasci noted that would likely also eat into discretionary spending.
Trump’s promise to reduce taxes on overtime and tips, if successful, could also help erase some effects of wage garnishment on poorer Americans.
Still, the expected hit to discretionary income is worrisome as Wall Street wonders if the economy can skirt a recession. Much hope has been placed on the ability of consumers to keep spending even if higher tariffs push product prices higher or if the labor market weakens.
LPL’s Roach sees this as less of an issue. He said the postpandemic economy has largely been propped up by high-income earners, who have done the bulk of the spending. This means the tide-change for student loan holders may not hurt the macroeconomic picture too much, he said.
“It’s hard to say if there’s a consensus view on this yet,” Roach said. “But I would say the student loan story is not as important as perhaps some of the other stories, just because those who hold student loans are not necessarily the drivers of the overall economy.”
A woman walks in an aisle of a Walmart supermarket in Houston, Texas, on May 15, 2025.
Ronaldo Schemidt | Afp | Getty Images
U.S. consumers are becoming increasingly worried that tariffs will lead to higher inflation, according to a University of Michigan survey released Friday.
The index of consumer sentiment dropped to 50.8, down from 52.2 in April, in the preliminary reading for May. That is the second-lowest reading on record, behind June 2022.
The outlook for price changes also moved in the wrong direction. Year-ahead inflation expectations rose to 7.3% from 6.5% last month, while long-term inflation expectations ticked up to 4.6% from 4.4%.
However, the majority of the survey was completed before the U.S. and China announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs between the two countries. The trade situation appears to be a key factor weighing on consumer sentiment.
“Tariffs were spontaneously mentioned by nearly three-quarters of consumers, up from almost 60% in April; uncertainty over trade policy continues to dominate consumers’ thinking about the economy,” Surveys of Consumers director Joanne Hsu said in the release.
Inflation expectations are closely watched by investors and policymakers. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has said the central bank wants to make sure long-term inflation expectations do not rise because of tariffs before resuming rate cuts.
A final consumer sentiment index for the month is slated to be released on May 30, and will likely be closely watched to see if the tariff pause led to an improvement in sentiment.
This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
Jamie Dimon, chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co., speaks during the 2025 National Retirement Summit in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, March 12, 2025.
Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Wall Street titan Jamie Dimon said Thursday that a recession is still a serious possibility for the United States, even after the recent rollback of tariffs on China.
“If there’s a recession, I don’t know how big it will be or how long it will last. Hopefully we’ll avoid it, but I wouldn’t take it off the table at this point,” the JPMorgan Chase CEO said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.
Specifically, Dimon said he would defer to his bank’s economists, who put recession odds at close to a toss-up. Michael Feroli, the firm’s chief U.S. economist, said in a note to clients on Tuesday that the recession outlook is “still elevated, but now below 50%.”
Dimon’s comments come less than a week after the U.S. and China announced that they were sharply reducing tariffs on one another for 90 days. The U.S. has also implemented a 90-day pause for many tariffs on other nations.
Thursday’s comments mark a change for Dimon, who said last month before the China truce that a recession was likely.
He also said there is still “uncertainty” on the tariff front but the pauses are a positive for the economy and market.
“I think the right thing to do is to back off some of that stuff and engage in conversation,” Dimon said.
However, even with the tariff pauses, the import taxes on goods entering the United States are now sharply higher than they were last year and could cause economic damage, according to Dimon.
“Even at this level, you see people holding back on investment and thinking through what they want to do,” Dimon said.