Well, I think they do but the author of this piece doesn't do a great job IMO of 1) clearly stating why any foreign ownership of American agricultural land is problematic; or 2) recognizing that all this anti-China legislation is likely a deliberate distraction from the bigger problem American farmers and consumers face, corporate ownership of farm land.

Using competition with — and fear of — China as a justification for legislation that touches on virtually all aspects of American life has become the norm in Washington. The total number of bills in which the word “China” is cited during the current session of Congress is rapidly approaching 400.

If "[t]he explicit goal of this kind of legislation is... food security" then that applies to any foreign ownership.

But advocates for U.S. farmers say that blaming Chinese and other foreign nationals for food insecurity misdiagnoses the true root of the problem, which they say is the rapid increase over the last 15 years in agricultural land ownership by wealthy individuals, pension funds, and multinational corporations.

“The real issue, if [legislators] actually really cared about the food supply and food security and food sovereignty,” adds Fran Miller, a senior staff attorney and adjunct faculty member at the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at the University of Vermont Law School, “is corporate ownership of agricultural lands and ways that pension funds and real estate investment trusts and all these investors are gobbling up agricultural lands and trying to make as much profit as possible, which means that new farmers, marginalized farmers, people seeking land access to actually grow food, are stymied.”

BINGO!

Some of these corporations are foreign-owned, but Treakle points out that the most important source of foreign ownership of U.S. agriculture land is Canada — not China.