Foreign land ownership faces increased scrutiny across states

Efforts to restrict foreign ownership of American farmland are picking up steam across the country, with North Carolina, Texas, and Nebraska pushing forward bills that would limit land control by foreign adversaries.

In Nebraska, lawmakers voted 47-0 on April 3 to pass LB7, a measure sponsored by Sen. Barry DeKay of Niobrara. The bill updates and strengthens the state’s Foreign-owned Real Estate National Security Act. One of the most notable changes clarifies that Native American tribes are not foreign governments and are not subject to land ownership restrictions under the law.

The bill also takes additional steps to address foreign influence over strategic resources. LB7 prohibits foreign corporations and nonresident aliens from holding or operating leases for oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon substances — an expansion beyond agricultural land that underscores the legislature’s broader national security focus.

In addition, LB7 shields from classifying entities with no outstanding national security concerns, as determined by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, under the designation of being restricted under the act. The bill also establishes new enforcement and disclosure provisions that require the Nebraska attorney general to immediately notify the governor and state Legislature of any court-ordered real estate divestitures pursuant to the act.

Across the country, foreign ownership of land is an increasingly trendy issue. In North Carolina, House Bill 133 and Senate Bill 394 are moving through legislative committees. Both bills would prohibit foreign enemies from buying agricultural land or land near military bases. The Senate bill is stricter, prohibiting foreign entities from buying land within 25 miles of a military base or within specified airspace.

In Texas, Senate Bill 17, authored by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, passed the Senate 24-7 and now awaits House consideration. The bill prohibits land purchases by entities associated with countries listed in the U.S. intelligence community’s Annual Threat Assessment — currently China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. Kolkhorst described the bill as “the most comprehensive prohibition on adversarial control of land and natural resources in the U.S.,” citing threats to food and resource security.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick prioritized SB 17, calling the legislation a “common sense” approach to protecting Texas from adversarial influence. The Texas Farm Bureau, which supports the bill, said it addresses unequal trade advantages and strengthens resource security.

These legislative efforts are part of a broader movement, with at least 30 states enacting some form of restriction on foreign ownership

These legislative efforts are part of a broader trend, with at least 30 states having passed some form of restriction on foreign purchase of farm land, the National Agricultural Law Center says. Proposals vary from state to state but are typically motivated by national security concerns, particularly in the aftermath of high-profile incidents such as the failed Chinese corn mill project near Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota.

As these policies move forward, some legal experts have raised questions about potential constitutional issues, including commerce clause conflicts and equal protection considerations. Still, lawmakers across states say the urgency of protecting farmland and national resources outweighs the risk of legal challenges.

As Sen. Brinson of North Carolina put it, “Food security is national security.” And judging by the legislative momentum, more states may soon follow suit.

»Related: AFBF: Updates in foreign-owned land trends