The landscape of foreign land ownership in the United States is evolving rapidly, with states increasingly proposing legislation to restrict or prohibit such investments, particularly in agricultural land. Since January 2021, nearly every state has introduced at least one piece of legislation aimed at curbing foreign investments in land. This trend has seen the number of states with foreign ownership laws rise from fourteen to twenty-five, and the momentum continues into 2025, with a majority of states considering new measures or amendments to existing laws.
Iowa is one of the states at the forefront of this legislative push. Currently, Iowa prohibits nonresident aliens, foreign business entities, and foreign governments from acquiring agricultural land within its borders. However, House File 83 (HF 83) seeks to broaden this restriction. If enacted, HF 83 would prevent foreign governments and their agents from acquiring any real property in Iowa, not just agricultural land. Additionally, it would require foreign governments to divest of any real property interests within two years of the law’s enactment. County recorders would be tasked with reporting potential violations to the Iowa attorney general, adding a layer of enforcement to the existing law. HF 83 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on January 17, 2025, where it will undergo review and potential amendments.
In Maryland, the legislative landscape is somewhat different. Maryland’s current law prevents “aliens who are not enemies” from owning or disposing of property like a state citizen, but the lack of a clear definition for “enemy” makes the statute largely unenforceable. House Bill 471 (HB 471) aims to address this by restricting nonresident aliens and business entities from countries subject to the federal International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) from purchasing agricultural land. Countries under ITAR include China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela. Individuals employed by or associated with governments of these countries would also be restricted. HB 471 is scheduled for a hearing in the House Environment and Transportation Committee on February 12, 2025.
Missouri, which already has a foreign ownership law, is considering several measures to further restrict foreign investments in agricultural land. Senate Bill 123 (SB 123) and its companion bill, House Bill 725 (HB 725), seek to repeal the state’s “one percent” exception, which currently allows foreign investors to acquire up to one percent of the total aggregate agricultural acreage. These bills would require foreign entities to notify the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) of any proposed land transfers to ensure compliance. House Bill 672 (HB 672) goes further, requiring foreign businesses to dispose of their agricultural landholdings by August 28, 2030, and directing MDA to track all divestments. Other measures, such as Senate Bill 217 (SB 217) and Senate Bill 250 (SB 250), aim to restrict aliens, foreign businesses, and foreign governments from acquiring agricultural land while allowing them to retain existing interests with prior notification to MDA.
Missouri is also considering legislation that targets “foreign adversaries,” as designated by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Senate Bill 211 (SB 211) and House Bill 897 (HB 897) would restrict political subdivisions from engaging in developments with these adversaries and prevent them from acquiring real property in the state. Exemptions are provided for businesses that have been registered for seven years, obtained CFIUS approval, and maintain a national security agreement. Additionally, House Bill 993 (HB 993) seeks to reduce the foreign ownership exception for agricultural land from one percent to one-half of a percent, further tightening restrictions on foreign investments.
These legislative efforts reflect a growing concern among states about foreign ownership of agricultural land. The implications are significant, as they could impact global investment patterns, agricultural production, and international relations. The outcome of these proposals will shape the future of foreign land ownership in the U.S., with potential ripple effects on the global agricultural market.