Amid mounting national security concerns, Ohio Republicans are considering legislation that would restrict foreign land ownership, particularly in sensitive areas.
The push builds in tandem with recent federal proposals targeting farmland acquisitions near military installations.
Ohio lawmakers are advancing House Bill 1 and Senate Bill 88, which would prohibit entities tied to designated “foreign adversaries,” notably China, from owning agricultural land or property within 25 miles of military bases and critical infrastructure. The Secretary of State would identify barred nations every six months and prohibit purchases accordingly; an amendment removed prior forced‑sale provisions for existing owners, though new prohibitions remain in place.
At the state level, Sen. Terry Johnson, R‑McDermott, the bill’s sponsor, argues the measures are crucial for security.
“I introduced this bill because I strongly believe that Ohio’s land should not be for sale to those who seek to destroy the American way of life,” he said in committee testimony.
Washington recently unveiled its National Farm Security Action Plan, led by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, which would bar Chinese and adversary‑linked buyers from acquiring U.S. farmland, especially near military installations, and expand oversight through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). The federal plan may also claw back already‑owned land and raise fines for failure to disclose foreign holdings.
These federal moves reinforce concerns raised by the Ohio Farm Bureau, which highlights that roughly 538,000 acres of farmland in the state are foreign‑owned, though much comes from peaceful European investors in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and Portugal. Nationally, foreign holdings account for approximately 3.6% of privately held agricultural land, compared to 2.7% in Ohio.
Ohio Farm Bureau policy director Evan Callicoat urged broader improvements in enforcement and real‑time data collection.
“Land owned by foreign adversaries is only the latest threat, not just in Ohio but across the country,” he said in support of HB 1 before the Ohio House committee.
Supporters contend that more robust federal backing would ensure state efforts align with national security policy and improve enforcement. They argue that integrating state-level bans within a federal framework helps by preventing adversaries from navigating loopholes or exploiting inconsistencies.
Critics, meanwhile, warn that the legislation is overly broad and discriminatory. Hongmei Li of the Ohio Chinese American Council called it “a symbol for hate” and likened the proposal to the Chinese Exclusion Act, arguing it violates constitutional rights and the Fair Housing Act.
Similarly, Ohio REALTORS testified that HB 1 could effectively ban green‑card holders, legal immigrants, from purchasing property, causing confusion and legal risk.
“HB 1 could become the most restrictive law of its kind in the country, many law‑abiding individuals who live and work in Ohio” could be disqualified from buying homes, they said, urging instead a model based on Indiana’s more narrowly tailored legislation.
More broadly, critics caution that the bill’s broad definitions of “critical infrastructure” and lack of public mapping tools would make compliance challenging and risk alienating legitimate foreign investment and businesses operating lawfully in Ohio.
SB 88 remains under review in the Ohio Senate, while House Bill 1 continues through the House Public Safety Committee. Gov. Mike DeWine’s office has expressed interest in striking a legislative “balance” that addresses both national security and the state’s economic vitality, and noted that details of the bill are still subject to change.
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, a bipartisan companion, the AFIDA Improvements Act of 2024, S. 3666, aims to strengthen federal reporting standards on foreign farmland ownership, a step echoed by Ohio’s HB 1 approach. At the same time, the proposed federal Protect Our Bases Act would require annual updates to CFIUS-designated military sites and enhanced reporting to Congress, helping bridge federal-state coordination gaps.
