Texas Enacts Nation’s Toughest Ban on Land Ownership by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea

Senate Bill 17 Takes Effect, Aiming to Safeguard Critical Infrastructure Amid Controversy

Austin, TX, September 8, 2025 – Texas has officially implemented Senate Bill 17 (SB 17), signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 20, 2025, and effective as of September 1, 2025. Hailed by Abbott as the “toughest ban in America,” the legislation prohibits individuals, companies, and government-linked entities from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea from purchasing or owning farmland, residential homes, commercial buildings, and other critical real estate in the Lone Star State. The move, designed to protect national security by limiting foreign control over strategic assets, has sparked both praise and criticism, with opponents warning of discriminatory impacts and economic consequences.

The Scope of Senate Bill 17

SB 17, authored by Republican Senator Lois Kolkhorst of Brenham, targets countries identified as security threats in the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment by the U.S. Intelligence Community. The law bans these nations’ citizens, businesses, and state-linked organizations from acquiring real property, defined broadly to include agricultural land, residential homes, commercial and industrial properties, mines, minerals, water rights, and timber. Properties near military installations, such as Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio, or critical infrastructure like water and energy facilities are explicitly prioritized for protection.

The legislation also limits rentals by affected parties to less than one year, closing potential loopholes for long-term control without ownership. Exemptions exist for U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (green card holders), and individuals on valid visas, who may purchase one primary residence but are barred from acquiring additional properties or making real estate investments. Violations are classified as state jail felonies, carrying fines up to $250,000 or 50% of the property’s market value, whichever is greater. The Texas Attorney General’s Office is tasked with investigating complaints, with district courts empowered to issue divestment orders requiring violators to sell or terminate leases.

The Motivation: National Security or Xenophobia?

Supporters, including Governor Abbott and Senator Kolkhorst, argue that SB 17 is a critical safeguard against foreign adversaries gaining influence over Texas’ food supply, military security, and infrastructure. “Hostile foreign adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea must not be allowed to own land in Texas,” Abbott declared in a post on X on August 27, 2025. The law was partly inspired by a 2016–2018 case involving Chinese businessman Sun Guangxin, a former People’s Liberation Army officer, who purchased 140,000 acres near Laughlin Air Force Base for a wind farm project. Though initially approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the project was halted by a 2021 Texas law banning certain foreign entities from critical infrastructure deals.

Texas holds the largest share of Chinese-owned land in the U.S., with 123,708 acres as of 2023, nearly 45% of the nation’s total Chinese-held land, according to state data. However, Chinese investors own less than 1% of U.S. farmland overall, with Russia, Iran, and North Korea collectively holding under 3,000 acres, per a 2021 USDA report. Supporters like Chuck DeVore of the Texas Public Policy Foundation emphasize the need to protect strategic assets, citing the proximity of foreign-owned land to military bases as a potential surveillance risk.

Critics, including Texas Representative Gene Wu and the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance, argue that SB 17 is discriminatory, echoing historical anti-Asian legislation like the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. “It’s discriminating against Chinese people, it’s discriminating against immigrants,” said attorney Justin Sadowsky, representing two Chinese nationals who filed a lawsuit in July 2025 to block the law. The suit, dismissed by a federal judge but under appeal at the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, claims SB 17 violates constitutional protections and risks criminalizing long-term leases. Wu warned that the law could deter legitimate economic partnerships, noting that Chinese companies invested $2.7 billion in Texas between 2011 and 2021, creating over 4,600 jobs.

National Context and Broader Implications

Texas is not alone in restricting foreign land ownership. At least 25 states have passed similar laws as of June 2025, with Ohio considering an even stricter ban that includes green card holders. The trend aligns with a national push, amplified by the Trump administration’s pledge to ban Chinese nationals from purchasing U.S. farmland, citing national security concerns. Federal legislation introduced by Representatives Elissa Slotkin and Blake Moore in 2024 seeks to expand CFIUS oversight to farmland purchases exceeding $1 million or 100 acres, reflecting frustration with the federal government’s limited regulatory reach.

In Texas, the law’s economic impact remains contentious. Opponents warn it could chill foreign investment, with China being one of Texas’ top trading partners. A 2023 protest by Chinese-American activist Jason Yuan likened SB 17 to a modern “Chinese Exclusion Act,” arguing it fuels anti-Asian sentiment. Supporters counter that the law targets actions and affiliations, not race, with State Representative Cole Hefner emphasizing its focus on “hostile foreign adversaries.”

Enforcement and Future Outlook

The Texas Attorney General’s Office, led by Ken Paxton, will spearhead enforcement, investigating potential violations and pursuing divestment through the courts. While the law applies only to purchases or leases after September 1, 2025, its retroactive scrutiny of existing holdings remains unclear. A 2024 state audit estimated that foreign entities own 5.7 million acres of Texas land, though most belong to allies like Canada and the Netherlands.

As Texas enforces SB 17, the balance between national security and economic openness hangs in the balance. Critics fear a chilling effect on immigrant communities, while supporters see it as a model for protecting American sovereignty. With legal challenges pending and a national debate intensifying, the law’s legacy will likely shape Texas’ political and economic landscape for years to come.