by NALC staff
Since January 2021, almost every state has proposed at least one piece of legislation to prohibit or restrict foreign investments and landholdings in land, particularly private agricultural land, located within the boundaries of their states to some degrees. In fact, over the past few years, the number of states with a foreign ownership law has increased from fourteen to twenty-five. This trend continues in 2025 as the majority of states in the U.S. are considering measures that will enact a foreign ownership law or will amend certain provisions of their states’ foreign ownership law.
This is the third article of a series discussing recent state proposals that seek to limit or restrict foreign investments in land. The first two articles in this series are available here and here. This article discusses the proposals introduced in Iowa, Maryland, and Missouri.
Iowa
Iowa is one of several states seeking to amend its state’s foreign ownership law during the 2025 legislation session. Currently, Iowa state law prohibits nonresident aliens, foreign business entities, and foreign governments from acquiring agricultural land located within its state. However, House File 83 (“HF 83”) has been introduced to extend this restriction. Specifically, HF 83 will restrict foreign governments, and any agent or fiduciary that acts on behalf of the foreign government, from acquiring any real property located within the state, not just agricultural land. Further, if enacted, this measure would require foreign governments to divest of any interest they hold in real property within 2 years of the enactment date of this measure. HF 83 will also require county recorders—whose duties include filing documents relating to conveyances of real property—to report any potential violation of the restriction to the Iowa attorney general.
On January 17, 2025, HF 83 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration. At this stage, the committee can review the bill, hear testimony in support and opposition of the bill, amend the bill, pass the bill for consideration by its respective chamber, or vote to fail passage of the bill out of committee.
Maryland
Maryland state law prevents an “alien who is not an enemy” from owning or disposing of property in the same manner as a citizen of the state. However, this statute does not define “enemy” and is likely not enforceable as currently written. Thus, Maryland is not considered as one of the twenty-five states that current have a foreign ownership law. Recently, House Bill 471 (“HB 471”) was introduced in the Maryland state legislature, which seeks to restrict certain foreign investments land located within the state. Specifically, HB 471 will restrict a nonresident alien and business entity of a country subject to the federal International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) from purchasing agricultural land, including land used for raising livestock, within the state. Several countries are subject to ITAR, including China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela. Individuals employed by or associated with a government of a country subject to ITAR will also be restricted from acquiring agricultural land in Maryland. This measure is similar to a bill (House Bill 885) considered—but failed to be enacted—by the state legislature during the state’s 2024 legislation session; however, that measure sought to specifically restrict investments from citizens and business entities of China.
HB 471 has been referred to the House Environment and Transportation Committee where a hearing on the bill is scheduled for February 12, 2025.
Missouri
Missouri is one of twenty-five states that have a foreign ownership law. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 442.560–592. Over the years, the state’s law has gone through some significant changes, most notably in 2013 when the Missouri state legislature amended the state’s foreign ownership law to assist the Chinese company Shuanghui International Holdings in its purchase of Smithfield foods. Before the 2013 amendment, Missouri’s foreign ownership law prohibited almost all foreign investments in the state’s agricultural land for farming purposes. However, under the current law, foreign investors may acquire up to “one percent of the total aggregate agricultural acreage” within the state. For several years, the state legislature considered various bills to amend its foreign ownership law to restrict more foreign investments in the state’s farmland, but each measure has failed to be enacted into law.
So far in the 2025, eight foreign ownership measures have been introduced by the Missouri state legislature. Senate Bill 123 (“SB 123”) and its companion bill, House Bill 725 (“HB 725”), seek to repeal the state’s “one percent” exception and restrict a “alien or foreign business” from acquiring any interest in agricultural land located within the state. Further, these bills will require any alien or foreign business to notify the Missouri Department of Agriculture (“MDA”) of a proposed transfer of agricultural land so that MDA can ensure the land is not being transferred to another alien or foreign business in violation of the law.
House Bill 672 (“HB 672”) contains the same proposed amendments as SB 123 and HB 725, but also seeks to require foreign businesses to dispose of any interest they hold in Missouri agricultural land before August 28, 2030. This piece of legislation would also direct MDA to compile a list of each foreign business with agricultural landholdings, notify these businesses of the divestment requirement, and track all divestments.
Both Senate Bill 217 (“SB 217”) and Senate Bill 250 (“SB 250”) seek to restrict aliens, foreign businesses, and foreign governments from acquiring an interest in agricultural land within the state on or after the effective date of the legislation. Unlike HB 672, both SB 217 and SB 250 would permit foreign investors to retain the interests in agricultural land they held before the effective date, if enacted, but any proposed transfer of the property must be submitted to MDA at least 30 days prior to the conveyance.
Other measures being considered by the state legislature is Senate Bill 211 (“SB 211”) and House Bill 897 (“HB 897”), and these pieces of legislation are different from the other bills currently being considered by the Missouri state legislature. These measures would restrict a political subdivision—such as county or city government—from procuring, authorizing, or approving a development, building plan, or any other proposal relating to a development of the local government with an individual or government identified by U.S. Secretary of Commerce as a “foreign adversary”. Countries currently designed as foreign adversaries include China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. Further, SB 211 and HB 897 seek to restrict foreign adversary governments and businesses owned or controlled by, or headquartered in, a foreign adversary country from acquiring or holding title to any real property located within the state. However, businesses are exempt from this restriction if they have been a registered business in good standing for 7 or more years, obtained approval to operate in the U.S. by the Committee of Foreign Investment in the U.S. (“CFIUS”) and maintain a national security agreement with CFIUS.
Last, the Missouri state legislature is considering House Bill 993 (“HB 993”), which seeks to amend certain portions of the state’s current foreign ownership law. Particularly, this measure will reduce the “one percent of the total aggregate” exception for foreign ownership of agricultural land to one-half of a percent. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s most recent statistics, foreign investors hold 1.3% of the total private agricultural acreage in Missouri. However, HB 993 does not extend this exception to foreign adversary business entities. In other words, this bill will restrict business entities organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country and entities owned by citizens of a foreign adversary country from acquiring any real property located within the state, not just agricultural land.
The Missouri state legislature’s session began on January 8, 2025, and some of these bills have been referred to a committee for consideration while others are expected to be referred to committees in the coming weeks.
Conclusion
Over the past few years, the issue of restricting foreign ownership and investments in real property, particularly agricultural and forestland, has emerged or reemerged in almost every state. In fact, fourteen states in 2024 enacted a foreign ownership law or amended its foreign ownership law. So far in 2025, this trend has continued as most states have introduced at least one piece of foreign ownership legislation in their state.
To read NALC articles discussing foreign investments in U.S. agriculture, click here.
To learn more about foreign ownership of U.S. land, click here.
Subscribe to NALC’s bi-weekly newsletter The Feed for recent legal developments affecting agriculture, including foreign ownership of agricultural land here.
For previous issues of The Feed, click here.