Protecting our Land Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 15, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to prevent hostile foreign governments and their proxies from acquiring U.S. real estate, citing national security concerns.
What it actually does
This bill directs the President to instruct federal departments and agencies to establish rules and regulations prohibiting the purchase of any public or private real estate in the United States by foreign adversaries, state sponsors of terrorism, or any entity or person owned, controlled by, or affiliated with them. It defines these prohibited entities by referencing existing U.S. law and executive determinations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a vital national security measure, preventing hostile foreign governments and their proxies from gaining strategic footholds near sensitive military installations, critical infrastructure, or valuable agricultural land. They contend it safeguards U.S. economic interests, protects against espionage, and mitigates undue foreign influence.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill's definitions, particularly for 'foreign adversary' and 'affiliated with,' are overly broad and could inadvertently deter legitimate foreign investment or create significant bureaucratic hurdles. They may also raise concerns about potential for arbitrary enforcement or unintended consequences for individuals with distant or indirect ties to listed entities.
The bill text is very short and straightforward, making it easily digestible for any reader to evaluate its core provisions.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Real Estate Purchase by Foreign Adversaries and State Sponsors of Terrorism
This section mandates that the President direct federal departments and agencies to promulgate rules and regulations. These rules would prohibit the purchase of any public or private real estate located anywhere in the United States (including states, territories, and possessions) by foreign adversaries, state sponsors of terrorism, their agents, instrumentalities, or any person owned, controlled by, or affiliated with such entities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this prohibition is essential to safeguard national security by preventing hostile foreign actors from acquiring land that could be used for espionage, influence operations, or to disrupt critical infrastructure or supply chains. They emphasize the importance of protecting sensitive areas and agricultural land from foreign control.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that the broad definitions, particularly 'affiliated with,' could lead to overreach, ensnaring legitimate businesses or individuals with tenuous connections to listed entities. They may also argue it could deter beneficial foreign investment without clear evidence of widespread harm from current real estate purchases.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances national security concerns against potential impacts on foreign investment and the complexity of identifying and regulating all potentially 'affiliated' persons without unintended consequences for legitimate economic activity.
These subsections define 'foreign adversary' as any foreign government or non-government person engaged in conduct significantly adverse to U.S. national security, and 'state sponsor of terrorism' by reference to existing statutes (Export Control Reform Act, Foreign Assistance Act, Arms Export Control Act).
Section 2(b)(1) and (2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid repeating lengthy definitions and to leverage existing legal frameworks and executive branch determinations. However, it makes the full scope less transparent to a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents would argue that using established definitions and existing lists (like the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism) provides consistency and leverages existing expertise and legal authority, preventing the need to create new, potentially redundant, classification systems.
Case against: Critics might contend that relying on broad, pre-existing definitions, especially for 'foreign adversary,' grants significant discretionary power to the executive branch, potentially leading to arbitrary or politically motivated designations without specific congressional oversight for this particular prohibition.
Estimated impact: The impact is substantial, as these definitions determine precisely which entities are subject to the real estate purchase prohibition, affecting a wide range of potential actors.