Alabama House Bill HB68

Alabama 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/4/24
• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Refer: 12/4/24
• Refer: 2/4/25
• Report Pass: 2/12/25

Caption

Leasehold interests added to prohibition against acquisition of ownership interests by certain individuals, governments, political parties in agricultural, forest and other real property; adds companies, individuals on U.S. Treasury sanctions lists to sanctions list prohibition; specifies overall pertinence to property in the state

Impact

The bill prohibits foreign principals from acquiring both ownership and leasehold interests in agricultural and forest land, as well as real property located within 10 miles of military installations or critical infrastructure facilities. By preventing these acquisitions, the legislation aims to protect Alabama's agricultural resources and maintain the integrity of regions surrounding essential government and commercial facilities, effectively consolidating the state's control over sensitive properties. The enactment is set to take effect on August 1, 2025, allowing a grace period for existing contracts before the new rules apply.

Summary

House Bill 68 aims to amend existing legislation concerning the acquisition of agricultural, forest, and other real property in Alabama. Specifically known as the Alabama Property Protection Act, this bill broadens the definition of 'foreign principal' to encompass not only government officials and entities from specified countries, but also individuals and companies listed on any sanctions list by the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. This change represents a significant expansion in the scope of who is prohibited from acquiring property in the state, highlighting growing concerns over foreign influence in key sectors of the economy.

Contention

The discussions around HB 68 are expected to be contentious, primarily because of the implications it carries for property rights and foreign investment in Alabama. Supporters of the bill argue that it is necessary for national security and economic protection, especially against adversarial nations, while opponents may view it as an overreach that could limit beneficial foreign investments. The broader definition of foreign principals raises questions about the impact on legitimate business operations, which could foster concerns over economic isolationism and reduced competitive advantage in agricultural sectors.