Property and critical infrastructure; creating the Military Installation and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2025. Effective date.
The legislation has significant implications for property laws in the state, as it categorically prohibits foreign adversaries from owning agricultural land exceeding a specified interest and stipulates that entities must divest properties held in violation of this law. Specifically, it requires a 180-day divestiture timeline for foreign principals who already control such properties. Additionally, contracts and agreements contradicting new provisions are rendered invalid, effectively clearing the way for the Attorney General to enforce compliance, including judicial foreclosure on non-compliant properties.
Senate Bill 893, also known as the Military Installation and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2025, seeks to enhance the security of military installations and critical infrastructure in Oklahoma by regulating foreign ownership of agricultural land and properties near military bases. The bill's primary objective is to prevent foreign principals from foreign adversary countries from owning, controlling, or acquiring agricultural land or real property in proximity to critical military facilities. This act delineates ownership limits, mandates registration requirements, and establishes procedures for divestiture of non-compliant properties.
The sentiment surrounding SB 893 appears largely supportive among legislators concerned about national security, with a unanimous vote in favor reflecting bipartisan agreement on its necessity. Proponents argue that stringent measures are needed to safeguard critical infrastructure from potential foreign threats, suggesting the importance of local control over land use in sensitive areas. However, there are also concerns regarding the implications of the sweeping restrictions on property rights and economic activities in the agricultural sector, with opponents voicing fears of overreach and discouragement of beneficial foreign investment.
While many support the bill's intentions to bolster security, contention arises regarding how it may disproportionately affect farmers and agricultural businesses with legitimate foreign investments. Critics argue that the bill could lead to complications for agricultural operations that rely on diverse ownership structures or foreign partnerships, potentially limiting economic growth. The bill's provisions for whistleblower rewards further complicate the narrative, as it encourages individuals to report violations, which may foster a climate of mistrust among business owners and their foreign partners.