RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina lawmakers are moving forward with legislation that would prohibit governments and companies from adversarial nations from purchasing or leasing agricultural land and real estate within a 50-mile radius of military installations in the state, though the measure has drawn questions about its scope and the administrative resources needed to enforce it.
Senate Bill 394 cleared a committee on a voice vote Tuesday and now heads to the House Rules Committee. The bill targets countries the federal government has designated as adversarial, including China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Foreign entities already holding property in North Carolina would be permitted to retain it but could not purchase additional land.
What the Bill Would Do
Under the legislation, the Secretary of State would be required to maintain a monthly registry of prohibited foreign parties holding registered properties in the state. Any prohibited entity that fails to register would face a minimum fine of $1,000 per day, and unpaid penalties would trigger a lien on the property in question.
If the bill becomes law, the North Carolina Real Estate Commission and the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs would need to publish a map of military facility boundaries by December, giving property owners and real estate professionals a clear reference for the restricted zones.
The legislation has been revised since its introduction. An earlier version covered individual citizens of adversarial nations; lawmakers narrowed it to apply only to companies, addressing concerns raised by Asian advocacy groups in Wake and Mecklenburg counties. Senate sponsors have also been in discussions with the North Carolina Bar Association and the North Carolina Realtors Association about outstanding issues.
Concerns About Scope and Resources
Several objections surfaced during committee deliberations. Representative Julie von Haefen submitted four amendments that were not taken up for a vote. She argued that a 50-mile buffer is broader than necessary, noting that it would encompass the entire distance between Fayetteville and Raleigh. Von Haefen proposed a 25-mile radius as a more workable alternative and also sought to strip the leasing ban from the bill.
For context, similar laws enacted in Florida, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio, and Georgia use a 10-mile radius around military sites — far narrower than what North Carolina’s bill proposes.
Senator Bob Brinson, a bill sponsor, defended the wider perimeter by pointing to the capabilities of commercially available drones, noting that such aircraft can travel five miles in just over three minutes. He also cited data from a search of a U.S. Department of Agriculture website showing 39 properties in North Carolina currently owned by entities tied to U.S. adversaries. Thirty-six of those properties are held by WH Group, the Chinese company that owns Smithfield Foods.
“Local and state law enforcement do not have detection systems around military bases, although I’d love to change that in subsequent sessions,” Brinson said, underscoring the security rationale behind the bill.
Administrative capacity also emerged as a concern. Bill Toole, speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State’s office, indicated the agency would need significant additional support to carry out the registry requirement, saying, “We need IT support, we need servers, and manpower necessary to meet that mission as you give it to us.”
By the Numbers
• 50 miles — proposed restricted radius around military installations in North Carolina
• $1,000 minimum per day — fine for prohibited parties that fail to register
• 39 — properties in North Carolina currently identified as owned by adversarial foreign entities
• 36 — of those properties held by WH Group, parent company of Smithfield Foods
• 10 miles — radius used in comparable laws in Florida, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio, and Georgia
Broader Context
Foreign land ownership restrictions have gained traction across the country in recent years, with more than a dozen states enacting or advancing similar measures. The push reflects heightened concern in state capitals about national security risks tied to property ownership near sensitive military and agricultural infrastructure. North Carolina’s version is among the more expansive in geographic scope, which has fueled the debate over where to draw the line.
The House passed related legislation in April. As Senate Bill 394 moves to the House Rules Committee, negotiators will need to resolve the outstanding questions around the buffer radius, the leasing provision, and funding for registry operations before a final vote. The December deadline for publishing the military boundary map creates an implicit pressure on the timeline for final passage.
For more on legislation affecting North Carolina property and local government finances, see the House property tax moratorium bill advancing through the General Assembly.