Kansas House Bill HB2290

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/17/25

Caption

Enacting the Kansas land and military installation protection act to prohibit foreign principals from countries of concern from acquiring any interest in certain real property in this state.

Summary

HB 2290 creates the Kansas land and military installation protection act, a new state framework aimed at restricting foreign ownership and control of certain real property near military installations. The bill bars “foreign principals” from “countries of concern” from directly or indirectly acquiring any interest in real property located within 100 miles of a military installation in Kansas or an adjacent state, with limited exceptions for de minimis interests and certain involuntary acquisitions such as devise, bequest, or debt enforcement. It also requires covered foreign principals who already hold such interests to register them with the attorney general and, if they violate the prohibition or fail to register, to divest the property interest. The bill gives the Kansas attorney general enforcement authority, including investigation, negotiated divestiture agreements, court actions, injunctions, civil forfeiture, and recovery of attorney fees and costs. It also directs the attorney general to report non-notified foreign investment transactions to the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to issue annual implementation reports, and to adopt implementing rules. In addition, Kansas State University must annually report on foreign land holdings in the state. The bill further amends Kansas forfeiture law so that violations of the new act are expressly subject to forfeiture, even though real property forfeiture generally requires a felony offense. HB 2290 also prohibits foreign principals from receiving any direct benefit from state economic development incentive programs, broadly defined to include tax credits, abatements, exemptions, revenue-bond-financed property, and other financial assistance. It authorizes the fusion center oversight board to update the bill’s definition of “country of concern” to reflect changes in federal foreign terrorist organization designations, while expressly limiting the board from designating organizations beyond those recognized under federal law. The bill includes a severability clause and repeals the existing forfeiture statutes it amends and replaces. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly protective and security-focused, emphasizing state and national security, military readiness, and oversight of foreign land ownership. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition. Based on the structure and findings in the bill, the likely policy rationale is to prevent strategic foreign acquisition of land near sensitive military sites and to limit state economic incentives to entities tied to countries of concern. Notable points of contention likely center on the breadth of the restrictions, especially the 100-mile buffer around military installations, the inclusion of indirect ownership and broad definitions of foreign principal and country of concern, and the use of forfeiture and attorney general enforcement. Potential concerns also include the impact on legitimate foreign investment, the administrative burden of registration and reporting, and the delegation of rulemaking authority to the fusion center oversight board and attorney general. The bill’s carve-out for Taiwan and its reliance on federal foreign adversary and terrorist organization designations may also be relevant points of discussion.

Impact

HB 2290 would add a new chapter of Kansas law restricting foreign ownership interests in nonresidential real property near military installations and denying economic development benefits to foreign principals from countries of concern. It would also amend Kansas forfeiture statutes to make violations of the new land-protection act forfeitable conduct, expanding state enforcement tools beyond the usual felony-based forfeiture framework. The bill would impose new registration, reporting, divestiture, and annual data-collection obligations on foreign property holders, the attorney general, and Kansas State University, while creating new administrative and rulemaking responsibilities for state officials.

Sentiment

The bill’s tone and policy direction are strongly security-oriented and restrictive, reflecting concern about foreign influence, land acquisition near military sites, and national security risks. With no committee transcript or vote record provided, there is no direct evidence of bipartisan support or opposition in the legislative history supplied. The available text suggests the measure is intended to be preventive and enforcement-heavy rather than compromise-oriented.

Contention

The main areas of likely contention are the scope of the prohibition and the breadth of the definitions used to implement it. Critics may question the 100-mile restriction around military installations, the inclusion of indirect ownership and broad categories of foreign principals, and the denial of all economic development benefits to covered entities. Supporters are likely to emphasize protection of military readiness, land security, and state oversight. Additional debate may focus on constitutional or commerce-related concerns, the practicality of enforcement, and whether the bill could discourage lawful foreign investment or create administrative burdens for the attorney general and affected property owners.