Kansas Senate Bill SB9

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/15/25
• Refer: 1/16/25
• Report Pass: 1/30/25
• Engrossed: 2/7/25
• Refer: 2/7/25
• Refer: 3/5/25
• Report Pass: 3/5/25
• Enrolled: 4/10/25
• Passed: 4/10/25

Caption

House Substitute for SB 9 by Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development - Prohibiting foreign principals from acquiring interests in real estate in proximity to military installations, state agencies and local government from purchasing drones or critical components of drones from foreign principals or that are manufactured in countries of concern and foreign principals from receiving benefits from economic development programs.

Summary

SB 9 creates the Kansas land and military installation protection act and adds related restrictions on drones and economic development incentives. The bill prohibits foreign principals from countries of concern—defined to include China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, and certain foreign terrorist organizations—from directly or indirectly acquiring interests in nonresidential 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 inherited or debt-related acquisitions. Existing owners in the restricted zone must register their interests with the attorney general, and new acquisitions or failures to register can trigger divestiture requirements, enforcement actions, injunctions, civil forfeiture, and attorney fees. The bill also requires annual reporting by the attorney general and Kansas State University on foreign land holdings and implementation of the act. In addition to the real-property restrictions, the bill bars foreign principals from receiving direct benefits from state economic development programs, broadly defined to include tax credits, abatements, exemptions, bond-financed property, and other financial assistance. It also directs the attorney general to report non-notified foreign investment transactions to federal authorities and authorizes the fusion center oversight board to update the list of foreign terrorist organizations by rule, within federal limits. The bill further amends Kansas forfeiture law so that violations of the new land-protection act can support forfeiture even though the underlying conduct is not a felony. The bill also addresses drone procurement by state and local governmental agencies. It prohibits agencies from purchasing drones, related services, or critical components if those components were produced in a country of concern or produced or owned by a foreign principal, while allowing continued use of preexisting equipment and limited exceptions when no reasonable alternative exists and higher security concerns justify the purchase. The measure defines “critical component” broadly to include software and other key drone subsystems. Overall sentiment in the legislative process appears strongly supportive, with the bill passing the Senate 39-0, the House 104-18, and both chambers later adopting the conference committee report by wide margins. The broad bipartisan vote pattern suggests general agreement with the bill’s security-focused goals, especially its emphasis on protecting military installations, limiting foreign influence in land ownership, and restricting sensitive drone technology purchases. The main points of contention likely centered on the breadth of the restrictions and the practical effects on property rights, economic development, and procurement flexibility. Potential concerns include the 100-mile buffer around military installations, the inclusion of a wide range of foreign principals and foreign terrorist organizations, the registration and divestiture requirements for existing owners, and the possibility that the economic development and drone provisions could limit business opportunities or raise implementation challenges for state agencies and affected property owners.

Impact

The bill substantially changes Kansas law by creating new restrictions on foreign ownership of certain real property near military installations, adding registration and divestiture obligations, authorizing attorney general enforcement, and expanding forfeiture law to cover violations of the new act. It also prohibits foreign principals from receiving economic development incentives and restricts state and local government drone purchases involving foreign principals or components from countries of concern, affecting property owners, businesses, economic development recipients, and public procurement agencies.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support and relatively little recorded opposition, as reflected in unanimous or near-unanimous Senate action and strong House majorities on final passage and conference committee adoption. The voting history suggests the legislature viewed the measure as a national-security and infrastructure-protection bill rather than a partisan issue, though the narrower House vote indicates some concern about the scope and consequences of the restrictions.

Contention

Likely areas of contention were the bill’s expansive definition of “country of concern” and “foreign principal,” the 100-mile restriction around military installations, the requirement that existing owners register and potentially divest, and the prohibition on foreign principals receiving economic development benefits. Additional concern may have focused on the drone procurement ban’s effect on agency purchasing flexibility and the use of forfeiture as an enforcement tool. Supporters appear to have emphasized security and counterintelligence risks, while critics likely worried about overbreadth, administrative burden, and impacts on commerce and property rights.