Senate Bill 338, the North Carolina Farmland and Military Protection Act, would prohibit certain foreign governments designated by the U.S. Department of Commerce as adversarial from purchasing, leasing, or otherwise holding interests in agricultural land in North Carolina. It would also bar those governments from acquiring land within 25 miles of specified military installations, including major bases such as Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and others. Any land transfer made in violation of the act would be void.
The bill defines key terms such as “adversarial foreign government,” “agricultural land,” “controlling interest,” and “military installation,” and it places responsibility for determining whether a party is covered by the law on the foreign government and the State, not on private individuals or entities. It also creates an exception for certain agricultural research and development leases of up to 250 acres. In addition, the bill appropriates $50,000 in nonrecurring General Fund money to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for farmland inventory work through the North Carolina Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Trust.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new Article 4 to Chapter 64 of the North Carolina General Statutes, creating a state-level restriction on land ownership and leasing by designated foreign adversaries. It would directly affect foreign state-controlled enterprises and foreign governments identified under federal commerce regulations, while also affecting transactions involving farmland and property near military sites. The bill would also provide a modest appropriation for farmland inventory, supporting state efforts to track and preserve agricultural land.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be protective and security-focused. The bill’s stated purpose emphasizes safeguarding farmland, food supply, and military security from foreign control, suggesting support from sponsors for a precautionary approach. No contrary viewpoints are documented in the provided record.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the land restrictions and the reliance on federal adversarial-designation criteria. Critics could question whether a 25-mile exclusion zone around military installations is too expansive or whether the law could complicate legitimate agricultural, research, or investment activity. Another possible issue is the bill’s treatment of foreign ownership and the practical burden of identifying covered entities, although the bill attempts to limit liability for non-adversarial parties by placing the determination responsibility on the foreign government and the State.