NC Farmland and Military Protection Act
Senate Bill 504, the North Carolina Farmland and Military Protection Act, would prohibit certain foreign governments designated as adversarial by the U.S. Department of State from purchasing, acquiring, leasing, or otherwise holding interests in North Carolina agricultural land or land within 75 miles of a military installation. The bill defines “adversarial foreign government” by reference to federal export-control regulations, and it also defines agricultural land, controlling interest, and a list of covered military installations and related facilities.
The bill declares any land transfer made in violation of its restrictions void. It also places the responsibility for determining whether a party is covered under the act on the adversarial foreign government and the State, while shielding non-adversarial parties from civil or criminal liability for failing to investigate foreign-government status. The act would take effect December 1, 2025, and includes a severability clause to preserve the rest of the law if any part is struck down.
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 foreign ownership and leasing of farmland and land near military sites. It would directly affect foreign state-controlled enterprises and governments identified as adversarial, as well as real estate transactions involving agricultural property and property within the specified military buffer zone. The measure would also create a legal basis to void prohibited transfers and would likely affect title review, land transactions, and compliance practices for buyers, sellers, and lenders dealing with covered property.
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill’s title and subject matter, the measure appears framed as a security and agricultural protection bill, suggesting an intent to appeal to concerns about food supply, farmland preservation, and military readiness. Because no voting history or discussion is provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the record beyond the bill’s protective framing.
The main points of contention likely concern the breadth of the prohibition and how it is triggered. Potential critics may question the use of federal adversarial-country designations, the inclusion of land within a 75-mile radius of military installations, and whether the restriction could affect legitimate commercial activity, investment, or research-related agricultural leases. Supporters are likely to emphasize protection of farmland, food security, and military security, while opponents may focus on property-rights, commerce, and implementation concerns, including how to identify covered entities and whether the law could create uncertainty in land transactions.