A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 47-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to foreign ownership of real property near military installations; to amend and reenact sections 11-11-70, 40-05-26, and 47-01-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the powers of a board of county commissioners, a board of city commissioners, and a city council regarding development by a foreign country of concern or foreign organization of concern, prohibiting ownership of real property by a foreign country of concern or a foreign organization of concern; and to provide a penalty.
HB 1208 would expand North Dakota’s restrictions on foreign ownership and development activity involving real property and critical infrastructure. The bill amends existing law to prohibit counties, cities, and city councils from approving development agreements or plans with a “foreign country of concern” or “foreign organization of concern,” and it revises the state’s real-property ownership rules to bar certain foreign governments and foreign-controlled entities from acquiring title to real property in North Dakota after the bill’s effective date. It also creates a new section specifically targeting property and infrastructure near military installations.
Under the new section, a foreign country of concern or foreign organization of concern could not lease, purchase, or otherwise acquire real property or critical infrastructure within 10 miles of a military installation, and could not enter contracts giving it direct or indirect control of critical infrastructure in the state. If a prohibited acquisition occurs, the entity would be required to divest within one year, with enforcement through county state’s attorneys, court action, public sale of non-divested property, and a civil penalty of up to $25,000. The bill also preserves title validity for affected property transactions and states that uninvolved parties are not required to investigate whether another person is subject to the restrictions.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it would tighten and broaden North Dakota’s foreign-ownership restrictions, add a military-installation buffer zone, and give state and local officials explicit enforcement tools. It also updates definitions to align with federal foreign-adversary and sanctions concepts, while carving out exceptions for certain long-established, federally approved businesses with active national security agreements. In practical terms, the bill would affect foreign governments, foreign-controlled businesses, real-estate transactions, title companies, local governments, and county prosecutors.
The overall sentiment in the available record appears to have been precautionary and security-focused, reflecting concern about foreign influence over land, development, and infrastructure near sensitive military sites. However, there is no committee transcript or vote record provided, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn on January 20, 2025, so there is no documented floor debate or recorded vote sentiment in the materials supplied.
Notable points of contention likely center on the breadth of the definitions for “foreign country of concern” and “foreign organization of concern,” the reach of the 10-mile military buffer, and the practical burden of enforcement and divestiture. Potential concerns also include effects on existing foreign-owned businesses, property rights, and whether the bill could complicate real-estate transactions or investment in North Dakota, especially where federal approval or national-security agreements are involved.
HB 1208 would amend North Dakota Century Code sections governing county and city development approvals and the ownership of real property, and it would create a new chapter 47-02 section restricting foreign ownership near military installations. It would prohibit certain foreign governments and foreign-controlled entities from acquiring real property, from controlling critical infrastructure, and from participating in local development approvals, while authorizing divestiture actions, subpoenas, court orders, public sales, and civil penalties for violations. The bill would also require updates to related statutory definitions and enforcement procedures used by local governments, title agents, and state’s attorneys.
The available materials suggest a generally supportive or at least security-oriented posture toward the bill’s purpose, with the legislation framed as a national-security and land-use protection measure. At the same time, the absence of committee testimony and vote data means there is no direct record here of opposition or support from legislators, stakeholders, or the public. The bill’s withdrawal indicates it did not advance to enactment in this form.
The main likely points of contention are the scope of the foreign-ownership ban, especially the inclusion of entities tied to countries identified as foreign adversaries or countries of concern, and the 10-mile restriction around military installations. Critics could argue the bill is overbroad, could affect lawful investment, and may create uncertainty for real-estate and infrastructure transactions. Supporters would likely emphasize the need to protect military readiness, critical infrastructure, and state security from foreign control. The bill also raises enforcement questions for counties, cities, title companies, and state’s attorneys, particularly regarding how to identify covered entities and manage divestiture proceedings.