A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 54-06 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the prohibition of, investigation of, and penalty for approving a development agreement in the state for a foreign adversary; to amend and reenact sections 11-11-70 and 40-05-26 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the investigation of and penalty for approving a development agreement in the state for a foreign adversary; and to provide a penalty.
SB 2314 would prohibit state, county, and city officials in North Dakota from approving development agreements, building plans, or other property-development proposals involving a “foreign adversary” as defined by federal regulations or a person on the federal Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions list. The bill applies to state entities and to county and city governing bodies, and it creates a narrow exception for certain foreign-owned businesses that have been in good standing with the secretary of state for at least seven years before August 1, 2023, have been approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and maintain an active national security agreement with the federal government.
The bill also requires investigation of alleged violations. If a complaint is made to a county sheriff or state’s attorney, those officials must investigate and report the matter to the state and local intelligence center and the FBI. A violation would be a class C felony and would also bar the individual from holding office in the state. The bill amends existing county and city development provisions and adds a new section for state entities in chapter 54-06, although the sections it amends are noted as expired effective July 31, 2025.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote was unfavorable to the bill. SB 2314 failed on Senate second reading by a wide margin, 37 nays to 8 yeas, indicating limited support in the chamber. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the available record shows the bill’s fate primarily through the floor vote rather than through detailed debate.
The main point of contention appears to have been the bill’s broad restriction on development-related approvals involving foreign adversaries and sanctioned persons, along with the criminal and office-holding penalties attached to violations. Supporters likely viewed it as a security measure to limit foreign influence in North Dakota development, while opponents likely objected to the breadth of the prohibition, the mandatory investigations, and the felony penalty for officials approving development agreements. The bill’s reliance on federal foreign-adversary and sanctions designations also suggests concern about how the state would implement and enforce the restrictions in practice.
SB 2314 would have added a new state-level prohibition on approving development agreements involving foreign adversaries and would have revised county and city development statutes to impose similar restrictions at the local level. It would have created mandatory reporting and investigation procedures for alleged violations and established a class C felony penalty, plus disqualification from holding state office, for individuals who violate the law. The bill would have affected state entities, county commissioners, city councils, home rule governments, sheriffs, state’s attorneys, and parties involved in real-estate or development transactions with foreign-owned or sanctioned entities.
The bill appears to have generated little support in the Senate, as shown by its 37-8 defeat on second reading. With no committee discussion available, the clearest indicator of sentiment is the floor vote, which suggests that most senators were not persuaded by the proposal or its enforcement framework. The outcome indicates a generally negative reception to the bill as drafted.
The central controversy was whether North Dakota should bar public approval of development projects involving federally defined foreign adversaries and sanctioned persons. Critics likely focused on the bill’s expansive reach, the burden it would place on local and state officials, and the severity of the criminal penalty for approving a prohibited development agreement. Supporters likely emphasized national security and limiting foreign influence in land and development decisions. The exception for long-standing, federally approved businesses with national security agreements may have been intended to narrow the bill, but the broad prohibition and enforcement mandates remained the likely flashpoints.