A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact sections 11-11-70, 40-05-26, and 47-01-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to ownership of land and development projects by a foreign adversary; and to provide for a legislative management report.
SB 2361 would expand and extend North Dakota’s restrictions on land ownership and development activity involving “foreign adversaries.” It amends three Century Code sections to prohibit county and city governments from approving development agreements, building plans, or proposals with foreign adversaries or persons on the federal sanctions list, and to bar certain foreign adversary governments and business entities from acquiring real property in the state. The bill also preserves narrow exceptions for long-established, federally approved businesses that maintain an active national security agreement.
The bill further requires the attorney general, when asked by local officials or title professionals, to review whether a foreign adversary business entity qualifies to acquire property, and it sets out divestiture procedures for prohibited owners. If a prohibited foreign government or business entity fails to divest real property, the state’s attorney may subpoena witnesses, bring a district court action, and seek a court-ordered sale, with civil penalties for noncompliance. The bill also directs the Department of Emergency Services to study foreign adversary threats beyond land ownership and report recommendations, including whether to establish a state intelligence unit.
In practical terms, SB 2361 would affect real estate transactions, local development approvals, title work, and enforcement actions involving foreign-owned or foreign-controlled entities. It would also create a new state-level reporting and planning obligation focused on foreign influence across sectors such as critical infrastructure, technology, agriculture, energy, academia, and economic investment. The bill’s property restrictions are tied to federal foreign adversary and sanctions designations, and the reporting section would remain exempt from public records disclosure.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote was strongly negative toward the bill’s passage, as it failed on second reading in the Senate by a 44-1 vote. That outcome suggests substantial opposition or lack of support, even though the bill’s stated purpose was framed around security and limiting foreign adversary influence. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded discussion to indicate a more detailed split in views.
The main points of contention likely centered on the breadth and enforceability of the foreign ownership restrictions, the burden on local governments and title professionals, and the scope of the proposed state intelligence and threat-assessment functions. Supporters would likely view the bill as a security measure protecting land, infrastructure, and strategic sectors from foreign influence, while opponents may have been concerned about overreach, administrative complexity, impacts on legitimate investment, and the use of state resources for a broad foreign adversary monitoring program.
SB 2361 would amend North Dakota law governing county and city development approvals and real property ownership by foreign adversaries, foreign business entities, and sanctioned persons. It would add or extend prohibitions on acquiring real property, create divestiture and enforcement procedures, authorize attorney general civil reviews, and require a Department of Emergency Services threat assessment and report with possible future legislation. The bill would directly affect foreign-owned businesses, local governments, title agents, county attorneys, and state enforcement officials.
The bill appears to have faced overwhelming opposition in the Senate, failing on second reading by a 44-1 vote. With no committee transcript available, the record shows little evidence of organized support in the chamber at the time of the vote. The narrow stated policy goal of limiting foreign adversary influence was not enough to secure broad legislative backing.
Likely areas of contention included whether the bill’s restrictions were too broad, whether they could interfere with lawful foreign investment and existing property rights, and whether the enforcement scheme would be practical for local officials and title professionals. The proposed Department of Emergency Services study and possible state intelligence unit may also have raised concerns about cost, scope, and government surveillance authority. Supporters would emphasize security and protection of strategic assets, while opponents would likely focus on economic and administrative burdens.