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.
SB2361 would expand and extend North Dakota’s restrictions on foreign adversaries and certain foreign business entities in relation to real property ownership and local development approvals. The bill amends three Century Code sections to prohibit county and city governments from approving development agreements, building plans, or proposals with a “foreign adversary” or a person on the federal sanctions list, and to bar certain foreign governments and foreign business entities from acquiring title to real property in the state. It also sets out exceptions for some long-established, federally reviewed businesses that maintain an active national security agreement.
The bill further creates a process for divestiture of prohibited real property holdings, including attorney general review upon request, county state’s attorney enforcement, court-ordered divestiture, civil penalties, and public sale if property is not sold within the required time. In addition to the property restrictions, SB2361 directs the Department of Emergency Services to study foreign adversarial influence across sectors such as critical infrastructure, technology, agriculture, energy, and academia, and to report recommendations to legislative management, including the possible creation of a state intelligence unit. The bill is framed as a security measure and includes a legislative report requirement rather than a direct regulatory program in that section.
SB2361 would have significantly altered state property and local development law by adding or reinforcing prohibitions on land acquisition and development participation by foreign adversaries and certain foreign-owned entities. It would have affected county and city commissioners, title agents, the attorney general, state’s attorneys, and foreign governments or foreign business entities with ownership interests in North Dakota real property. The bill also would have required a statewide threat assessment by the Department of Emergency Services and could have led to future legislation based on that report. The bill was failed, so these changes did not take effect.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge nuanced sentiment. Based on the bill’s content, it appears to have been introduced from a security-focused, restrictive posture toward foreign ownership and foreign influence. Its failure suggests it did not secure sufficient legislative support to advance, but the provided materials do not identify specific supporters or opponents.
The main points of contention likely centered on the breadth of the foreign-adversary definition, the scope of the real-property ban, and the practical burdens of enforcement and compliance. The bill would have imposed divestiture obligations on existing owners and authorized state attorney enforcement, which could raise concerns about property rights, market effects, and administrative complexity. Another likely issue is the bill’s broad reach beyond land ownership into strategic investments, partnerships, and academic or political influence, plus the proposal to study or potentially create a state intelligence unit. The exceptions for long-standing businesses with federal approval and national security agreements suggest an attempt to narrow the bill’s impact, but also indicate that distinguishing covered from exempt entities was a notable issue.