HB1546 amends Oklahoma’s alien land ownership law to expand and clarify restrictions on who may acquire or own land in the state. The bill defines several terms, including “foreign government adversary,” “foreign government enterprise,” “foreign principal,” “critical infrastructure facility,” and “military installation.” It expressly identifies China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia as foreign government adversaries, and it bars certain ownership interests by those parties and other foreign principals.
The bill generally prohibits aliens and non-U.S. citizens from acquiring title to or owning land in Oklahoma directly or indirectly through a business entity, trust, or foreign government enterprise, subject to existing exceptions for regulated interstate commerce and certain CFIUS national security agreements. It also adds a deed-recording affidavit requirement: deeds recorded with a county clerk must include a notarized affidavit attesting that the transfer complies with the law and that no prohibited funding source is being used, with several listed exemptions such as corrective deeds, probate orders, security instruments, and deeds to government entities or tribes. The bill further bars foreign principals from acquiring agricultural and forestry property, and from acquiring real property within 200 miles of a military installation or critical infrastructure facility.
The bill’s impact on state law is to tighten Oklahoma’s restrictions on foreign ownership of land, broaden the categories of prohibited actors, and create a new compliance mechanism for county deed recording. It affects land transactions, county clerks, attorneys, title companies, trusts, business entities, and any foreign-linked purchaser, while also giving the Attorney General authority to promulgate affidavit forms and potentially add exemptions. The effective date is November 1, 2025.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly favorable. The bill advanced out of committee with substantial support, including an 8-1 vote in Civil Judiciary and an 11-0 vote in Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight, and then passed the House 81-1 on third reading. That pattern suggests broad bipartisan agreement on the bill’s national security and land ownership restrictions.
The main point of contention is the breadth of the restrictions, especially the inclusion of a 200-mile buffer around military installations and critical infrastructure and the prohibition on ownership by foreign principals tied to designated adversary governments. Potential concerns also include the administrative burden of affidavit requirements and the possibility that the law could affect legitimate foreign investment or business structures, though the available voting record shows little organized opposition.
HB1546 amends 60 O.S. 2021, Section 121, and related provisions governing alien ownership of land. It expands the statutory definitions of prohibited foreign actors, adds China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia as foreign government adversaries, and prohibits certain land ownership and controlling interests in agricultural/forestry property and in real property near military installations or critical infrastructure. It also imposes a deed-recording affidavit requirement and authorizes the Attorney General to create affidavit forms and additional exemptions, affecting county clerks and real property conveyances statewide.
The bill appears to have received strong support throughout the legislative process. Committee votes were lopsided in favor, and the House third-reading vote was overwhelmingly positive at 81-1. The available record suggests the measure was viewed primarily as a national security and land protection bill, with little visible opposition in the recorded votes.
The most notable contention centers on how far the restrictions reach. Critics could object to the broad definition of foreign government adversary, the inclusion of specific countries, and the 200-mile restriction around military installations and critical infrastructure, which may sweep in large areas of the state. There may also be concern about the affidavit and recording requirements creating compliance burdens for buyers, attorneys, title companies, and county clerks, as well as possible effects on lawful foreign-owned businesses and investment structures. However, the recorded votes show only minimal opposition.