Alien land ownership; definition; prohibited government adversaries; effective date.
HB1546 amends Oklahoma’s alien land ownership law to expand and clarify restrictions on who may acquire or own land in the state. It defines several key terms, including “foreign government adversary,” “foreign government enterprise,” “foreign principal,” “critical infrastructure facility,” and “military installation,” and expressly identifies China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia as foreign government adversaries. The bill generally prohibits aliens and non-U.S. citizens from acquiring title to or owning land directly or indirectly through business entities, trusts, or foreign government enterprises, while preserving an exception for certain regulated interstate commerce businesses and entities with a CFIUS national security agreement.
The bill also adds a deed-recording affidavit requirement. For deeds recorded with a county clerk, the person or entity taking title must provide a notarized affidavit attesting that the acquisition complies with the law and that no prohibited funding source is being used. The bill lists several deed categories exempt from the affidavit requirement, such as corrective deeds, title-curing deeds, transfer-on-death deeds, certain court orders, security instruments, public dedications, and deeds to government entities or tribes. The Attorney General is directed to create affidavit forms and may establish additional exemptions.
Most notably, HB1546 adds a new prohibition barring any foreign principal from acquiring title to, or a controlling interest in, agricultural and forestry property or real property located within 200 miles of a military installation or critical infrastructure facility. This expands the state’s land-ownership restrictions beyond the existing framework by focusing on both land type and proximity to sensitive facilities.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support based on its committee and floor votes, passing committee stages with strong margins and the House third reading by 81-1. The available record does not include committee debate transcripts, so the public rationale is inferred from the bill’s structure: protecting farmland, military sites, and critical infrastructure from foreign influence or control. The near-unanimous votes suggest general agreement on the bill’s national-security and land-protection goals.
The main point of contention is likely the breadth of the restrictions, especially the inclusion of named foreign governments and the 200-mile buffer around military installations and critical infrastructure, which could affect a large amount of property and a wide range of transactions. Potential concerns also include administrative burdens on county clerks, affidavit compliance, and whether the law could affect lawful business activity or investment by non-U.S. persons and entities.
HB1546 amends 60 O.S. Section 121 and related alien land ownership provisions by adding definitions, expanding prohibited categories of foreign-controlled ownership, and imposing a deed affidavit requirement for county recording. It affects county clerks, land purchasers, title holders, business entities, trusts, and foreign government-linked investors, and it creates new restrictions on agricultural/forestry land and property near military installations or critical infrastructure. The bill becomes effective November 1, 2025.
The bill’s legislative history shows strong support, with overwhelming committee approval and a 81-1 House floor vote. The available materials suggest the measure is generally viewed as a national-security and land-protection bill, with little recorded opposition in the voting history. Because no committee transcripts are available, the specific arguments for or against the bill are not documented in the provided record.
The likely areas of disagreement are the scope and reach of the restrictions. Critics may object to the broad 200-mile restriction around military installations and critical infrastructure, the explicit naming of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia as foreign government adversaries, and the potential impact on legitimate foreign investment or interstate commerce. Supporters appear to prioritize protecting farmland, sensitive infrastructure, and military readiness from foreign control, and the bill includes exceptions for regulated interstate commerce and CFIUS-approved arrangements.