SB 910 creates the “Military Installation and Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2025” and is aimed at limiting ownership, control, and access by foreign principals from designated foreign adversary countries. The bill prohibits such foreign principals from directly or indirectly owning, acquiring, or holding more than a de minimis interest in Oklahoma agricultural land, and it also bars them from purchasing, holding, renting, or otherwise controlling real property within 10 miles of a military base or installation. Existing conflicting deeds, contracts, leases, and related agreements would be deemed invalid, and affected owners would generally be required to divest within 180 days. The bill also creates registration requirements for foreign principals who acquire agricultural land and authorizes the Attorney General to determine violations, bring district court actions, and seek judicial foreclosure if divestiture does not occur.
The bill further expands state restrictions on critical infrastructure. It prohibits entities and governmental entities from entering into certain agreements involving critical infrastructure with foreign principals from foreign adversary countries, unless no reasonable alternative exists and the Attorney General preapproves the contract. Companies seeking access to critical infrastructure would have to file a certification with the Attorney General, pay a fee, identify employee positions with access, conduct background checks, bar foreign nationals from foreign adversary countries from access, and comply with the contract restrictions. The bill also bans software used in state infrastructure if it is produced by a federally banned corporation, a foreign adversary, a state-owned enterprise of a foreign adversary, or a company domiciled in a foreign adversary, and requires replacement of prohibited software.
SB 910 would also create a reporting process for non-notified foreign investment transactions in Oklahoma. The Attorney General could receive information from local officials, state officials, or others, submit memorandums or reports to the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and must retain related documents and notify the Legislature and Governor after doing so. The bill is scheduled to take effect November 1, 2025, with the whistleblower enforcement provisions taking effect 180 days after the act becomes effective.
The available legislative history shows the bill was introduced and then referred to Judiciary on second reading, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials. As a result, there is no direct evidence of floor debate or formal vote sentiment in the record supplied here. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a security and anti-influence bill focused on protecting farmland, military installations, and infrastructure from foreign adversary control.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of the restrictions and the enforcement mechanism. The bill reaches both direct and indirect ownership, invalidates existing agreements, and imposes Attorney General oversight, registration, certification, and whistleblower rewards, which could raise concerns about property rights, business compliance burdens, and the practical effect on existing landowners and contractors. Supporters would likely emphasize national security, protection of military sites, and safeguarding critical infrastructure, while opponents may question the scope of the foreign-ownership bans and the potential impact on commerce and investment.
SB 910 would add new provisions to Title 60 and Title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes restricting foreign principals from designated foreign adversary countries from owning agricultural land and from controlling property near military bases, while also regulating foreign involvement in critical infrastructure and state infrastructure software. It would authorize the Attorney General and the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry to administer registrations, certifications, enforcement actions, and rulemaking, and it would create new penalties and divestiture procedures, including judicial foreclosure and whistleblower rewards.
The bill appears to be presented in a strongly security-oriented and protective posture, with its structure emphasizing foreign-adversary restrictions, enforcement authority, and infrastructure safeguards. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented opposition or support from debate in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the measure is likely intended to appeal to concerns about national security, military readiness, and foreign influence over land and infrastructure.
Likely contention points include the bill’s broad definition of foreign principals, its application to indirect ownership interests, and its invalidation of existing contracts and leases. The 10-mile restriction around military installations, the software bans, and the requirement that companies conduct background checks and exclude foreign nationals from foreign adversary countries from infrastructure access may also draw concern from property owners, businesses, utilities, and contractors. Supporters would likely argue these provisions are necessary to prevent espionage, sabotage, and foreign control of strategic assets, while critics may view them as overinclusive or burdensome.