SB 916 creates new restrictions on ownership and control of certain Oklahoma real property by foreign adversary nations, their officials or agents, entities organized in or principally based in a foreign adversary nation, certain nonresident aliens domiciled in such nations, and entities they control. The bill applies to agricultural land anywhere in the state and to any real property located within five miles of a military installation. It also defines key terms such as agricultural land, agricultural operation, military installation, residential property, and foreign adversary nation.
The bill generally bars covered persons and entities from directly or indirectly owning, controlling, leasing, or otherwise holding interests in the restricted property, subject to limited exceptions. Those exceptions include de minimis indirect interests in publicly traded companies, residential property acquisitions by natural persons, agricultural research and development leases, diplomatic property, and certain U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, asylees, and their spouses. The Governor, in consultation with the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, may waive a prohibited transaction if the economic benefits outweigh the perceived threat. Existing prohibited holdings must be divested within two years, and some interests acquired by devise, descent, foreclosure, or debt collection must also be divested within two years.
The bill would add registration and disclosure requirements for covered property interests already held on the effective date. Affected owners must register with the Attorney General within a deadline set by the office, and new acquisitions require an affidavit attesting that the transaction is not prohibited. Entities subject to federal AFIDA reporting must also file that report with the Attorney General. Failure to register triggers a civil penalty of $1,000 per day late, and the Attorney General must promulgate rules to implement the new process.
SB 916 also establishes a forfeiture remedy for violations. If prohibited property is owned, held, leased, or acquired in violation of the act, or if required divestment does not occur on time, the property may be forfeited to the state through a civil action brought by the Attorney General or the local district attorney. The court may record a lis pendens, enter a final judgment vesting title in the state subject to bona fide lienholders, and authorize sale of the property with proceeds distributed first to lienholders, then to fines and state costs, and finally to the former holder of the interest. The bill also allows an ex parte seizure order if the defendant’s control is found to pose a clear and present danger to the state.
The available context shows no committee debate or recorded votes, so sentiment cannot be measured from discussion. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a national-security and land-use restriction aimed at foreign adversaries, but it is also a significant expansion of state enforcement over real property ownership. Likely points of contention include the breadth of the foreign-adversary restrictions, the impact on agricultural and near-military property transactions, the forfeiture and seizure provisions, and the potential effect on lawful foreign residents, investors, and real estate markets.
SB 916 would add new provisions to Title 60 of the Oklahoma Statutes restricting certain foreign adversary nations, related officials, entities, and some nonresident aliens from owning, leasing, or otherwise controlling agricultural land and real property within five miles of military installations. It would create registration, affidavit, rulemaking, civil penalty, divestment, forfeiture, and seizure procedures enforced by the Attorney General and district attorneys, and it would affect landowners, buyers, lenders, closing agents, and entities with interests in covered property.
There is no committee transcript or vote record provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from legislative debate. From the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears to be presented as a protective national-security and property-control bill, suggesting an intent to appeal to concerns about foreign ownership of land. At the same time, the absence of recorded discussion leaves open how controversial the scope, enforcement tools, and property-rights implications may be among legislators.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s broad prohibition on ownership and control by foreign adversary-linked persons and entities, especially its application to agricultural land and property near military installations. The forfeiture and ex parte seizure provisions are especially aggressive and could draw concern from property-rights advocates, lenders, title professionals, and business interests. Additional controversy may arise over the waiver authority given to the Governor, the treatment of lawful permanent residents and other protected individuals, and whether the bill could affect legitimate investment, agricultural research, or real estate transactions involving foreign-connected entities.