An Act to renumber and amend 710.02 (1) and 710.02 (9); to amend 710.02 (2) (intro.), 710.02 (3), 710.02 (5) (a) (intro.), 710.02 (5) (a) 1., 710.02 (5) (a) 2. and 710.02 (6); and to create 710.02 (1g), 710.02 (1r) (d) and 710.02 (9) (b) of the statutes; Relating to: prohibiting a foreign adversary from acquiring agricultural or forestry land in this state.
SB7 would amend Wisconsin’s land-ownership restrictions to add a new category of prohibited owner: a “foreign adversary,” defined by reference to a federal Commerce Department determination. Under the bill, a foreign adversary could not acquire, own, or hold any land in Wisconsin for agricultural or forestry purposes, while the bill would retain the existing 640-acre cap that already applies to certain foreign persons and foreign-controlled entities. The bill also updates related statutory language so that the new restriction fits within the existing framework governing acquisition, divestiture, forfeiture, and exceptions for land ownership.
The measure is aimed specifically at agricultural and forestry land, not at all land uses. It preserves current law for nonresident aliens, foreign corporations, and foreign-controlled entities, but makes the new foreign-adversary prohibition broader and more categorical for farm and timber land. The bill also provides that the new restriction applies only prospectively to interests acquired after the effective date or after a person is designated a foreign adversary, whichever is later, and it exempts preexisting interests from divestiture or forfeiture under the new provision.
SB7 would revise Wisconsin Statutes section 710.02, which governs foreign ownership of land, by adding a new definition of “foreign adversary” and a new absolute prohibition on such persons acquiring agricultural or forestry land. It would also conform cross-references and enforcement provisions so that the existing divestiture and forfeiture rules apply to the new limitation, while preserving the current 640-acre limit for other covered foreign persons. In practical terms, the bill would tighten state restrictions on foreign ownership of farm and timber land and give the state a new basis to block or unwind prohibited acquisitions going forward.
The bill appears to have had support sufficient to pass both chambers, with Senate passage on a 18-15 vote and Assembly concurrence on a 55-42 vote. That voting pattern suggests a generally favorable but partisan or divided response, with meaningful opposition but enough support to advance the measure. The bill ultimately did not become law because it failed to pass notwithstanding the Governor’s objections under Joint Rule 82, indicating that it was enacted through the legislature but not sustained over the veto process.
The main point of contention is the breadth and policy rationale of barring “foreign adversaries” from any agricultural or forestry land ownership, which goes beyond the existing acreage cap for other foreign persons. Supporters likely view the bill as a national-security and land-protection measure, while opponents may see it as overly restrictive, potentially difficult to administer, or too dependent on a federal designation. Another likely issue is the interaction with existing foreign-ownership rules: the bill preserves broad exceptions for many nonagricultural uses, but sharply singles out farm and timber land, which may raise concerns about consistency, property rights, and the scope of state authority over land transactions.