Idaho House Bill 12, introduced on January 15, 2025, aims to bolster state security by restricting foreign ownership of certain lands and resources. Proposed by the State Affairs Committee, the bill seeks to prevent foreign adversaries from purchasing land near military installations and other critical state assets, including agricultural land, forest land, water rights, mining claims, and mineral rights.

The bill amends existing Idaho Code, specifically Section 55-103, to clarify who may own property in the state. It explicitly prohibits foreign governments and state-controlled enterprises from acquiring controlling interests in the aforementioned categories of land and resources. Notably, the legislation includes a provision that allows for a de minimis indirect interest, permitting foreign principals to hold less than five percent ownership in publicly traded companies that own such lands.

The legislative intent behind House Bill 12 is to protect Idaho's military installations and state assets from potential threats posed by foreign adversaries. This move aligns with a growing national trend to scrutinize foreign investments in critical infrastructure and resources, reflecting heightened concerns about national security.

Debate surrounding the bill has focused on its implications for foreign investment in Idaho. Proponents argue that the restrictions are necessary to safeguard state interests, while opponents raise concerns about the potential economic impact, particularly on agricultural sectors that may rely on foreign investment. The bill's supporters emphasize the importance of maintaining control over vital resources, while critics warn that overly stringent regulations could deter beneficial investments.

The bill has been declared an emergency measure, indicating that its provisions are intended to take effect immediately upon passage. As Idaho lawmakers continue to navigate the complexities of foreign ownership and national security, House Bill 12 represents a significant step in shaping the state's approach to safeguarding its assets. The outcome of this legislation could set a precedent for similar measures in other states, reflecting a broader shift in attitudes toward foreign investment in the United States.