Senate committee adopts substitute for Ohio Property Protection Act; farm groups warn of rising foreign ownership risks

The Senate General Government Committee on March 18 adopted a substitute to Senate Bill 88, the Ohio Property Protection Act, and heard proponent testimony that foreign-linked ownership poses a threat to Ohio farmland and critical infrastructure.

Committee chair moved and the panel adopted without objection a substitute described to members as “Bill 0484-2,” which would add a disclosure and prohibit acquisition of certain “protected property” by individuals, businesses or governments the secretary of state deems associated with countries that threaten agricultural production, critical infrastructure, security or military defense. The substitute also states that brokerages would have no duty to determine whether a purchaser or seller is subject to the prohibition.

Sponsors and advocates said the bill seeks to protect Ohio agriculture and state security. Evan Callie Coates of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation told the committee, “Ohio has lost nearly 300,000 acres of farmland in the last 5 years,” and said farmland lost to development or other uses may not return to agricultural production. Harrison Siders of State Armor Action described foreign-linked purchases as a national-security risk and urged states to reduce “the surface area of our state that is owned by adversaries.”

The substitute adopted by the committee adds an explicit disclosure and the purchase prohibition described above; the committee adopted the substitute “without objection.” During questions, Senator DeMora asked Farm Bureau representatives whether the 300,000 acres cited were purchased by foreign nationals; the witness said he did not have a breakdown by buyer nationality but offered to try to locate the figures and provide them to the committee.

Supporters pointed to federal work and reporting as context. The Farm Bureau witness referenced the AFIDA Improvements Act of 2024, a federal proposal to strengthen reporting of foreign ownership, and said better data are needed to assess the full scope of foreign purchases of U.S. farmland. State Armor Action emphasized concerns about opaque ownership chains and purchases near sensitive sites.

Clerk and committee staff provided members with the substitute text on members’ iPads before the vote; the chair’s motion to adopt the substitute was made orally and adopted without objection. No formal vote tally was recorded in the transcript.

The committee moved on to other bills after closing proponent testimony on SB 88; proponents did not request an immediate amendment or additional hearings in the transcript. The committee’s action means the substituted language will be the text of the bill as it advances for further consideration or additional hearings.