Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Security Land Ownership topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor says new bill would force sale of land owned by 'foreign adversaries' near Idaho military training areas
Summary
Representative Ted Hill presented House Bill 356, a measure that would require holders identified as 'foreign adversaries' to sell agricultural land, mining interests or leases in specified military training areas within 180 days or face state-enforced sale procedures, according to the sponsor and testimony from the Idaho Air National Guard.
Representative Ted Hill told the committee that House Bill 356 is intended to protect state sovereignty, critical infrastructure and military training ranges from ownership or control by foreign adversaries.
Hill cited the Department of Homeland Security's 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment and described the measure as a step to preserve "sovereign power over our food supply, our mines and our mining rights within the state of Idaho." He said the bill would require a forced sale within 180 days if a qualifying foreign adversary-owned interest were discovered in a covered area, and he described a whistleblower mechanism to help detect hidden ownership that could trigger the process.
Hill said the bill does not confiscate private land; rather, it would require owners identified as foreign adversaries to divest. "If they refuse to sell, we work to foreclose on them," Hill said in committee testimony.
Colonel Kyle Carpenter of the Idaho Air National Guard described the training footprint the bill would cover. Carpenter told the committee that the Mountain Home Range Complex is "the size of the state of Vermont" and described other large training areas used for combined-arms and digital integrated training. He said the state has an interest in ensuring that ground access and adjacent land use do not present security risks to high-demand military training exercises.
Chair and committee members asked clarifying questions about definitions in the bill, the waiver process for companies with existing federal exemptions (Hill said certain waivers would delay enforcement until the waiver ends), and the interplay between federal authority and state action on foreign investment matters. Hill said the proposal was modeled in part on actions taken in other states and noted practical enforcement challenges, including identifying ownership that appears through shell companies.
The committee recorded no negative testimony during the hearing and a motion by Representative Alfieri to send House Bill 356 to the House floor with a do-pass recommendation passed on voice vote.
