Kansas committee hears bill to bar certain foreign principals from buying land near military installations

The House Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development opened a hearing on House Bill 2290, which would prohibit a “foreign principal” as defined in the bill from directly or indirectly acquiring any interest in nonresidential real property located within 100 miles of the boundary of any military installation in Kansas or an adjacent state, and would require registration of covered interests with the Kansas attorney general.

Supporters said the measure is intended to protect military facilities and critical infrastructure from foreign-adversary influence. "We're at war," Majority Leader Chris Croft said in remarks to the committee, adding that foreign adversaries use economic means and land ownership to gather intelligence and threaten national security. "We must be proactive about this, about defending America," Croft said.

The bill, described to the committee by staff, excludes residential real property and includes a de minimis exception. A foreign principal that owns or acquires a prohibited interest must register the interest with the attorney general within 90 days of the act's effective date or the date the interest is acquired. If a foreign principal acquires a prohibited interest and fails to register, the attorney general may seek divestment; a court can order divestment within 180 days, award injunctive relief, or order civil forfeiture of the foreign principal's interest. The attorney general may also agree to extensions of up to 360 days to complete divestment.

Sections 10 and 11 of the bill amend provisions of the Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act to make a violation of this act a basis for forfeiture of real property. The bill directs the attorney general to report non-notified transactions to the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and to submit copies to the governor, the adjutant general and relevant legislative committees. The bill also requires an annual report, to be produced with K-State, on the status and trends of foreign land holdings in Kansas and gives the Fusion Center Oversight Board authority to adopt rules reflecting changes to the federal list of designated foreign terrorist organizations while noting the board may not designate organizations not so designated at the federal level.

Committee members questioned multiple drafting aspects. Several lawmakers expressed concern about the bill's references to federal lists with specific cutoff dates. "If you look at page 2, line 1, it says any foreign adversary as such term is defined as is in effect on 04/01/2025," Representative Clayton said, asking how the statute would operate with a date that had not yet arrived; Representative Hsu and others echoed unease about locking in a federal list as of a fixed date and urged the committee to consider whether to list countries directly or to tie the definition to an evolving federal list.

Staff told the committee the bill uses the federal references in part to avoid re-listing countries in statute and to permit the fusion center's oversight board to consider updates, while also explaining why drafters included a specific date to avoid ceding uncontrolled authority to federal agencies. The bill also points to 15 CFR provisions in its definitions, a reference several members flagged for clarification.

Lawmakers and witnesses discussed how the bill differs from prior measures. Staff said a key change from last year's bill is that a foreign principal who already owns covered real estate on the act's effective date would generally be required to register rather than be forced immediately to divest; divestment would be required only if the owner fails to register. Representative Laura Williams confirmed the bill does not require CFIUS review for registered entities and that registration is the statutory requirement.

Witnesses included Michael Lucci of State Armour, who described national-security concerns and cited examples of foreign purchases adjacent to U.S. military facilities in other states; and Aaron Popelka of the Cancly Livestock Association, who testified neutral and urged protections for meat-processing facilities and agricultural operations. Popelka raised Smithfield Foods as an example: the company operates two Kansas plants and is majority-owned by WH Group (a Hong Kong-traded parent), and meat-processing capacity disruptions could have downstream public-health and economic consequences if a strict approach inadvertently impaired continued operations. Popelka said his group moved from opposition last year to neutral this year after the inclusion of a grandfather clause but asked lawmakers to preserve the ability of processing plants to update facilities for environmental or food-safety compliance without losing protected status.

Committee members pressed staff on enforcement standards and remedies. Representative Osman asked whether the civil-forfeiture standard in the Kansas forfeiture law (and associated fee-shifting provisions) would apply here; staff said provisions of the forfeiture act that apply generally to forfeiture actions would apply to violations of this bill but declined to offer a definitive legal standard in committee and offered to follow up with additional detail.

The bill's fiscal note drew questions. Members discussed the attorney general's estimate that initial implementation would require multiple full-time positions and litigation funding (the fiscal note cited roughly $838,000 in the first year for new positions and litigation costs and additional recurring amounts thereafter), and K-State's estimate of modest costs (about $17,000) to produce the annual foreign-land holdings report.

No committee vote was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee received proponent and neutral testimony and closed the public hearing; committee staff said they expect to consider amendments and possible drafting changes, including a potential balloon bill spelling out countries if members prefer that approach.

The committee also recessed into an executive session earlier in the meeting under KSA 75-4-319 to discuss national and state security matters; that motion passed on voice vote and the committee later resumed its open hearing.

The committee adjourned without acting on HB 2290 and said it would reconvene to consider Department of Commerce legislation and other bills in coming days.