SB 17 raises significant concerns regarding private property rights, enforcement weaknesses, economic consequences, and government overreach. While the bill is framed as a national security measure to prevent foreign adversaries from acquiring Texas land, its broad and vague language, lack of meaningful penalties, and reliance on a forced divestment process make it ineffective at addressing the stated problem while creating new risks to individual liberty and economic freedom.
1. Private Property Rights & Eminent Domain Concerns
One of the most troubling aspects of SB 17 is its forced divestment mechanism, which allows the Texas Attorney General (AG) to initiate legal proceedings to strip individuals or entities of their land ownership if they are found to be in violation of the bill’s restrictions. While this is not traditional eminent domain, it functions similarly, as the government mandates the sale of private property and controls the divestment process. The bill fails to guarantee just compensation, instead prioritizing payments to lienholders and state legal fees before returning any remaining funds to the original owner. This sets a dangerous precedent for future government control over private land transactions and creates an avenue for state seizure of property without constitutional eminent domain protections.
Additionally, the broad scope of property restrictions—including agricultural land, commercial properties, residential land, and even water rights—could negatively impact legitimate foreign-owned businesses, farms, and investment properties that have no connection to national security threats. Property rights are a cornerstone of economic liberty, and SB 17 undermines them by allowing the state to forcibly remove property from private owners based on political designations that could shift over time.
2. Weak Enforcement & Ineffective Penalties
While the bill seeks to prevent land purchases by foreign adversaries, its enforcement mechanisms are weak and easily circumvented. The only consequence for violators is forced divestment, meaning that foreign entities with deep financial resources—such as those from China—could simply treat the loss as a cost of doing business. There are no direct penalties, such as criminal charges, fines, or corporate restrictions, that would actually deter bad actors from exploiting loopholes.
Moreover, the bill does not contain measures to prevent foreign entities from purchasing land through proxies, shell companies, or legal workarounds. Without a robust enforcement mechanism, the bill fails to accomplish its national security goal while still infringing on legitimate property rights. A law with no teeth will only burden law-abiding investors while doing little to prevent those with bad intentions from acquiring land through more sophisticated means.
3. Overbroad Use of "Domiciled" & Potential Harm to Legal Immigrants
The bill prohibits not just foreign governments or businesses from adversarial nations from purchasing property, but also individuals who are "domiciled" in those countries. This vague term extends restrictions beyond foreign nationals and onto individuals who merely reside in a designated country, regardless of their legal status or allegiance.
For example, this could impact legal immigrants, visa holders, refugees, and even U.S. citizens temporarily living in a restricted country for work, study, or family reasons. Someone fleeing an oppressive regime could still be barred from property ownership simply because their last residence was in a prohibited country. Even though the bill exempts U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, it fails to protect legal visa holders and individuals who are in the process of becoming permanent residents.
This provision introduces unnecessary barriers for individuals who pose no security risk and may actually be seeking to escape the very governments the bill aims to counteract. By relying on "domicile" rather than clear national security criteria, SB 17 risks penalizing innocent individuals while doing little to stop actual foreign influence operations.
4. Economic Consequences & Free Enterprise Concerns
Texas has long been an economic leader due to its pro-business climate and commitment to free enterprise. SB 17 imposes new restrictions on real estate transactions that could reduce foreign investment, disrupt markets, and create uncertainty for international businesses operating in Texas. Many foreign-owned businesses contribute to job creation, infrastructure investment, and local economies, and broadly restricting their ability to purchase land could discourage economic growth.
Additionally, the real estate market, particularly in agricultural and commercial sectors, could see unintended negative effects if certain investors withdraw due to uncertainty over government restrictions. Property owners who wish to sell land may find fewer buyers or face reduced land values due to the limitations imposed by the bill.
If the true goal is to prevent national security risks, a more targeted approach that focuses on specific types of strategic land—such as military-adjacent property or critical infrastructure—would be far more effective than a blanket restriction on broad categories of real estate. SB 17 unnecessarily expands government intervention in private markets without a well-defined economic justification.
5. Government Overreach & Lack of Local Control
SB 17 significantly expands state government control over land ownership and relies on shifting federal intelligence reports to determine which countries are restricted. This means that state law is automatically tied to federal security assessments, removing local legislative oversight and creating potential instability in property laws. If federal intelligence agencies modify their threat assessments, the list of restricted countries could change unpredictably, affecting property rights without input from Texas lawmakers or voters.
Furthermore, the bill grants the Attorney General broad enforcement authority but lacks oversight mechanisms to ensure due process protections for affected property owners. Giving the state unchecked power to seize and resell land without stronger legal safeguards is a step toward excessive government intervention in private property rights.
Conclusion: Vote NO on SB 17
While national security concerns over foreign land ownership are legitimate, SB 17 is a deeply flawed bill that fails to provide effective enforcement, threatens private property rights, and introduces economic uncertainty. Instead of targeting specific threats through well-defined and enforceable policies, the bill relies on vague definitions, weak penalties, and forced divestment that could disproportionately harm lawful individuals and businesses.
If Texas is serious about protecting its land from foreign adversaries, the state should implement stronger oversight of high-risk transactions rather than imposing broad, ineffective restrictions that could hurt innocent property owners. Until these issues are addressed, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 17 as it represents an unjustified expansion of government control over private property.
