North Carolina's Battle to Protect American Farmland from Adversarial Nations
North Carolina joins 24 states restricting foreign ownership of American farmland, with proposed laws creating 75-mile buffers around military installations and penalties for non-compliance.
What You'll Learn in This Article:
How North Carolina is fighting back against foreign land ownership with three proposed bills
Why Chinese acquisition of U.S. farmland threatens both national security and food sovereignty
The strategic targeting of land near military installations by adversarial nations
How these restrictions could impact agricultural markets and rural communities
Why food system independence is critical for national resilience
While Americans have been distracted by culture wars and celebrity drama, foreign ownership of our agricultural land has quietly accelerated, creating vulnerabilities that threaten both our national security and food sovereignty. North Carolina is now pushing back with powerful new legislation that could become a model for protecting America's most strategic assets – our farmland and military installations.
The Land Grab Nobody's Talking About
Make no mistake: what's happening across America isn't just business – it's a coordinated effort by adversarial nations to gain footholds in our food system and near our critical military infrastructure.
North Carolina lawmakers have introduced three significant bills in 2025 (House Bill 133, Senate Bill 504, and Senate Bill 394) that would prohibit entities linked to China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia from purchasing agricultural land and property near military bases.
These aren't abstract concerns. USDA data shows that Chinese ownership of American farmland increased tenfold between 2010 and 2020, with similar growth from Russian and Saudi entities. Each acre transferred to foreign control represents a piece of America's food system placed in potentially hostile hands.
"Our state's agricultural land is one of our most important assets." - Rep. Jennifer Balkcom, sponsor of HB 133
The National Security Connection
What makes North Carolina's approach particularly significant is the connection between agricultural security and military readiness. The proposed legislation establishes buffer zones extending 75 miles around military installations like Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base.
This isn't paranoia – it's prudence. Foreign ownership near military bases could enable:
Surveillance of training operations
Collection of intelligence on personnel movements
Disruption of critical military functions
The security risks are so serious that Representative John Bell argued that adversarial ownership near installations like Fort Bragg poses a "direct threat to our state and nation."
Properties near military installations hold strategic importance beyond their agricultural value.
The Food Sovereignty Imperative
While national security concerns are driving much of the momentum behind these bills, the fundamental issue of food sovereignty cannot be overlooked. When foreign entities control our farmland, they gain leverage over our most basic necessity.
The decline of American farming tells its own alarming story:
Farm numbers have plummeted from 6.8 million in 1935 to about 2 million today
Less than 2% of Americans are directly engaged in farming (compared to over 40% in 1900)
Each farm lost represents generations of agricultural knowledge disappearing
This isn't just about economics – it's about maintaining America's capacity to feed itself regardless of global disruptions. True national security begins with food security.
How North Carolina's Legislation Works
The proposed North Carolina bills represent some of the strongest protections against foreign land acquisition in America. Key provisions include:
Explicit Prohibitions: SB 394 specifically names China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia as adversarial nations prohibited from land purchases
Mandatory Divestment: Foreign entities already owning restricted land would have three years to sell their holdings
Criminal Penalties: False statements during land transactions could result in misdemeanor charges
Certification Requirements: Buyers must certify they are not "prohibited foreign parties"
These measures create real consequences for attempts to circumvent ownership restrictions – a critical improvement over weaker laws with limited enforcement mechanisms.
The National Movement
North Carolina isn't alone in recognizing this threat. At least 24 states have enacted laws restricting foreign farmland ownership since 2021, reflecting growing awareness of the vulnerabilities in our food system. Examples include:
Florida banned Chinese citizens and entities from owning land near military installations
Texas prohibited adversarial nations from purchasing land outright
North Dakota responded after Chinese purchases near Grand Forks Air Force Base sparked national scrutiny
Meanwhile, federal legislation like the Protecting Military Installations and Ranges Act would grant authority to review land purchases within 100 miles of military bases nationwide.
Challenges and Considerations
While these protections are necessary, they aren't without complications. Potential challenges include:
Property Value Impacts: Expanded buffers around bases like Camp Lejeune could depress land values in adjacent counties
Definition Concerns: Overly broad definitions of "state-controlled enterprises" could inadvertently affect legitimate international businesses
Legal Challenges: Constitutional questions about state authority over foreign policy may lead to court battles
These challenges reflect the complexity of balancing security needs with economic interests – a balance that every state must carefully consider.
Why This Matters to The Regenaissance Movement
The fight against foreign land acquisition perfectly aligns with the regenerative agriculture movement's core principles. True regeneration cannot happen when control of our agricultural resources is surrendered to foreign entities with no connection to the land or local communities.
Regenerative agriculture depends on:
Local control of farming decisions
Generational knowledge transfer
Long-term stewardship of resources
Community resilience through food security
When foreign entities purchase our farmland purely as financial assets, these essential elements are lost. The soil becomes merely a substrate for extraction rather than a living ecosystem to be regenerated.
What You Can Do
As these legislative battles unfold across America, regenerative advocates can take several actions:
Know Your Land: Research foreign ownership of agricultural land in your county and state
Contact Legislators: Support bills that protect American farmland from adversarial acquisition
Build Local Food Systems: Every dollar spent directly with local regenerative farms strengthens resilience
Spread Awareness: Most Americans remain unaware of the scale of foreign land purchases
The battle for America's agricultural sovereignty will ultimately be won not just through legislation but through the conscious choices of millions of citizens prioritizing local, regenerative food systems over globalized industrial agriculture.
The Regenaissance View
Food sovereignty isn't an abstract concept – it's the fundamental right of communities to control their own food systems. When foreign adversaries purchase America's farmland, they gain leverage over the most basic human need.
True regenerative agriculture can only thrive when the land is stewarded by those with deep connections to local ecosystems and communities. Every acre lost to foreign control is an acre potentially removed from regenerative possibilities.
The legislative efforts in North Carolina represent a crucial recognition that food systems are not merely economic – they are strategic assets essential to national resilience. By protecting American farmland from adversarial acquisition, we preserve the foundation upon which regenerative agriculture must be built.
Viva La Regenaissance!
Frequently Asked Questions
How much U.S. farmland is currently owned by foreign entities?
Foreign investors owned approximately 37.6 million acres of U.S. agricultural land as of 2023, representing about 2.9% of all privately owned agricultural land. Chinese ownership increased tenfold from 2010 to 2020, though it still represents a relatively small percentage compared to Canadian and European holdings.
Do these laws affect all foreign ownership or just certain countries?
Most recent legislation specifically targets "adversarial nations" like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea rather than allies like Canada or European nations. North Carolina's proposed laws explicitly name these adversarial countries while establishing clear definitions of prohibited entities.
Won't these restrictions hurt the agricultural real estate market?
While some localized impacts on property values may occur, particularly near military installations, proponents argue that national security and food sovereignty concerns outweigh potential market effects. Additionally, the legislation typically includes exemptions for legitimate agricultural research and specific business cases to minimize economic disruption.
What happens to land that's already owned by restricted foreign entities?
North Carolina's Senate Bill 394 would require divestment within three years of the law's effective date (December 1, 2025). This provides a reasonable transition period while ensuring that strategic lands return to domestic ownership. Various enforcement mechanisms, including civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation, would encourage compliance.