In a significant shift from its previous position, the Texas Farm Bureau will now not oppose—and may even support—the state legislature’s proposed ban on land sales to hostile foreign nationals, such as China.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Chinese firms and investors have acquired 383,935 acres of U.S. land. Notably, in 2015, a former member of the Chinese communist army purchased 130,000 acres in South Texas near Laughlin Air Force Base.
Last year, the Texas Senate passed legislation to ban China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia from purchasing Texas land, but the bill was ultimately killed in the Texas House. With more than 95 percent of Republican voters advocating for the ban, the issue has become a priority for the Republican Party of Texas. Following criticism during the recent primary elections, Texas House Republicans appear more determined to pass a version of the Senate’s legislation in 2025.
In response, current House Speaker Dade Phelan established a special committee, “Securing Texas from Hostile Foreign Organizations.” During the committee’s only hearing last month, a Texas Farm Bureau representative expressed concerns that such a ban could infringe on the rights of property sellers.
“As an American and Texan, I want our country and state to be secure from any threat—foreign or domestic. But, as an American and landowner, I also value my private property rights, which includes the right to make my own decision on selling or leasing my land. Any law relating to the foreign ownership of agricultural land should respect our private property rights,” Farm Bureau representative Mickey Edwards stated during the hearing.
Edwards suggested the organization favored an approach proposed last session by State Sen. Charles Perry (R–Lubbock), which would have required sellers to be aware that a hostile foreign entity was attempting to purchase their land but would not have outright banned the practice.
However, after Texas Scorecard reported on the Farm Bureau’s stance, the organization received a flood of correspondence from members concerned that it was obstructing legislation aimed at protecting Texas farmland from foreign threats.
When a different representative from the Texas Farm Bureau spoke to the House Agriculture Committee on Tuesday, the organization’s position appeared to have changed.
Now, Russell Boening, the president of the Texas Farm Bureau, informed committee members on Wednesday that the organization “does not oppose the legislature preventing the purchase of Texas property by individuals or entities that are a threat to our national security.”
Further, Boening indicated that if similar legislation were introduced next session, the Farm Bureau would not oppose it. While the organization remained publicly neutral on the ban last session, numerous Capitol sources suggest they opposed it behind closed doors.
Boening added that the issue would be addressed during the Farm Bureau’s grassroots policy development process in the coming months.
“Texas Farm Bureau fully supports the Texas Legislature in addressing this threat to our national security, and we commend you all for taking on this important issue,” Boening stated.
Despite the Farm Bureau’s evolving stance, the Texas Forestry Association—an organization representing forest landowners and loggers—advocated for “narrowly tailored” legislation.
James Edelen, the Texas Forestry Association’s president, urged lawmakers to focus restrictive legislation on hostile governments rather than private companies or individuals.
Edelen’s remarks came after testimony highlighted how the Chinese Communist Party leverages its citizens to advance foreign objectives. Michael Lucci of State Armor informed the committee that under China’s National Intelligence Law, Chinese citizens and companies are required to assist the Chinese government in intelligence-gathering activities, both domestically and abroad.
Edelen also cautioned that “legislation placing restrictions on state-owned companies or state-owned enterprises should be designed to avoid unintended consequences that would disincentivize investments from global funds in East Texas forest products and timber assets.”
