(Texas Scorecard) – Legislation aiming to ban hostile foreign actors from owning land in Texas was heard in a marathon hearing Wednesday night, with lawmakers on the House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee listening to hours of testimony—most of it in opposition—until nearly midnight.
House Bill 17, authored by State Rep. Cole Hefner (R–Mount Pleasant), would restrict individuals and entities tied to adversarial nations from purchasing or acquiring real estate in Texas.
But despite its national security framing, the bill is also drawing fire from some conservatives—including the Republican Party of Texas itself—who argue it doesn’t go far enough.
During the hearing, Hefner explained the bill’s purpose. “The purpose of the committee substitute for House Bill 17 is to prohibit hostile foreign actors who intend to do us harm from owning land in our great state. This prohibition extends to hostile foreign governments, entities controlled by hostile foreign governments, and persons living in countries whose governments are hostile foreign adversaries,” said Hefner.
Based on the U.S. Director of National Intelligence’s Annual Threat Assessment, the current list of countries affected includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The governor would also have the power to add countries to the list, but not to remove any already designated by the federal assessment.
The bill contains key exemptions, however. Namely, it does not apply to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or even citizens of adversarial nations who are not “domiciled” in those countries.
And that language—“domicile”—has become a lightning rod for criticism.
Hefner defended the choice of words, saying, “We were concerned that if we put ‘citizen,’ that we would violate the Fair Housing Act and the United States Constitution by discriminating based on national origin. And so we felt that ‘domicile’ was a way to get most people that may violate this act without violating the Constitution.”
But for some conservatives, the bill’s legal caution doesn’t go far enough.
Protecting Texas land from foreign ownership is an official legislative priority of the Republican Party of Texas, yet the party has taken a formal position in opposition to HB 17 as well as the Senate’s version of the bill, SB 17, saying both leave too many loopholes open.
Christin Bentley, a member of the State Republican Executive Committee, posted her opposition in written testimony, urging lawmakers to strip the bill of its residency and leasing exceptions, replace “domicile” with “citizen,” and add retroactive provisions to force divestment of already foreign-owned land.
Hefner acknowledged the concerns but defended the bill’s language as the most constitutionally defensible version possible.
“If we don’t do this right, and we say, okay, we’re just going to make it ‘citizens’ because it sounds good, and then the courts rule against us, and then we don’t get any protections,” Hefner said. “We’re working well with Senator Kolkhorst’s office, and look forward to getting these bills together and hopefully getting a better product than we have by ourselves and they have by themselves.”
While both HB 17 and SB 17 aim to curb foreign land ownership, there are some differences.
The Senate bill includes a broader definition of real property—covering things like water rights and mineral interests—and relies solely on civil enforcement, whereas HB 17 includes criminal penalties, such as a state jail felony and fines equal to the greater of $250,000 or 50 percent of the property’s value.
At the federal level, the issue is also gaining traction. U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Flower Mound) has introduced legislation to ban Chinese land ownership nationwide, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has indicated that the Trump administration could take executive action to restrict Chinese ownership of agricultural land.