Arizona’s BAN Act Targets Hostile Foreign Land Ownership

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs recently rejected a bill she viewed as too weak on foreign land ownership, opting instead to propose the BAN Act. This legislation aims to prevent nations deemed hostile from purchasing land in the state, a move that has sparked intense discussion. For Arizonans, from farmers to business owners, the proposal raises a pressing question: how will it affect their lives and the state's future?

Known as SB1066, the BAN Act requires legislative approval for land purchases by entities from countries Arizona labels as adversaries. Sellers must verify buyer identities and report transactions to the Department of Real Estate. The law extends restrictions on public agricultural land to private properties, seeking to block foreign entities from gaining influence near military bases or in key economic sectors.

Arizona's proposal reflects a growing national unease about foreign land ownership. Over 30 states have introduced or enacted similar restrictions since 2022, driven by fears that nations like China or Russia could use land purchases to undermine U.S. security. A notable case involved a Chinese company's plan to build a corn mill near an Air Force base in North Dakota, prompting worries about surveillance. Arizona, home to several military installations, feels this threat acutely.

Proponents of these laws argue that foreign control of farmland or properties near critical infrastructure could jeopardize food supplies, energy resources, or military operations. Foreign entities currently own about 45 million acres of U.S. agricultural land, a figure boosted by recent renewable energy investments. The idea of a foreign government holding even a fraction of American land unsettles many.

However, the issue is complex. A large share of foreign-owned U.S. land is held by allies, including Canada and European nations. Countries designated as adversaries hold a lesser amount. Advocates for open investment policies and economic growth contend that broad restrictions could discourage legitimate investors, harming job creation and economic growth. They highlight existing federal tools, like the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews risky transactions, questioning the need for state-level bans.

The BAN Act highlights a delicate balance between protecting national interests and fostering economic openness. Arizona lawmakers backing the bill argue that decisive action is essential to shield the state from potential threats. They draw on historical efforts, such as early 20th-century laws limiting non-citizen land ownership in western states, though those were later struck down for discrimination. Today's proposals aim to prioritize security without repeating past mistakes.

Advocates for economic openness emphasize the economic value of foreign investment, which supports thousands of Arizona jobs in industries like agriculture and technology. They warn that vague definitions of "hostile" entities could lead to inconsistent enforcement or legal challenges, potentially violating constitutional protections like equal treatment. Targeted reviews of land deals near sensitive sites, they argue, would be more effective than sweeping bans that might deter allied investors.

The BAN Act's lack of clear criteria for identifying adversaries has drawn scrutiny. Without precise standards, the law risks being applied unevenly or politicized, creating uncertainty for landowners and investors. In states like Florida, similar laws have already faced lawsuits over property rights and federal authority, signaling potential hurdles for Arizona.

Arizona's BAN Act is part of a nationwide push to curb foreign land ownership. Since 2022, states like Texas, Arkansas, and Wyoming have tightened rules on purchases by non-U.S. entities, often focusing on land near military or critical infrastructure. In 2025, at least 19 states introduced related bills, fueled by public concern over incidents like the 2023 Chinese surveillance balloon, which amplified fears of foreign influence.

For Arizona residents, the BAN Act could have tangible effects. Farmers, already grappling with rising land costs, worry that foreign investors offering high prices could make it harder for locals to buy property. Meanwhile, the state's business community fears that restrictive laws could discourage international firms from investing in Arizona's expanding tech and renewable energy sectors.

As Arizona debates the BAN Act, it faces a pivotal choice. The proposal seeks to protect the state from external risks, but its success hinges on addressing legal concerns and balancing security with economic needs. Lawmakers face the task of refining the law to ensure clarity and fairness for all involved.

The BAN Act's future remains uncertain as Arizona weighs its next steps. Supporters see it as a model for other states, signaling a commitment to security in a competitive global landscape. Those advocating for economic growth and open investment urge caution, warning that overly broad restrictions could harm Arizona's economy and reputation as an investment hub. The debate has opened a critical dialogue about safeguarding the state while embracing global opportunities.

The voices of Arizonans, including farmers, business leaders, and everyday residents, will play a key role in shaping the outcome. Their input will help craft a policy that reflects the state's values and practical realities. The challenge involves crafting a law that protects Arizona's interests while also embracing the benefits of a connected world.

At its core, the debate over foreign land ownership is about defining Arizona's priorities in an uncertain era. The state's decisions will reveal how it navigates the tension between security and prosperity, with implications that could resonate far beyond its borders.