The Ohio General Assembly is currently considering legislation that would significantly expand restrictions on land ownership by individuals, businesses, and governments associated with certain designated foreign adversaries. Ohio House Bill 1, also known as the “Ohio Property Protection Act” (the Bill), builds upon existing limitations on foreign agricultural land ownership in the state and introduces new prohibitions tied to proximity to military installations and critical infrastructure.
Background: From Agricultural Land Restrictions to Expanded Prohibitions
Ohio first enacted restrictions on foreign land ownership as part of the 2023-2024 state operating budget (House Bill 33), which prohibited certain foreign countries, businesses, and individuals from acquiring agricultural land in the state. Governor Mike DeWine signed these agricultural restrictions into law, but exercised his line-item veto authority to reject provisions that would have extended similar prohibitions to land within 25 miles of military installations, stating that “… including other non-agricultural real property in [House Bill 33] could have unintended economic development consequences.”
House Bill 1, introduced in January 2025 by Representatives Angie King and Roy Klopfenstein, revives the vetoed provisions and expands their scope to include land near critical infrastructure facilities. The Bill applies to persons from countries designated as “foreign adversaries” by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, which currently includes China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela under the Maduro regime (collectively, the “Restricted Parties”). See 15 CFR 791.4.
In November 2025, the House Public Safety Committee adopted amendments that narrowed certain aspects of the original proposal, including reducing the exclusion radius from 25 miles to 10 miles around protected facilities, adding exemptions for legal permanent residents (green card holders) and individuals who have served in the U.S. military, and provided protections for property received through inheritance or used to satisfy outstanding debts. The amendments also addressed enforcement concerns raised by county prosecutors by allowing them to refer complex cases to the Ohio Attorney General.
Scope of the Prohibition: Protected Property and Critical Infrastructure
Under the Bill, the Restricted Parties would be prohibited from buying and owning “protected property,” which encompasses real property located within 10 miles (as amended from the original 25 miles) of a military installation or critical infrastructure facility.
The Bill’s definition of “critical infrastructure” is notably expansive and has been the subject of much critique by detractors and opponents of the Bill. Under the Bill, critical infrastructure is defined to include discrete facilities such as power plants, dams, water treatment facilities, and refineries, but also extends to distribution networks, including electrical transmission and distribution systems, telecommunications infrastructure, railroads, and pipelines. Specifically, the definition covers telephone poles, utility lines, cell towers, fiber optic cables, and similar infrastructure components.
Critics have noted that this broad definition means virtually any property in Ohio could potentially fall within a restricted zone. Even with the reduced 10-mile radius, the ubiquity of utility infrastructure throughout the state would render significant portions of Ohio subject to the prohibition. In an attempt to clarify the restrictions under the Bill, legislators have been asked to produce a map showing which areas would and would not be restricted, though no such map has yet been made publicly available.
Positions of Bill Proponents
Supporters of the Bill frame the legislation as a matter of national security and protection of critical assets. Representative King stated, upon introducing the Bill, that legislators have “… a responsibility to protect Ohio from those who seek to undermine and destroy our American values and way of life.”
Proponents point to specific instances where foreign-linked entities have attempted to acquire land near sensitive installations, citing the example of Fufeng USA, a Chinese-affiliated company that allegedly attempted to purchase land in Paulding County, Ohio, as well as a similar attempt near Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota that was denied after the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force labeled the transaction a “significant threat to national security.”
The Ohio Farm Bureau has also expressed support for strengthening foreign ownership laws, noting that members have become increasingly concerned about foreign ownership of farmland.
Positions of Bill Opponents
Opposition to the Bill has come from civil rights organizations, immigrant advocacy groups, and some business interests. The Asian American Coalition of Ohio, Ohio Chinese American Association, and Justice for Ohio issued a joint statement acknowledging that the amendments show lawmakers are hearing public concerns, but maintained that the changes “… do not resolve HB 1’s core deficiencies.”
Opponents raise several concerns. First, they argue the Bill discriminates against individuals lawfully present in the United States based solely on national origin, which is among the protected characteristics under the federal Fair Housing Act. Second, they contend the legislation conflicts with constitutional guarantees, noting that the Fourteenth Amendment requires equal protection and that Article I, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution includes “acquiring, possessing, and protecting property” among inalienable rights.
From an economic perspective, critics argue the restrictions would discourage legitimate foreign investment in Ohio. As one coalition statement noted, “At a moment when Ohio is striving to attract advanced manufacturing, strengthen its workforce, and deepen international partnerships, H.B. 1 sends a damaging and counterproductive message.”
House Speaker Matt Huffman has acknowledged the complexity of the issues involved, noting that “… there are a lot of folks who came here throughout history, the 20th century, even the 19th century, to avoid tyranny in other countries.” Huffman has indicated a desire for the Bill to more clearly define who would be affected by its restrictions, referencing ongoing litigation (see Shen v. Simpson, No. 4:23-cv-208 (N.D. Fla. 2023)) against similar legislation in Florida.
Divestiture Requirements and Potential Constitutional Considerations
The Bill contains grandfathering provisions for land already owned by individuals who would otherwise be prohibited from ownership. However, such individuals would be barred from acquiring additional property. Notably, anyone who becomes subject to the prohibition after the Bill takes effect would be required to divest their property holdings within two years.
This mandatory divestiture requirement raises potential constitutional questions. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation,” and Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution contains similar protections. While forced divestiture differs from traditional eminent domain proceedings in that the property is sold rather than appropriated by the government, the requirement that an owner must sell property they legally acquired – potentially at unfavorable terms or timing – could implicate takings concerns.
Courts have generally held that regulatory requirements forcing property sales do not automatically constitute takings, particularly where the regulation serves a legitimate governmental interest and does not completely destroy the property’s value. However, the intersection of property rights, equal protection principles, and foreign affairs powers creates a complex legal landscape that may ultimately require judicial resolution. Similar legislation in Florida (Senate Bill 264) is currently facing legal challenges in Shen v. Simpson on constitutional and federal preemption grounds, and Ohio lawmakers have acknowledged awareness of that litigation.
Next Steps and Likely Timeline
As of early December 2025, the Bill remains pending in the Ohio House. The Bill did not receive a vote before the legislature’s holiday recess and will not be considered until the new year at the earliest. Speaker Huffman has indicated the Ohio legislature wants to move forward with the Bill but is working through complexities regarding its scope and application.
Should the Bill pass the Ohio House, it would proceed to the Ohio Senate for consideration through the committee process and floor vote. A companion bill, Ohio Senate Bill 88, contains nearly identical provisions. Given the Republican majorities in both chambers and the bipartisan interest in addressing foreign land ownership concerns at the national level, some form of expanded restrictions appears likely to advance, though the final scope and structure remain subject to continued negotiation and amendment.
Conclusion
The Bill represents a significant potential expansion of Ohio’s restrictions on foreign land ownership, with implications for property transactions throughout the state. Property owners, investors, real estate professionals, and legal practitioners should monitor the Bill’s progress and assess how the final provisions may affect their interests.
To navigate foreign ownership restrictions, real estate transactions involving international parties, or compliance with Ohio’s evolving property laws, contact KJK Real Estate attorneys James J. Scherer at JJS@kjk.com or Matthew T. Viola at MTV@kjk.com for assistance with real property matters and regulatory compliance.