Since January 2021, almost every state has introduced legislation limiting or outright banning foreign investments and landholdings on private agricultural land inside its borders. The number of states that have passed legislation prohibiting foreign ownership has risen from fourteen to twenty-five in the last several years. Even in 2025, this pattern persists, with most states in the US contemplating legislation to either establish a foreign ownership statute or modify existing legislation regarding foreign ownership.
This is the fifth installment in a series that delves into recent legislative initiatives to curb or limit foreign entities’ land investments. You can find the rest of the pieces in this series by clicking here. The articles here discuss the plans that were put forth in Arkansas.
Prior knowledge
While several states are looking to change parts of their restrictions on foreign ownership, Arkansas is one of twenty-five that has passed such a bill. Act 636, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 18-11-101(a), -110, 801-805, was passed by the Arkansas state legislature in 2023. It created a statute limiting foreign ownership of specific real estate investments in Arkansas. A “prohibited foreign party” (“PFP”) is not allowed to own any agricultural land in the state, according to one provision of Act 636. People, organizations, and governments from countries that are governed by the federal International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), as well as any “Entity of Particular Concern” identified by the US Secretary of State, are all considered PFP under the statute. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are among the nations that ITAR governs.
A “prohibited foreign-party-controlled business” (“PFPCB”) is also prohibited from obtaining any interest in real property located within the state of Arkansas, according to Act 636. See section 18-11-110(b)(1) of the Arkansas Code. It is defined as a “corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint-stock company, trust, estate or other legal entity whose controlling interest is owned” by a PFP in legal terms. A “controlling interest” owns more than half of the total. Consequently, a business company is deemed a PFPCB if one or more PFPs collectively own a minimum of 50% of the entity. This entity cannot, therefore, purchase any real estate in the state of Arkansas. On NALC’s website, you may find an extensive analysis of Arkansas’s foreign ownership laws.
When the attorney general of Arkansas demanded that a subsidiary of the Chinese-owned corporation Syngenta Seeds sell off the farms it controlled in the state, the state made history as the first in the country to implement a state foreign ownership statute. In addition, a data center company called Jones Eagle, LLC, which mines digital assets, has sued the state of Arkansas, claiming that their foreign ownership law is unconstitutional (Jones Eagle LLC v. Arkansas Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00990 (E.D. Ark. 2024)). Jones Eagle has been granted a preliminary injunction by an Arkansas federal court, which means that the state will not be able to take any enforcement action against the company until the court gives further notice. You may read more about this case in the article NALC posted on their website.
Summer of 2025 in Washington, DC
Arkansas’s legislators aim to change some parts of the state’s legislation on foreign ownership during this session. Legislators in the state are currently debating House Bill 1680 (“HB 1680”), which would make it illegal for PFPs and PFPCBs to own any property—public or private—within 10 miles of any state-owned vital infrastructure. The term “critical infrastructure” is used in the bill to describe various systems and assets, both physical and virtual, that are essential for the nation’s security, economy, public health, and safety. This includes military bases, power transmitters, utilities, railways, communication facilities, and cybersecurity data storage systems.
While it is already the case that PFPs and PFPCBs are not allowed to purchase any land in Arkansas, including agricultural land, the new provision is presumably an attempt to prevent PFPs who are resident aliens from buying property near vital infrastructure in the state. A PFP who is also a resident alien is not subject to the prohibition on foreign ownership under Arkansas law. This means that agricultural land located within the state can be acquired and held by non-U.S. citizens who are PFPs and legal residents of the US. The acquisition of farms within ten miles of vital infrastructure is likely prohibited under HB 1680, should it be passed into law.
While PFP resident aliens can legally own agricultural property in Arkansas, they must sell or otherwise dispose of their holdings two years after their residency status changes. One goal of HB 1680 is to change this clause so that PFPs who are no longer resident aliens are required to sell their agricultural land within a year.
Finally, House Bill 1680 aims to elaborate on the prohibition of PFPs and PFPCBs from leasing state-owned land and agricultural land. Land and farmland cannot be acquired by these foreign investors through “grant, purchase, devise, descent, or otherwise…” according to the present statute. Review sections 18-11-110(b)(1) and 18-11-803(a)(1) of the Arkansas Code. To try to ban PFP and PFPCB leaseholds of property within the state, HB 1680 will add the word “lease” to this restricted language.
The Arkansas House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development will now consider the legislation. The committee now has the option to analyze the bill, listen to pro and con witnesses, make amendments, send the bill to the next chamber for consideration, or vote to reject passage of the law.
Senate Bill 317 (“SB 317”). The Arkansas state legislature is also taking this matter under consideration. This measure does not prohibit foreign land ownership per se, but it does restrict certain activities involving PFPs that Arkansas institutions of higher education are not allowed to engage in. These activities include: (1) contract-based classified and agricultural research; (2) sale of agricultural products, including seeds; (3) production of agricultural products; and (4) nondisclosure agreements. The term “classified” is not defined in SB 317, so what kinds of study fall under this umbrella is not apparent. The Senate of Arkansas approved Senate Bill 317 on March 6, 2025, and the House of Arkansas is considering the proposal.
In summary
The question of limiting foreign investment and ownership in real estate, mainly farmland and forestland, has arisen or returned in nearly every state in recent years. In 2024, fourteen states passed or revised foreign ownership laws. This pattern has persisted thus far in 2025, with most states having passed legislation allowing foreign ownership.
S. 845 and H.R. 1629 are currently in the legislative process, and NALC will update you in this post.