WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 133

NC Farmland and Military Protection Act.

2025-2026 Session Introduced by Jay Adams and 61 co-sponsors

HB 133 would bar adversarial foreign governments from buying or holding agricultural land or land within 75 miles of major NC military bases, with enforcement via divestiture.

Ch. SL 2026-54
#agriculture;armedforces;commerce;deeds;internationaltrade;militarybases;presented;property;public;publicrecords;ratified;realestate;recordationofinstruments;registerofdeeds;sales&conveyances;chaptered;agriculturalland
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 133

HB 133 — "NC Farmland and Military Protection Act"

Summary (North Carolina, 2025)

Overview / Purpose

HB 133 would prohibit certain foreign-government-controlled entities from acquiring or holding North Carolina land that is critical to agricultural production or proximate to major military installations. The stated aim is to protect the State’s food production capacity and military-security interests by blocking ownership or control of sensitive land by “adversarial foreign governments.”

Key provisions

  • Creates a new Article in Chapter 64 (G.S.) titled the “North Carolina Farmland and Military Protection Act.”
  • Prohibits any “adversarial foreign government” from purchasing, acquiring, leasing, or holding any interest in:
    • Agricultural land (as defined in G.S. 106‑581.1(1)–(4)); and
    • Real property located within a 75‑mile radius of specified military installations (Fort Bragg, Camp Lejeune, Seymour Johnson AFB, Cherry Point, Pine‑listed facilities, etc. — full list in the bill).
  • Defines “adversarial foreign government” to include state‑controlled enterprises or governments/actors listed under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. § 126). (Later versions add exceptions for entities cleared by CFIUS or subject to a CFIUS national security agreement.)
  • Defines “controlling interest” (generally >50% ownership or de facto control) and “interest” (estate, remainder, reversion, options to transfer title). Excludes noteholders under deeds of trust from the “interest” definition.
  • Declares any transfer in violation of the prohibition to be void.

Enforcement, remedies and procedure

  • Violations subject to divestiture: Attorney General may investigate, issue subpoenas and initiate a receivership proceeding under G.S. 1‑507.24 (appointment of a general receiver) to sell the property.
  • Receivership sale proceeds: costs and secured creditors paid in order; no proceeds to the adversarial foreign government; excess proceeds forfeited to the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund.
  • A violation may be treated by lenders as an automatic default under loan documents, permitting lenders to trigger remedies.
  • No private right of action is created; enforcement rests with the State (Attorney General). The bill states that non‑adversarial private parties have no civil or criminal liability for failing to determine adversarial status.

Who would be affected

  • Entities/persons designated as “adversarial foreign governments” (state‑controlled enterprises, foreign governments/actors within scope).
  • Sellers and purchasers of agricultural land and property near the listed military installations.
  • Lenders, title companies, and other real‑estate market participants (due‑diligence and closing practices could change).
  • North Carolina Attorney General (investigative and enforcement duties).
  • Farmers and agri‑sector stakeholders (potentially prevented from selling to certain buyers).

Procedural / timeline notes (from bill record)

  • Introduced in the NC House (filed Feb 17, 2025). Committee referrals included Homeland Security & Military and Veterans Affairs and Commerce.
  • Committee substitute(s) were considered (committee activity in March–April 2025); committee substitute language refines definitions and procedures.
  • The bill text sets an effective date of December 1, 2025, if enacted.
  • Legislative status in the provided materials is mixed; a recorded action shows “Withdrawn From Com” on 2025‑06‑09. (Readers should consult the official NC General Assembly docket for the bill’s current status.)

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Market effects: could limit buyers for certain land, change valuation/liquidity of agricultural parcels near military bases, and increase due‑diligence costs for transactions and lenders.
  • Enforcement costs and operational demands for the Attorney General (investigations, receiverships).
  • Legal risks: statutes that restrict foreign ownership of land have been subject to constitutional and federal preemption scrutiny in other contexts; HB 133 may face legal challenges if enacted.
  • National security vs. commerce balance: the bill attempts to align state action with federal national‑security mechanisms (CFIUS-related language appears in later versions), but interaction with federal law is a key implementation consideration.

If you want, I can:
- Produce a one‑page checklist for affected landowners, lenders and title companies summarizing actions to take now; or
- Pull and summarize the exact list of military installations named in the bill text.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.