Safeguarding Farmland and Military Zones: HB 4233 and Michigan’s Legislative Push to Limit Foreign Land Ownership

In 2025, Michigan legislators unveiled a sweeping package of proposals aimed at curtailing the acquisition of agricultural and strategically located property by foreign entities linked to countries deemed adversarial to U.S. interests. Central among these measures are House Bill 4233 and House Bill 4234. HB 4233, introduced by Representative Gina Johnsen, aims to bar foreign principals including businesses, governments, agents, trustees, or fiduciaries from buying or acquiring farmland in Michigan once the law takes effect. Those already owning farmland may retain current holdings but would be prohibited from making new purchases. Foreign owners would also be required to register their land holdings with the Secretary of State within sixty days, with non‑compliance subject to fines, forced sales, or state seizure of land.

Please note this blog post should be used for learning and illustrative purposes. It is not a substitute for consultation with an attorney with expertise in this area. If you have questions about a specific legal issue, we always recommend that you consult an attorney to discuss the particulars of your case.

House Bill 4234, spearheaded by Representative Luke Meerman, addresses property located within twenty miles of military installations or critical infrastructure facilities including water treatment plants, transportation hubs, and telecommunications infrastructure. Under this bill, foreign principals are permitted to retain pre‑existing holdings but are forbidden from acquiring additional property in those buffer zones. All current owners are mandated to register their land with the Michigan Department of Agriculture by July 1, 2025, after which enforcement mechanisms such as seizure or fines would be triggered for non‑compliance. The legislation allows narrowly tailored exceptions, such as research use under a national security agreement approved by federal authorities.

These two land‑focused bills are part of a broader legislative package commonly referred to as the “Foreign Influence Package,” which also encompasses additional proposals targeting procurement, government devices, educational institutions, and public financial incentives. For example, HB 4235 prohibits certain foreign‑controlled applications on government‑issued devices, while HB 4236 and HB 4237 impose contracting restrictions on businesses with ties to foreign adversarial nations. HB 4238 through HB 4242 set limits on foreign grants or academic partnerships in public schools and universities and require certification that applicants for state incentive programs are free from foreign control. Collectively, these bills aim to strengthen state‑level oversight and reduce avenues of foreign influence.
Proponents of the legislation emphasize two principal rationales: protection of Michigan’s expansive agricultural economy, and preservation of national and state security. Representative Johnsen has underscored that farmland is not simply real estate but a foundation of Michigan’s identity and food sovereignty, warning that foreign adversaries gaining control of such land threatens both. The proposal’s supporters point to past incidents including the 2023 event in installation,e nationals photographed training activities at Camp Grayling, a National Guard installation as evidence that foreign entities can sometimes gain access to sensitive zones under the cover of academic or business activity.

Michigan’s legislative movement aligns closely with similar efforts at the federal level and in other states. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has launched a National Farm Security Action Plan and opened avenues for reporting AFIDA violations. Its mandate includes reviewing farmland acquisitions by foreign investors from adversarial nations, especially near military installations. Meanwhile, federal legislation such as the FARMLAND Act introduced by Representatives from agriculture‑heavy states has been proposed to empower CFIUS to review large‑scale farmland purchases, establish a public registry of foreign‑owned farmland, and bar such holdings from USDA commodity programs.

According to Bridge Michigan, foreign principals now control roughly 1.9 million acres of Michigan farmland, approximately 7 percent of the state’s privately owned agricultural land with a remarkable concentration in the Upper Peninsula. One private equity firm, reporting through shell entities tied to Singapore, controls an estimated 540,000 acres nearly five percent of UP acreage despite Singapore not being included on Michigan’s “countries of concern” list. That case illustrates how opaque ownership structures may allow foreign influence without clear traceability.

Opponents of the bills raise serious civil liberties and constitutional concerns. The Michigan Asian Pacific American Legislative Caucus issued a joint statement denouncing HB 4233 and HB 4234 as discriminatory “alien land laws” that echo early twentieth‑century statutes targeting Asian immigrants. They warned that singling out individuals based on nationality violates principles of fairness and non‑discrimination, inviting legal challenges under equal‑protection and due process. Critics also argue that these restrictions could exacerbate xenophobia and restrict legitimate investment by lawful residents of origin countries.
Under the new House bills, “foreign individuals or entities” are typically defined as non-U.S. citizens, foreign governments, foreign-owned corporations, or any business or individual with substantial ties to a foreign country. In most cases, naturalized U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (green card holders) would not be classified as “foreign” under these definitions and would therefore not be subject to the same restrictions. However, the specific language of each bill may vary, and some may include more restrictive definitions that could potentially impact certain visa holders or individuals with dual citizenship. Close attention to the statutory wording and any implementing regulations would be necessary to determine the exact scope of who is affected.

Another major criticism targets the difficulty of effective enforcement. Investigations by Bridge Michigan and others have shown that many foreign‑owned land holdings are wrapped in multiple layers of shell LLCs registered in jurisdictions like Delaware or the Cayman Islands and ultimately trace back to beneficial ownership in countries like Singapore or China. This so‑called “Singapore‑washing” complicates any attempt to enforce national‑origin limitations, especially when countries not on the restricted list serve as intermediaries. Without rigorous transparency requirements and investigative capacity, critics argue, the legislation may fail to address core risks.

Supporters counter that Michigan’s laws fill critical gaps left by weak enforcement under the federal Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA), under which USDA reportedly issued only eight penalties over a decade. Michigan’s legislation establishes state‑level registration requirements, explicit divestment timeframes, and tools for aggressive enforcement including civil suits by the Attorney General’s office or circuit courts, potential land seizure, and penalties for non‑disclosure. Those mechanisms are intended to serve as a deterrent that federal mandates have thus far lacked.

Viewed in a broader context, Michigan is joining a wave of more than twenty‑six states that now restrict or limit foreign ownership of agricultural land. Although state laws vary in scope and detail, several including Arizona, Indiana, Montana, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Ohio have enacted statutes specifically targeting adversarial countries, defining prohibitions by acreage thresholds, requiring ownership disclosures, and mandating enforcement provisions. Michigan’s proposals, with their dual focus on farmland and sensitive buffer zones, place the state within the mainstream of this growing movement.

At its core, the debate in Michigan touches on how to balance openness to investment with protection of strategic and symbolic assets. Farmland in Michigan is not just private property; it plays a critical role in the state’s economy, its rural communities, and national food security. Property near military facilities, by virtue of its proximity, raises concerns over surveillance, infrastructure targeting, or leverage in crisis scenarios. The bills seek to treat such land as an extension of national resilience, framing restrictions as necessary prophylaxis not economic xenophobia.

As this legislative package advances through the State Senate and (if enacted) into implementation and possible legal challenges, several issues will demand close attention. How will Michigan authorities verify beneficial ownership across complex corporate chains? Will the enforcement tools suffice to override shell company obfuscation? Could legitimate property owners with foreign heritage be unfairly targeted or exposed to breaching civil rights protections? And can state policy evolve to accommodate flexible exceptions such as research collaborations without compromising core security goals?

In closing, Michigan’s proposed bills represent a definitive attempt to draw a clear legislative boundary between foreign investment and sovereignty over sensitive land. By embedding registration mandates, divestment periods, and proximity restrictions, the state places farmland and buffer‑zone real estate under special scrutiny. Whether these measures respect constitutional protections, withstand legal challenge, and effectively root out covert foreign land ownership remains to be seen. Regardless, Michigan has joined an accelerating national trend that seeks to redefine how foreign entities may access critical land resources in a changing global security environment.

Contact Tishkoff

Tishkoff PLC specializes in business law and litigation. For inquiries, contact us at www.tish.law/contact/. & check out Tishkoff PLC’s Website (www.Tish.Law/), eBooks (www.Tish.Law/e-books), Blogs (www.Tish.Law/blog) and References (www.Tish.Law/resources).