Gov. Greg Abbott Signs Texas Law Banning Land Ownership by Citizens from China, Russia, and Other Nations

By Newsroom Staff | Published: June 11, 2025

Introduction

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed a controversial bill into law that prohibits land ownership by citizens and entities from certain foreign nations deemed adversarial to the United States. The legislation specifically targets China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran — a move Abbott says is necessary to protect national security and the state’s agricultural sovereignty. Critics, however, argue it raises concerns about discrimination, international backlash, and constitutional rights.

Context: Rising National Security Concerns

The new Texas law is the latest in a series of measures taken across the United States to restrict foreign land ownership, especially from countries viewed as geopolitical threats. The legislation follows reports that Chinese-affiliated entities have purchased thousands of acres near U.S. military installations — including a controversial land purchase near Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio, Texas.

Supporters of the bill argue that such acquisitions could pose serious security risks, including surveillance and interference in critical infrastructure. “We will not allow hostile nations to compromise our food supply or military readiness,” Abbott said during the signing ceremony in Austin on Tuesday.

This move aligns with broader Republican efforts to curb foreign influence amid rising tensions between the U.S. and countries like China. Similar legislation has been introduced or passed in Florida, Arkansas, and Montana in recent years.

Details of the Legislation

The Texas law bars individuals, corporations, and government entities from the four targeted countries from acquiring real estate in Texas, with exemptions only granted on a case-by-case basis by the governor’s office or a designated security review panel. The restrictions apply to agricultural land, energy-rich property, and land near sensitive infrastructure.

The bill also includes a retroactive component, allowing state authorities to investigate recent purchases and potentially force divestment. Legal analysts believe this could prompt constitutional challenges.

“This bill is about protecting Texas from the real threat of espionage and sabotage,” said State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, a Republican who authored the bill.

Political and Public Reactions

Reactions to the law have been sharply divided along partisan and ideological lines. Texas Republicans have largely praised the measure as a bold step to safeguard state interests, while Democrats and civil liberties groups have warned that it may fuel xenophobia and violate due process.

“This law risks turning Texas into a place of racial profiling and fear, especially for Asian American communities,” said State Rep. Gene Wu (D-Houston). “It’s unconstitutional and un-American.”

The Biden administration has not formally commented on the Texas legislation, though the Justice Department has expressed concern over similar bills elsewhere, citing potential conflicts with federal authority on foreign policy and immigration.

Grassroots Reactions

Texas residents are also split. Some, especially rural landowners and veterans, have backed the measure as a matter of patriotism. Others view it as government overreach. Protests have already begun in cities like Houston, Dallas, and Austin, with community organizations staging rallies under the banner “Property Rights for All.”

Legal Implications and Potential Challenges

Legal experts say the bill is likely to face challenges in federal court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) are preparing lawsuits, arguing the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the federal government’s sole authority over foreign affairs.

“It’s unconstitutional for a state to override U.S. treaties or discriminate based on nationality,” said constitutional law professor Shirin Sinnar at Stanford University. “Texas is inviting litigation.”

Precedent cases on foreign ownership and property rights, such as Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), may become central to the legal fight.

Social Media Sentiment and Global Response

On social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), hashtags like #NoLandBan and #TexasSecurity have been trending. Users across the political spectrum have voiced strong opinions.

“Smart move by Texas. We need to protect our land from CCP spies,” wrote one user.

“This is racist, unconstitutional, and dangerous,” another user posted. “Abbott is fueling anti-Asian hate.”

Internationally, China’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement condemning the legislation, calling it “a violation of basic market principles and a dangerous precedent.” Russia and Iran have not commented formally, but diplomatic sources suggest potential retaliatory measures on U.S. investments abroad.

Broader Political Significance

The law marks another chapter in the growing tension between state and federal approaches to national security, especially under Republican-led states during President Donald Trump’s second term. Governor Abbott has become a leading figure in these efforts, with previous headlines around the Texas-Mexico border wall, Operation Lone Star, and the deployment of the Texas National Guard to deter immigration.

This legislation could become a litmus test in upcoming 2026 gubernatorial and Senate races, with Republicans framing it as “America First” and Democrats denouncing it as discriminatory policy. Trump himself praised the bill in a Truth Social post, saying: “Strong leadership from Abbott. We must stop the Chinese Communist Party from owning America.”

Connection to National Trends and Trump-Era Policies

The bill mirrors a resurgence of nationalism under Trump’s second term, especially in immigration, trade, and national security. It follows a wave of federal enforcement actions including immigration raids, a controversial mask ban, and the proposed “Big Beautiful Bill” intended to tighten border restrictions.

In Los Angeles, where recent protests erupted over immigration detentions, organizers have cited Texas’s land law as a sign of “authoritarian drift.” Comparisons are increasingly being drawn between current policy trends and historic exclusion acts from the 20th century.

Conclusion

As Texas enacts one of the most aggressive land ownership bans in the country, legal, diplomatic, and political tensions are mounting. While proponents say the law is a necessary safeguard against foreign interference, critics see it as a discriminatory overreach that undermines constitutional protections and inflames anti-immigrant sentiment.

With lawsuits looming and a presidential election cycle approaching, the fate of this legislation could reverberate far beyond Texas’s borders — shaping national debates over property rights, security, and what it means to be American.