You can actually feel the distance in California’s rural counties. A buyer at the grain elevator, a different crop insurance rate, or a different water district could all be ten miles away. Now, it might also refer to whether a plot of farmland is too near a military installation to be owned by a foreign company.
You begin to notice that the landscape doesn’t match the politics when you drive the back roads close to a large installation, such as Camp Pendleton on the coast or Travis Air Force Base in Solano County. Dusty access roads, flat fields, and glinting irrigation lines in the sunlight. The abrupt geometry of security, including the long, straight runway, patrol cars, and fencing, then appears in the background. It’s difficult to ignore how normal everything appears, which is likely why the new anxiety feels so acute.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Location | California, United States |
| Policy Direction | State-level restrictions on foreign ownership of agricultural land and land near sensitive sites (proposed/under debate) |
| Earlier California Attempt | SB 1084 (2021–2022) would have restricted foreign governments’ interests in CA agricultural land; vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom |
| Federal Overlay | CFIUS expanded jurisdiction for certain real-estate transactions near additional military installations (final rule announced Nov. 1, 2024) |
| Why “Near Bases” Matters | Surveillance and security concerns around land close to military sites have driven new state proposals nationwide |
| What States Can Do | Many states restrict foreign interests in private agricultural land in some form; approaches vary widely |
| Authentic reference link | https://nationalaglawcenter.org/foreign-investments-in-ag/ |
The “near defense bases” angle is the one that tends to speed up the debate over foreign ownership of agricultural land, which California lawmakers have been debating for years. The claim that farmland close to sensitive locations can be used for surveillance, pressure tactics, or worse is straightforward enough to fit on a campaign mailer. The land market appears to behave more like a security perimeter than a land market once a state begins creating “proximity” maps around bases, according to investors.
This is significant because California has attempted to enact legislation in this area before. Legislators approved SB 1084 in 2022, which would have made it illegal for foreign governments to buy, acquire, lease, or otherwise own agricultural land in California and required them to submit reports to the state agriculture department.
It was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who returned the bill without signing it. Even in a state that is at ease with regulation, the question of “who can own land” quickly becomes politically contentious, as that veto still serves as a reminder.
Since then, the mood music has evolved. The issue of foreign ownership of agricultural land in the United States has gained more attention on a national level. States are taking different approaches, with some concentrating on “foreign adversaries,” others on reporting, and still others on land close to military installations. California operates in a setting where land purchases are viewed as intelligence inquiries, so it is not functioning in a vacuum.
Additionally, the federal government has been focusing more intently. A final rule extending CFIUS jurisdiction for specific real estate transactions close to more military installations, including new one-mile and 100-mile coverage around designated sites, was announced by the U.S. Treasury Department in late 2024. Although it doesn’t necessarily mean that purchases are prohibited, it does indicate that, unlike ten years ago, proximity now raises suspicion.
However, a California law targeting “foreign firms” close to defense installations poses the difficult question that nobody wants to dwell on: what precisely qualifies as foreign? a Delaware-incorporated business with foreign investors. A U.S. division of a multinational agricultural company.
A fund that requires a whole day and a whiteboard to sort out its complex ownership stack. The actual enforcement work may take place in compliance departments, title offices, and the quiet gray area of corporate structuring rather than in courtrooms or capitol hearings.
Then there is the legal snag. When laws target particular nations or categories that map uncomfortably close to ethnicity or national origin, they may clash with constitutional challenges, federal authority, and discrimination concerns. It’s still unclear if narrowly construed “security” language can prevent sweeping up people who simply live and work in California but have ties abroad, so you don’t need to be sentimental about foreign investment to see the danger.
The main point is stated quite plainly in the resource library of the National Agricultural Law Center: states have adopted a variety of strategies, and there is no unified national regulation that merely forbids foreign ownership of private agricultural land in the United States. California’s action, if it becomes law, will have an impact outside of its borders in part because of this patchwork reality.
California is not your typical state. In addition to being a huge agricultural engine, it is home to vital military facilities. Other statehouses will use it as a model if it establishes a new rule.
However, the policy debate takes strangely personal forms on the ground.
A farmer considering retirement. Negotiating a lease renewal with a family. A local broker who recognizes each parcel by the color of the dirt and the way the wind rips it at sunset. All of a sudden, the same question is being asked in different ways: will this rule lower prices by increasing risk and paperwork, or will it raise prices by restricting buyers? Depending on how strict the restrictions are and how clearly the state defines its goals, it seems like either of the two outcomes is possible.
A silent reality that Californians naturally comprehend is that land is never simply land in this state. It involves politics, labor, identity, and water rights. When you include “national security” in that equation, the bill becomes unmanageable. The battle continues to spread out, acre by acre, all the way to the runway’s edge.
