Texas House committee advances bill to restrict property purchases by certain foreign nationals

In a closely watched session on Thursday, the Texas House Committee on Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans' Affairs voted to advance a controversial measure that would restrict foreign individuals and entities linked to certain “designated countries” from buying property in Texas.

The legislation, a House committee substitute for Senate Bill 17 (SB 17), would prohibit property purchases by individuals who are citizens of countries deemed national security threats by U.S. intelligence — specifically if those individuals live outside the United States or have entered the country illegally.

This bill is the latest version of a broader proposal passed in the Senate last month. However, the House version narrows the scope slightly while also imposing stricter provisions, including the removal of previously included exemptions and the addition of significant penalties.

What the Bill Would Do

Under the House version, foreign nationals from “designated countries” — a term tied to the Director of National Intelligence's most recent threat assessments — would be barred from purchasing certain types of real estate. The restricted property types include:

Agricultural land

Commercial property

Industrial land

Mines and quarries

Currently, the nations appearing on the most recent Annual Threat Assessment are China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. These countries are consistently flagged by U.S. intelligence as posing credible national security risks.

The House bill defines a “designated country” as one that appears in at least one of the three most recent Annual Threat Assessments. This is a key change from the Senate version, which required a country to appear in all three reports to qualify — a higher threshold.

Tighter Restrictions in the House Version

Perhaps the most significant difference between the House and Senate versions is the elimination of exemptions in the House bill. The Senate version made exceptions for:

Individuals who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, even if they are also foreign nationals

Property purchased for use as a homestead residence

The House substitute removes both of these, meaning that even if someone is a dual citizen or intends to live on the property, they could still be barred if they fall under the bill’s restrictions.

The House version also adds teeth to the enforcement side. It includes specific criminal and civil penalties, including:

Classifying violations as felonies

Allowing for fines up to $250,000 or 50% of the market value of the property interest

Additionally, businesses or entities found in violation could face serious legal and financial repercussions unless they are fully owned by U.S. citizens or lawful residents — with no involvement whatsoever from prohibited individuals or foreign governments.

National Security vs. Property Rights

Supporters of the bill argue it is a necessary step to protect Texas’ critical infrastructure and land resources from foreign influence and potential espionage.

"Texas cannot be passive while hostile foreign governments make inroads through strategic land acquisitions," said one lawmaker backing the measure. "This bill draws a clear line to protect our sovereignty and security."

Critics, however, warn of potential unintended consequences, including possible discrimination against immigrants or legal foreign residents, as well as economic fallout in the state’s agricultural and commercial real estate sectors.

Immigrant advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations have raised concerns that removing the homestead exemption could result in lawful residents being unfairly targeted.

What’s Next?

With the House committee’s approval, the bill now heads to the full Texas House of Representatives for debate. If passed there, lawmakers will still need to reconcile the House and Senate versions before sending it to the governor’s desk.

Both chambers have already heard public testimony in prior sessions, and the measure is expected to remain a flashpoint in Texas’ broader debate over foreign investment and state-level national security protections.

Would you like a quick summary of key differences between the House and Senate versions?