A bill to restrict land purchases in South Dakota didn’t pass in the 2023 state legislative session, but a proposed rule change at the federal level would require foreign citizens and companies to get U.S. government approval to buy property within 100 miles of eight military bases. One of those bases is Ellsworth Air Force Base in western South Dakota.

The federal rule change is probably better.

A little background: A Chinese business called Fufeng Group purchased ag land near Grand Force Air Force Base, which many Americans believe is a national security issue. The Chinese surveillance balloons crossing the United States in the last year added plenty of apprehension.

In South Dakota, Gov. Kristi Noem and some legislators worried about the same thing happening near Ellsworth AFB. Noem also adopted a rigorous anti-China campaign, banning TikTok and other Chinese programs from state computers, and ordering a review of the state’s investments to determine if it has stakes in Chinese companies. She has made it a centerpiece on national television and has encouraged other states and the U.S. government to follow.

In February, a South Dakota Senate committee passed an amended version of SB185, an act to restrict foreign (specifically Chinese) ownership of South Dakota agriculture land, despite opposition from virtually every agricultural group in the state. The bill died in the Senate a few days later, recognizing the opposition by South Dakota ag groups representing corn, soybean, pork, stockgrowers, dairy and conservation groups, as well as the concern of placing unilateral authority with South Dakota’s governor. Others were concerned about having a patchwork of state laws rather than a federal law.

The Treasury Department’s Office of Investment Security is set to propose the rule, which would give expanded powers to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. That agency screens business deals between U.S. firms and foreign investors and can block sales or force the parties to change the terms of an agreement to protect national security.

We agree that the focus on banning foreign ownership on land should be on national security surrounding military bases and that the authority for deals should be a consistent federal agency. If the tension continues to increase between the U.S. and China, however, there is a good argument that land that produces food should also not be held by Chinese government, its companies or citizens, and the federal government should address that. For now, we encourage the federal rule change involving Air Force bases.

— Madison Daily Leader, May 7, 2023