SOIL Act Bans Foreign Land Purchases Within 10 Miles of U.S. Sensitive Sites

The “Saving Our Invaluable Land Act of 2025,” or SOIL Act, is a short but impactful piece of legislation aimed squarely at national security through real estate. Specifically, this bill amends the Defense Production Act of 1950 to block entities controlled by China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia from buying, leasing, or otherwise gaining control of property located within a 10-mile radius of a “sensitive site” in the U.S. This restriction kicks in immediately upon the bill becoming law.

The 10-Mile Security Bubble

What exactly is a “sensitive site”? The definition is intentionally broad. It covers the obvious—military bases, airports, and shipping ports—but it also includes any other government facility deemed important for national security. Crucially, the bill grants an unnamed “Committee” the power to designate any property as sensitive if they believe a blocked country could use it to spy on activities at nearby military or government locations. Think of it as a 10-mile security bubble around anything the government thinks is worth protecting. This means the restriction isn't just about the base itself; it’s about the land surrounding it, which drastically affects the commercial real estate market in those areas.

Who Feels the Pinch?

For most everyday people, this bill won't change where they buy their next house. But if you own a business or land near a military installation, a port, or a major government facility, this could significantly reduce your pool of potential buyers or lessees, particularly for large commercial properties. Imagine owning a large warehouse complex 8 miles from a major naval base. If you were hoping to sell or lease that land to a firm with investment ties to Beijing, the SOIL Act slams the door shut. This is a direct hit on the property rights of both the foreign entities and the domestic property owners who might get a better price from those targeted investors.

The Vague Authority Problem

While the goal of stopping foreign espionage is clear, the way the bill achieves it introduces some serious questions about government authority. The Committee gets near-total discretion to define what constitutes a “sensitive site” based on the potential for “foreign surveillance.” Since the Committee can decide that almost any piece of land near a government building poses a spying risk, this gives them immense power to restrict property transactions without much oversight. This kind of broad, subjective authority can lead to overreach, potentially chilling legitimate business deals that have nothing to do with national security. The bill requires the Committee to immediately report any violations or attempted violations to Congress, which ensures accountability on the enforcement side, but doesn't address the vagueness of the initial site designation.