2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills

2025 · Regular session · Senate bill

SB17

SB17 bars specified foreign governments, businesses and individuals from acquiring interests in Texas real property.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to the purchase or acquisition of an interest in real property by certain aliens or foreign entities; creating a criminal offense; providing a civil penalty.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists Senate author(s): Kolkhorst, Bettencourt, Birdwell, Campbell, Creighton, et al.. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

What SB17 restricts

SB17 bars specified foreign governments, businesses and individuals from acquiring interests in Texas real property. It is not a ban on every foreign citizen buying a home, and it reaches much more than farmland: homes, commercial and industrial property, groundwater, water rights, minerals, mines and standing timber are included. Signed June 20, 2025, it took effect September 1, 2025 and applies to acquisitions on or after that date; earlier acquisitions remain governed by prior law. official history; final law, Sections 4, 6 and 8.

A “designated country” is one identified as a national-security risk in at least one of the three most recent U.S. intelligence community annual threat assessments, or one designated by the governor. The definition is not a permanently fixed four-country list. The act’s findings discuss China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, drawing on the 2025 threat assessment; those findings state the legislature’s security rationale, not a finding that every person from those countries poses a threat. final law, Sections 1 and 5.251.

Who is covered—and the exceptions

U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents are exempt. A company or organization is exempt if it is owned or controlled by qualifying citizens or permanent residents and by no prohibited individual described in Section 5.253. Leasehold interests in land or leasehold improvements lasting less than one year are exempt—not leases of exactly one year. final law, Section 5.252.

Subject to those exceptions, the prohibition covers a designated country’s government; a company or organization headquartered there, held or controlled directly or indirectly by its government, owned by or majority-held/controlled by covered individuals, or designated by the governor; and companies or organizations owned by or majority-held/controlled by those covered companies or organizations. Ownership and control matter, not just a business’s mailing address. final law, Section 5.253(1)–(3).

Covered individuals include: people domiciled in a designated country; citizens of a designated country domiciled outside the U.S. in a different, nondesignated country where they have not completed naturalization; citizens of a designated country unlawfully present in the U.S.; non-U.S. citizens acting as agents or on behalf of a designated country; and members of its ruling political party or a subdivision of that party. “Domiciled” means a true, fixed, permanent home and principal residence to which the person intends to return when absent—not citizenship or visa status alone. final law, Sections 5.251(4) and 5.253(4).

The domicile provision contains a narrow home exception: someone lawfully present and residing in the U.S. at acquisition may acquire residential property intended as a residence homestead under Tax Code 11.13(j). That proviso is within Section 5.253(4)(A); it is not a blanket exemption overriding the other prohibited categories. The governor may add or remove country or entity designations after the specified public-safety and Homeland Security Council consultations; changes apply to acquisitions from the designation or removal date forward. final law, Sections 5.253–.254.

Investigation and penalties

The attorney general must establish examination procedures, investigate when warranted and determine whether a violation occurred. The attorney general may then sue against the property in a district court where it lies, record notice in county property records and refer the matter to law enforcement. Investigative powers include document demands, written answers and testimony; the secretary of state must assist with ownership/control records and questions when requested. final law, Sections 5.255–.256.

After a court finds a prohibited acquisition, it must order divestiture and appoint a receiver to manage and dispose of the interest, including sale or termination of a leasehold, and refer appropriate offenses for prosecution. Sale proceeds first pay existing liens, then reasonable state enforcement costs; the remainder goes back to the acquiring owner. Except for leasehold acquisitions, a prohibited acquisition does not automatically void the transaction or purchase contract. final law, Sections 5.255(e) and 5.257.

A covered individual who knowingly or intentionally acquires a prohibited interest commits a state-jail felony. A company or entity found in violation faces a civil penalty equal to the greater of $250,000 or 50% of the interest’s market value. The act directs rulemaking and contains broad severability language, including a fallback prohibition on non-U.S. citizens domiciled in designated countries if the individual prohibition is invalidated. That is a legislative instruction, not a guarantee of what a court will uphold. final law, Sections 5.258–.259 and act Sections 5 and 7.

What changed along the way?

How the proposal changed

The Senate committee substitute added groundwater and water rights and removed the introduced proposal’s transaction-specific public-health/safety-risk condition. The Senate’s committee and engrossed versions were substantively alike. The House committee expanded the country test from identification in each of the three latest threat assessments to at least one, defined domicile, changed business ownership/control tests, expanded individual categories, and removed the broad Senate homestead exemption. Five posted versions; final law.

All 18 indexed House amendments were reviewed. Adopted H21 added legislative findings. Adopted H24 offered broader lawful-presence protection; conference narrowed it to the residential-homestead proviso now inside the domicile category. Adopted H26, as amended by adopted H27, reduced the lease exception from less than 100 years to less than one year, not two. Adopted H29 added ruling-party membership; H214 added the governor-designation machinery; H215 added criminal and company/entity civil penalties. Those latter changes survive in the final law. Official amendment outcomes; final law.

Tabled proposals did not become law: H22 would add a Fair Housing Act clause; H23 would revise domicile through a visa/one-year-residence rule; H25 would exempt specified performers and athletes; H28 would expand covered business relationships; H210 would exclude federally approved CFIUS transactions; H211 and H212 would require economic and enforcement reports; and H213 would remove commercial property from the definition. Third-reading H31 (notice/evidence/jury protections), H32 (remove lawful-presence protection), and H33 (replace it with a primary-home-only provision) failed. The failed H33 proposal must not be confused with the separate homestead limitation adopted in conference.

The conference report in the May 23 Senate journal matches the enrolled operative text. The House adopted the agreement May 29 and Senate May 30. The final act creates an exception to the pre-existing general rule that noncitizens have the same real and personal property rights as U.S. citizens; it does not repeal that general rule for everyone. official history; final law, Section 3.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Benefits, burdens and estimated costs

The legislature’s stated aim is to reduce security risks from specified foreign ownership. The law gives Texas investigation and divestiture tools, but neither the act nor its fiscal note measures how much security improves. Covered buyers lose acquisition opportunities and face divestiture or penalties; sellers, lenders and businesses may need to resolve ownership, domicile and exception questions before a transaction. These are implications of the legal restrictions, not a prediction of property prices or a finding that every foreign buyer is dangerous. final law.

The May 24 conference/final fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local fiscal implication, assumes agency work can be absorbed with existing resources, and says the impact on state correctional populations and civil-penalty revenue cannot be determined. That is not an estimate of zero cost, a new appropriation, or a quantified private compliance cost. All seven fiscal postings were checked.

Dated implementation and court context: November 1, 2026

The March 2026 proposed enforcement rules were withdrawn after not being adopted within six months. A new October 9 proposal, Texas Register pages 6996–7000, with an earliest possible adoption date of November 8, includes transaction-facilitator reporting and due-diligence provisions, optional reports about pre-law acquisitions, and planning for a public property-search portal. Those are proposed rules, not provisions already adopted by SB17; an optional report about an earlier acquisition does not itself establish a violation.

In Wang v. Paxton, December 11, 2025, the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of standing: Wang did not allege domicile in China and the attorney general disclaimed enforcement against him. That was not a merits ruling upholding every part of SB17. The court’s November 2, 2026 argument calendar lists the separate Huang appeal, No. 25-51034. A calendar entry is not a decision or an injunction. This briefing explains the enacted statute and these dated records, not a certification that every possible transaction is currently enforceable or exempt.

Review scope: complete enrolled law and matching conference text, history, five posted versions, all 18 amendments and dispositions, and seven fiscal postings; supplementary rulemaking and court records as specifically described above. It does not offer a comprehensive current list of governor-designated entities or adjudicate an individual buyer’s domicile.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.