Biden-Harris Administration Faces Scrutiny Over Chinese Land Ownership Reclassifications

The Biden-Harris administration is drawing intense criticism for the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) recent reclassification of companies with Chinese investment interests, a move that could allow Chinese-owned entities to bypass restrictions on land ownership near U.S. military bases. This controversial decision comes amid growing concerns from intelligence and security agencies warning of China’s escalating national security threats and counter-intelligence activities against the United States.

At the heart of the controversy is the USDA’s decision to reclassify land owned by Walton Global, a U.S.-based property developer with significant Chinese investment. Walton Global, considered one of the top Chinese-linked landowners in the United States, has been active in the real estate market in China since 2018. Until recently, the U.S. government listed it as one of the largest holders of American agricultural land with ties to China. However, following a vigorous lobbying campaign, the USDA redefined Walton’s landholdings in September, removing them from the list of Chinese-controlled properties despite at least 14 of its properties being within a 15-mile radius of U.S. military installations.

This reclassification has sparked significant criticism from security-conscious lawmakers, including Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who issued a sharp rebuke of the USDA’s decision. “Adversaries owning or investing in land near our military installations is a national security risk,” Rubio stated, adding, “It is time the Biden-Harris administration, American companies, and the courts recognize it as such.” Rubio and other lawmakers argue that Chinese investment in properties near military bases provides potential access to sensitive information and poses a clear risk to national security.

The move also comes as the U.S. government’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and several states have intensified oversight of foreign investments in real estate, particularly near critical infrastructure and military sites. CFIUS, responsible for reviewing foreign transactions for national security risks, has taken a more aggressive stance this year toward foreign land purchases close to sensitive installations. Numerous state governments, especially in areas with military facilities, have enacted legislation barring or limiting foreign ownership of land near security-designated sites to reduce potential espionage risks.

Adding to the concerns, Walton Global has reportedly promoted its properties’ proximity to U.S. military bases as a selling point to potential Chinese investors, a practice that security experts and lawmakers find alarming. Advertising U.S. land investments close to defense installations as a feature for foreign investors underscores the potential risks of Chinese ownership in sensitive areas.

Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives have responded by advancing legislation to curb Chinese ownership of American farmland. This legislation, aimed at strengthening restrictions on foreign ownership, passed the Republican-controlled House earlier this year. However, the Democrat-controlled Senate has yet to take up the bill, leaving the legislation in limbo as national security concerns over Chinese ownership remain unresolved.

The USDA’s reclassification of Walton Global’s holdings also raises broader questions about the Biden-Harris administration’s approach to Chinese foreign investment and its impacts on U.S. national security. Critics argue that the administration’s actions send mixed messages: on the one hand, intelligence agencies are warning about China’s growing influence and threat to U.S. interests, while on the other, the USDA is making regulatory moves that appear to downplay the risks posed by Chinese ownership of land near military installations.

The policy debate around Chinese land ownership has intensified in recent years as lawmakers and security experts raise alarms over China’s potential access to U.S. infrastructure. Advocates for stricter regulations point to incidents like the purchase of a wind farm near a military base in Texas, which sparked widespread security concerns, as evidence that Chinese investments in U.S. land can pose genuine risks.

Security analysts argue that Chinese-controlled land near military installations could enable various intelligence-gathering methods, from drone surveillance to electronic interception of military communications. They contend that by allowing Chinese investments close to U.S. military bases, the administration risks exposing critical defense activities to foreign scrutiny.

The USDA has not publicly explained its rationale for reclassifying Walton Global’s landholdings as non-Chinese-owned, and officials have provided little information on the criteria used to make this determination. However, the decision to allow continued foreign investment close to U.S. military bases has placed the Biden-Harris administration under increased scrutiny.

In the face of these criticisms, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to address concerns related to foreign ownership of land, particularly where national security might be impacted. A White House representative recently stated that the administration is committed to protecting U.S. interests while balancing the need for foreign investment in sectors critical to economic growth.

With the Senate yet to take action on the House-passed legislation, the issue of Chinese land ownership remains unresolved. The Biden-Harris administration faces mounting pressure from security-focused legislators and voters alike to take a firmer stance against foreign investments near military facilities. Lawmakers and experts argue that national security considerations must be prioritized over economic interests, especially in cases where adversaries like China are involved.

In light of these developments, the Biden-Harris administration’s approach to Chinese land ownership will likely remain under scrutiny, with the potential for further legislative actions to address security risks associated with foreign land investments in proximity to critical U.S. infrastructure.