Bill Description: House Bill 63 would limit what kind of property certain foreign governments or their agents may own in Idaho.

Rating: -1

Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the tenth amendment. conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?

House Bill 63 is similar to House Bill 12, introduced earlier this session, and the bulk of our analysis applies to this bill as well. Unfortunately, there is one significant and problematic change. 

House Bill 12 defines a "foreign adversary" as the "People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cuba, the Venezuelan regime, or the Syrian Arab Republic, including any agent of or any other entity under significant control of such foreign countries of concern, or any other entity deemed by the governor in consultation with the adjutant general to be a foreign adversary."

House Bill 12 also says, "The governor and adjutant general may also seek the advice of the United States secretary of state, the United States secretary of defense, or the United States secretary of homeland security in designating foreign adversary countries." [Emphasis added.]

Unlike House Bill 12, which preserves the state's authority, House Bill 63 defines a "foreign adversary" as "any foreign government or foreign non-government person engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons as determined under 15 CFR 791.4."

It goes on to note that "the list of foreign adversaries provided in 15 CFR 791.4, as it existed on January 1, 2025, includes the People's Republic of China, including the Hong Kong special administrative region (China); the Republic of Cuba (Cuba); the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran); the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea); the Russian Federation (Russia); and Venezuelan politician Nicolás Maduro (Maduro regime)." 

Despite the inclusion of the above list, the definition is not fixed to the federal code as it existed on Jan. 1, 2025. Instead, the list is dynamic because 15 CFR 791.4 says, "Pursuant to the Secretary's discretion, the list of foreign adversaries will be revised as determined to be necessary. … The Secretary will periodically review this list in consultation with appropriate agency heads and may add to, subtract from, supplement, or otherwise amend this list."

Under House Bill 63, Idaho would automatically limit the right to own property and force the sale of owned property based solely on D.C.'s decision that a foreign country or regime is an adversary. 

Yielding Idaho's state sovereignty to the federal government is inexcusable, especially in a matter as fundamental as property rights.

(-1)

Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?

House Bill 63 deals with competing interests of national security and the property and contract rights of Idahoans who may wish to do business with foreign entities. 

Section 55-103, Idaho Code, already prohibits a foreign government or "foreign state-controlled enterprise" from owning agricultural land, forest land, water rights, mining claims, or mineral rights in the state of Idaho. It includes a grandfather clause that allows for continued ownership that started before the code went into effect. 

House Bill 63 would amend this section to define and further limit ownership by a "foreign adversary." See the analysis above for more regarding this definition. 

It makes an exception for de minimis indirect ownership of less than 5% of "registered equities or less than five percent (5%) in the aggregate in multiple classes of registered equities."

The bill would also add a section creating a blanket prohibition on these entities owning or renting any kind of property within certain defined coordinates near military bases or installations. 

Any affected properties or resources owned by these countries or by companies or individuals residing in or acting on their behalf would have to be sold or transferred within 180 days of the passage of this law. Likewise, should any such entity come to own affected properties or resources at a later date, they would be required to register with the Idaho state department within 60 days and dispose of the property within 180 days.

If the foreign entity fails to dispose of the property, it would be sold through judicial foreclosure.

The bill says, "Any current deeds, contracts, rental agreements, or other legal agreements in conflict with this law shall be deemed invalid from the date of adoption unless otherwise provided."

It also provides that "any individual may act as a whistleblower and provide a referral to the office of the attorney general for violations of this section" and allows whistleblowers to receive a reward equal to 30% of the proceeds of the land sale. 

Government has a responsibility to protect land and people from foreign adversaries. Government also has a duty to respect property rights and allow the free market to work. Striking this balance has become increasingly difficult in an ever more interconnected world and global economy, and this bill tries to find a reasonable equilibrium.

(0)