The CCP Will Not Be Your New Neighbor

On August 18, 2025, Bloomberg published a piece warning about a surge of non U.S. citizens buying up available homes and ‘sidelining’ Americans. Albeit quickly, the piece notes that “foreigners account for only 2.5% of the existing U.S. real-estate market”, partially attributing foreign real estate capital flows to the home affordability crisis many Americans face today. The article details how many foreign investors frequently buy multiple homes for the purpose of ‘flipping’ them, multifamily homes for rental profit, or in strategic areas corporations are expanding into like the Midwest. Israel, Canada, and Mexico are named as countries with an uptick in interest, yet one demographic is curiously missing from those interviewed – China.

Little more than a year ago, The New York Post espoused a sensationalist article touting a rise in “China-owned land” surrounding U.S. military bases. The piece played into fears of espionage, with incidents such as the discovery of a secret police station used to track pro-democracy activists and the 2024 controversy that led the University of Michigan to cut ties with Shanghai Jiao Tong University playing on the panic further. But as Snopes later explained in a careful breakdown, the article conflated Chinese corporations with direct ownership by the Chinese state.

That kind of conflation has influenced state-level policy. In June 2023, Florida passed Senate Bill 264, which restricts the purchase of agricultural and residential property by citizens of certain “countries of concern.” These include Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and, most prominently, China. The law prohibits these foreign nationals from buying agricultural land or property within 10 miles of military installations or critical infrastructure. Judges overseeing the appeals have noted the lofty definition of ‘critical infrastructure’, and that a case could be made to include many structures, such as airports, seaports, or power plants, as part of critical infrastructure.

Florida isn’t alone. Currently, six states are considering bills that would limit or outright ban the purchase of land by foreign nationals. In July 2025, the Trump Administration released a National Farm Security Action Plan, with key initiatives to end the direct and indirect purchases of farmland by citizens from countries of concern. The Committee of 100 runs an interactive map detailing which states have introduced legislation and towards whom. Currently, eight states have bans against non-resident aliens acquiring all property types, and over 20 restrict against at least one property type (typically agricultural).

However, SB 264 goes further than some other proposed laws when it comes to Chinese nationals. The law states the ban applies to “China, Chinese Communist Party or other Chinese political party officials or members, Chinese business organizations, and persons domiciled in China who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.” Purchasing property in violation of the law is a felony, while facilitating such a transaction—for example, by a real estate agent—can result in a misdemeanor charge. Florida’s geography makes the law especially restrictive: the state hosts more than 20 military bases, many in densely populated areas such as Orlando, Miami, and Tallahassee. As a result, large swaths of the housing market are effectively off-limits to Chinese buyers, up to 97%. 

There are limited exceptions. Properties acquired before July 1, 2023, may be grandfathered in. Foreign buyers can hold indirect stakes through publicly traded companies as long as ownership remains below 5%. Individuals lawfully in the U.S. on non-tourist visas or with permanent residency may buy one residential property under two acres, provided it is more than five miles from military and vague ‘critical infrastructure’. These exceptions, however, involve lengthy processes. Obtaining a green card or long-term visa can take months or even years.

Legal challenges quickly followed. The ACLU filed suit on behalf of four Chinese nationals, arguing the law discriminates against them despite the fact that they live, work, and raise families in Florida. Although a federal appeals court noted that SB 264 likely conflicts with federal law, it granted an injunction only for these specific plaintiffs. For now, the law remains in effect, enforced largely by real estate professionals who the ACLU argues is motivated to act discriminatorily.

Judge Abudu of the 11th Circuit highlighted this tension in a February 1, 2024 concurring opinion. He noted that the Supreme Court once upheld state authority to deny land ownership to non-citizens in Terrace v. Thompson (1923). But later cases, such as Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission (1948) and Faruki v. Rogers (1972), made clear that earlier Alien Land Laws, discriminatory statutes used to block Chinese and Japanese immigrants from land ownership, were based on obsolete and unconstitutional premises. The parallels are hard to ignore: Governor Ron DeSantis defends SB 264 as a safeguard against the Chinese Communist Party around military and infrastructure assets, but the ACLU argues that the ‘military land’ justifications echo those once used to rationalize Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Meanwhile, Chinese homebuying in the U.S. has already been in decline. Purchases peaked at over 40,000 in 2017 and have since dropped to fewer than 12,000 annually. California remains the top destination, thanks to proximity and established Chinese communities, while Florida consistently attracts foreign buyers because of its status as a vacation hub. The same 2025 International Transactions in U.S. Residential Real Estate report referenced by Bloomberg from the National Association of Realtors found that Chinese buyers accounted for 15% of foreign residential purchases, with 71% paid fully in cash. The median purchase price for non-resident Chinese buyers was $759,000—well above the overall foreign buyer median of $494,400.

Research also complicates the national security narrative. A 2022 study covering 2001–2013 found Chinese homebuying surged after 2008, particularly in areas with large Chinese populations, strong schools, and cultural amenities such as Chinese restaurants. Chinese buyers were more likely to purchase homes from other Chinese owners, suggesting community-based patterns rather than strategic targeting of sensitive areas. The study also finds foreign real estate inflows tend to raise housing prices, benefiting homeowners but displacing low-income renters. Many of these properties remain vacant, used less often as investments, more often as housing for students abroad, or as a vehicle for immigration through the EB-5 investor visa program.

The inclination of non-resident Chinese to buy American real estate doesn’t come as a surprise. China is a ‘house rich’ nation, with almost 90% home ownership in China, where many view real estate as an essential part of an investment portfolio as well as a necessity for men in the marriage market. Since the 2021 Evergrande housing crash, Chinese property markets have been sluggish, youth unemployment unusually high, and general economic growth is suspected to have slowed. American property post 2008 was much cheaper, and potentially, a more valuable asset than Chinese property. Further, laws in the United States fail to consider the Chinese side of these transactions, and realize that these transactions are likely already illegal in China as well.

From 2007-2017, the CCP investment sectors were reclassified into “encouraged,” “permitted,” “restricted,” and “prohibited” with real estate intermediaries and secondary market transactions marked as “restricted”, meaning they require government review and approval. These laws also limit foreign bank transfers to 50,000 USD per year. Many Chinese use workarounds, such as having family members pool their allotments or using Hong Kong based bank accounts with access to global capital markets to make transactions. 

Taken together, the evidence suggests that Florida’s SB 264 and similar restrictions rest on shaky foundations. While they are framed as national security safeguards, they overlook both the economic and legal realities shaping Chinese real estate purchases in the U.S. On the Chinese side, strict capital controls and restrictions on overseas real estate investments already make such purchases difficult, meaning that the individuals who do buy abroad are typically wealthy elites carefully maneuvering around their own country’s laws rather than acting as agents of the state. On the American side, associating immigrants with the inability to buy a home and blanket bans risks reviving discriminatory logics reminiscent of early 20th-century Alien Land Laws, unfairly targeting ordinary immigrants while doing little to address legitimate concerns about corporate or state-linked acquisitions and affordability.

The result is a policy that conflates wealthy investors with working families, and market dynamics with state espionage. Chinese buyers in the U.S. tend to cluster in established communities, purchase from other Chinese owners, and invest for personal or financial reasons rather than geopolitical strategy. Their activity may contribute to rising property values and gentrification, as the many corporate landlords who buy in cash above asking often do, but that reflects global patterns of capital flow more than national security risk. 

By criminalizing the aspirations of non-resident Chinese workers and students while ignoring the loopholes available to the ultra-wealthy, SB 264 ends up reinforcing inequality without meaningfully addressing security concerns. Instead of reviving exclusionary practices, policymakers might better serve the public by distinguishing between corporate/state-linked acquisitions and private individuals seeking stability and opportunity. The deeper question is not whether Chinese citizens should be allowed to buy residential homes in Florida, or the many other states now considering similar action, but whether fear-driven laws should continue to dictate who gets to belong in American communities.