The Arizona Democratic government faced criticism after Governor Katie Hobbs, who is running for reelection, vetoed a bill designed to prevent China from purchasing land adjacent to key military assets.
Janae Shamp, the majority leader of the Arizona Senate, attributed the veto to “a politically motivated decision,” calling it “all crazy.” In contrast, Hobbs argued that the bill, SB 1109, was “ineffective by rebuttal” and failed to “directly protect” the state’s military facilities.
The concern regarding Chinese investments near military bases continues to grow among national security advocates. Shamp highlighted recent efforts by the Chinese military to lease buildings near the Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, which she believes should have favored the bill’s passage.
Critics of the veto, like Lucci, claim that Hobbs’ decision invites the “CCP to set up shop” in Arizona, putting critical locations like Luke Air Force Base and the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Station at risk. “Allowing China to acquire land near essential assets is a straightforward national security threat,” she added, arguing that Hobbs was wrong in saying the bill wouldn’t provide adequate protection.
Lucci also pointed to recent drone strikes in Ukraine, which damaged many Russian aircraft, suggesting that proximity could be dangerous in unconventional warfare.
Hobbs maintained that the veto was essential for effectively addressing China’s espionage, criticizing the bill for lacking “clear standards for implementation” and allowing for “optional enforcement.” The original proposal had faced concerns over potential discrimination in land sales. Subsequent amendments tried to refine it to ban entities connected to the Chinese government without lumping all foreign interests together.
In response to these concerns, several other states are also working on measures to mitigate foreign land acquisitions. While Arizona remains a focal point, Congress is exploring broader national policies to tackle this issue.
Currently, a nonprofit focused on China reports that as of mid-March, various states are considering legislation addressing foreign property ownership, with many already passing laws aimed at restricting these kinds of acquisitions. The existing backdrop suggests a growing legislative trend, with numerous states looking to take action against foreign investments in land.
