Foreign Governments Own Michigan Land And No One Voted for It

Foreign ownership of Michigan land is no longer abstract. It is quantified, documented, and deeply troubling.

Federal disclosures and investigative reporting show that Singapore, through its sovereign wealth fund, owns more than five hundred forty thousand acres of land in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. That single foreign government controls roughly five percent of the entire Upper Peninsula. This land is not symbolic. It is working timberland and agricultural land that directly affects Michigan’s economy, environment, and rural communities.

Singapore is not an outlier. Foreign entities collectively own approximately one point nine million acres of agricultural land in Michigan. That represents nearly nine percent of all farmland in the state. When forest land classified as agricultural is included, foreign controlled acreage is heavily concentrated in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula.

Canada, European countries, and other foreign investors also hold significant portions of Michigan land through corporations, holding companies, and investment vehicles. In many cases, the true foreign owners are concealed behind layered corporate structures, making local oversight and accountability effectively impossible.

This did not happen because Michigan voters chose it. It happened because state and federal law treat farmland as a financial asset rather than a strategic resource. Disclosure laws exist but are weak. Enforcement is minimal. Penalties are negligible. The system is designed to record ownership after the fact, not to prevent the loss of control in the first place.

The consequences are real. Farmland is tied to food security, water resources, environmental stewardship, and local economic stability. When ownership shifts overseas, Michigan residents lose influence over how land is managed, harvested, conserved, or sold. Decisions that affect Michigan communities are made by foreign governments and investors with no accountability to the people who live on or near the land.

Lawmakers often respond by proposing transparency measures or future purchase restrictions. That response ignores the core issue. Nearly nine percent of Michigan farmland is already foreign owned. Five percent of the Upper Peninsula is already controlled by a single foreign government. Registration does not reverse that reality.

No serious nation claims to value sovereignty while allowing foreign governments to accumulate vast portions of its agricultural land. Michigan cannot claim to protect its future while exporting control of its land without debate, without consent, and without a strategy to reclaim it.

If land equals power, then Michigan is surrendering power quietly and calling it investment.

Across the United States, many states have already concluded that unrestricted foreign ownership of land poses a risk to sovereignty, food security, and public accountability. Michigan is not acting in a vacuum. It is lagging behind.

Several states have enacted outright bans or strict limits on foreign ownership of agricultural land and strategic property.

Arkansas has one of the strongest enforcement records. The state prohibits prohibited foreign parties from owning agricultural land and has already forced a foreign linked company to divest thousands of acres of farmland. This was not symbolic legislation. It was enforced.

Florida passed legislation prohibiting certain foreign nationals, including those connected to hostile foreign governments, from purchasing land in the state unless they are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Courts have upheld the law, recognizing the state’s authority to regulate land ownership in the interest of security and sovereignty.

Texas enacted a sweeping ban that prevents individuals domiciled in specific foreign adversary nations from acquiring any interest in land, including agricultural property. The law treats land ownership as a strategic issue rather than a passive investment decision.

Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and other Midwestern and Plains states maintain long standing restrictions on foreign ownership of agricultural land. Some impose acreage caps. Others require divestment. Many restrict ownership to citizens or resident entities. These laws have existed for decades and reflect a regional consensus that farmland should remain under domestic control.

Hawaii restricts foreign ownership of certain public lands, recognizing the unique geographic and resource constraints of the state. Oregon similarly limits access to state owned land, reserving ownership for citizens or those with a clear path to citizenship.

In total, more than thirty states now enforce some form of restriction on foreign land ownership. Some focus on agricultural land. Others target property near military bases, critical infrastructure, or water resources. Many states combine bans with mandatory reporting and enforcement mechanisms.

These laws are not rooted in hostility toward foreign people. They are grounded in a basic principle. Land is not just property. It is power. It determines who controls food production, water access, environmental management, and long term economic stability.

Michigan currently allows millions of acres of its farmland to remain under foreign control while debating transparency measures that do not reclaim ownership or limit influence. Other states have already acted. They drew clear lines. Michigan has not.

If Michigan fails to follow suit, it is not because the tools do not exist. It is because the political will has not yet caught up to the reality on the ground.