Oklahoma lawmakers have taken decisive action to address concerns over foreign control of agricultural resources in the state. The approval of SB 212 in 2023 reflects growing anxieties about threats from China, particularly in the agricultural sector. A key aspect of this legislation is the exemption for Smithfield Foods, a major player in the U.S. pork market, which controls 23% of it and owns significant land in Oklahoma. This raises questions about the balance between national security and foreign investment.
Critics of the legislation argue that such restrictions may foster xenophobia, claiming that focusing exclusively on Chinese ownership unfairly stigmatizes individuals and companies from that country. Smithfield has firmly denied any associated risks, a position that has led to criticism from conservative voices. Proponents, however, insist that protecting the nation’s food supply is essential. They assert that these measures are constitutional and necessary.
Officials have hinted that Smithfield will need to restructure its operations in response to the new regulations. Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, highlighting the trend of states taking bold steps against foreign-owned agricultural companies, stated, “I’m so proud of the fact that Arkansas was the first state in the country to kick a Chinese-owned company off of our farmland and out of our state. And we made them pay for it. Very Trump-esque.” Her comments reflect a growing assertiveness among state leaders in countering foreign influence on local resources.
Peter Navarro, a former advisor to President Trump, supported this move by underscoring Smithfield’s global reach. He argued that after its acquisition by the Chinese WH Group, Smithfield now controls a significant portion of the world’s pork supply, potentially compromising food security for the nation. These assertions have intensified the debate over the implications of foreign ownership of agriculture in the U.S.
Oklahoma State Senator Brent Howard broadened the discussion by emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Constitution when evaluating foreign investments. “We’re honoring the Constitution by having those international corporations vetted by the federal government,” he remarked. His perspective indicates an ongoing effort among lawmakers to safeguard American interests while navigating the complexities of foreign investments.
The response from Smithfield Foods, voiced by Ray Atkinson, counters the narrative of risk. Atkinson claimed, “We currently own approximately 85,000 acres of farmland [in the U.S.], and that number has declined considerably since the 2013 WH Group acquisition. The farmland we own does not present a national security risk and represents less than 1/100th of one percent of all American farmland.” However, this self-assured stance does little to allay the scrutiny from state officials and lawmakers.
Brad Clark from the Oklahoma attorney general’s office indicated that Smithfield’s merger may need significant adjustments to comply with state regulations, underscoring the seriousness of these concerns. “The attorney general is against and will fight any individual or entity that exploits Oklahoma jobs for foreign nationalists or others who are not Oklahomans. And that would certainly include foreign adversaries like China,” Clark stated. This commitment to protecting local jobs and land resonates with the fears of many Oklahoma residents who are wary of foreign ownership.
Adding to the dialogue, Dr. David Ortega, a food economics and policy scholar at Michigan State University, offered a critical viewpoint. He cautioned against singling out Chinese ownership, asserting, “Of all the farmland that’s owned by foreigners, Chinese entities have a stake in less than 1% of that. We are targeting interests from specific countries that can lead to rises in xenophobia and discrimination.” While focusing on the data, Ortega highlights the risk of conflating national security issues with racial or national biases.
Senator James Lankford took a firm stance against foreign ownership, presenting alarming figures to demonstrate the rapid increase of Chinese land acquisition in the U.S. He remarked, “In 2020, Chinese entities owned almost 200,000 acres of land in the United States. One year later, they’re at almost 400,000 acres in the United States—in one year.” His comments resonate with many who feel the pressure of foreign investment dramatically affecting local economies.
Lankford further reflected on the concerns of constituents, noting, “When I travel around my state, I hear people talking about the border, I hear people talk about the economy, and I often will hear people say, ‘Hey, there’s a lot of foreign ownership going into land right now in Oklahoma.’ And it’s dramatically affecting the price of real estate, the price of agricultural land, but also what’s happening on that land.” This illustrates the deep-rooted anxiety about how foreign investments might undermine local livelihoods and national interests.
The debate surrounding SB 212 in Oklahoma reveals a complex interplay of national security, economic interests, and social concerns. While lawmakers strive to protect American assets from perceived foreign threats, the conversation must be navigated carefully to avoid promoting discrimination based on nationality. As the situation develops, the actions taken in Oklahoma may serve as a precedent for other states grappling with similar challenges.
"*" indicates required fields
