Investigation highlights organized protests against legislation restricting property purchases near military sites and limiting certain foreign employment.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
An advocacy network has mobilized opposition to state-level legislation aimed at restricting foreign land ownership near U.S. military installations and limiting certain hiring practices, according to an investigation by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The report describes coordinated efforts by affiliates of United Chinese Americans (UCA), a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, to challenge proposed laws in Ohio and Iowa. The organization’s regional chapters organized testimony and protests opposing measures that would affect citizens of countries designated as foreign adversaries.
In Ohio, activists filled a March 17 state House committee hearing to oppose H.B. 1, legislation that would prohibit individuals from certain countries—including China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela—from acquiring property within 10 miles of military bases and critical infrastructure. According to hearing records, numerous opponents appeared wearing coordinated messaging and presenting similar testimony.
The bill, introduced by state representatives Angela King and Roy Klopfenstein, is under consideration in the Republican-majority legislature and could advance to a vote in the near term, according to reporting by the Toledo Blade.
Supporters of the legislation cite national security concerns, pointing to the proximity of installations such as Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, as well as the Defense Supply Center Columbus, which supports U.S. military operations globally.
Michael Lucci, founder of State Armor, testified in favor of the Ohio bill and said the issue involves protecting sensitive infrastructure. Jacqueline Deal, a State Armor advisory board member, stated that individuals with ties to foreign governments should not own property near critical sites.
Opponents of the legislation, including UCA and affiliated groups, have described the measures as discriminatory. In prepared testimony, community representatives urged lawmakers to “reject fear-based policymaking and instead craft evidence-driven solutions to the real challenges Ohioans face,” including economic and workforce issues.
In Iowa, similar opposition emerged against H.F. 2513, a bill that would restrict public universities from employing H-1B visa holders from designated foreign adversary nations. The proposal passed the Iowa House earlier this month and has drawn organized protests at the state capitol, with approximately 150 participants, according to reporting by the Des Moines Register.
The legislation would affect hiring practices at state universities, where officials have indicated that a majority of H-1B visa holders are Chinese nationals. The visa program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in specialized occupations, as outlined by the U.S. Department of Labor.
The Daily Caller News Foundation report also raised concerns about potential foreign influence, citing connections between some individuals involved in advocacy efforts and Chinese government-linked entities. UCA leadership has denied formal ties to the Chinese government, though its president acknowledged prior employment in China and described such experience as common.
“Tell me who has not worked in Chinese government?” UCA president Haipei Shue said in response to questions about affiliations. “Are you going to weaponize that employment fact to suggest that all these people are suspicious? They should not be trusted?”
The report references findings from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a congressional body that has examined the activities of China’s United Front Work Department and its efforts to influence overseas communities.
Advocacy groups opposing the legislation maintain that the proposals could negatively affect economic competitiveness and academic institutions. Statements associated with protest organizers described the Iowa measure as potentially harmful to universities and workforce development.
Meanwhile, supporters of the legislation argue that restrictions are necessary to address security risks tied to foreign ownership of land near sensitive facilities and participation in strategic industries.
The debate reflects broader tensions between economic openness and national security considerations, as state governments weigh policies affecting foreign investment, immigration and access to critical infrastructure.
Comments