Paxton Proposes Path to a Texas Foreign Land Registry Under SB 17

Estimated Time to Read: 8 minutes

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has published a revised proposal for the rules that will enforce Senate Bill 17 (SB 17), the 2025 law restricting individuals, companies, and governments tied to designated foreign adversaries, including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, from purchasing or acquiring interests in Texas real property. The proposal includes a provision allowing his office to plan a searchable public portal tied to foreign land ownership. Paxton’s October 9 announcement says the proposal builds on the framework his office proposed in March. The full text appears in the October 9 issue of the Texas Register.

Texas Policy Research (TPR) previously examined the March framework. The revised proposal deserves a closer look at what publicly identifying property owners could mean for enforcement, compliance, and private property rights.

Texas SB 17 Enforcement Builds on the March Proposal

SB 17 was authored by State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) during the 89th Legislative Session (2025) and took effect September 1, 2025. The law covers residential, agricultural, commercial, and industrial land, and it includes exceptions for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Violations can lead to civil penalties, potential criminal liability, and court-ordered divestment. Paxton’s office says the revised proposal leaves most of the earlier enforcement framework in place.

The March 2026 proposal outlined reporting duties, investigative procedures, and confidentiality protections. It proposed an enforcement process built on complaints, civil investigative demands, and coordination with other state agencies. The October version republishes the full chapter, Chapter 67 in Title 1 of the Texas Administrative Code, with those elements intact and several additions.

The revised proposal is still a rulemaking development. It describes proposed rules and plans that are still in development, not an operating registry or a new statutory prohibition. The public may comment for 30 days after publication, and the earliest the rules could be adopted is November 8, 2026.

Who Would the Texas Foreign Land Registry List?

The most consequential addition is a proposed public property search portal. Under the rule text, the attorney general’s office “may prepare and propose a plan” to develop the portal. The portal would provide “a searchable interface concerning prohibited purchases or acquisitions” and could operate much like the Texas sex offender registration database. The proposal’s summary describes the portal as holding information about finalized enforcement actions and prohibited transactions.

The press release describes something broader. It says the registry would list Texas properties owned by entities that meet SB 17’s definitions, including properties acquired before the law took effect, with mapping and search functions modeled on the Texas Sex Offender Registry. The rule text does not say that. Earlier acquisitions enter the proposal only through a separate, optional reporting mechanism that lets anyone tell the attorney general’s office about property acquired before September 1, 2025. According to the proposal’s summary, those reports would help the office maintain “an accurate public registry.”

That gap matters. The rules apply only to purchases or acquisitions on or after September 1, 2025, and they state that a report about an earlier acquisition “does not, by itself, indicate that a violation of Subchapter H has occurred.” One caveat applies: the rules treat gaining control of an entity as an acquisition even when the entity bought the property before the law took effect, so an older property can still be part of a later violation. Even after reading both the announcement and the rule text, a lawful pre-2025 owner cannot tell whether their property could end up listed in a public registry.

A public portal could help Texans see where covered owners hold property. But useful transparency depends on accurate classifications and clear explanations. A registry should distinguish an ownership designation from an allegation or a finding of unlawful conduct.

The comparison to the sex offender registry also deserves scrutiny. Similar search functions do not mean the listed owners have done anything comparable. Without clear context, the presentation could damage the reputations of lawful owners.

SB 17 Reporting Clarification and Real Estate Due Diligence

The revised proposal states that anyone with reason to believe a violation has occurred may submit a complaint. TPR’s March coverage already noted that any person could file a complaint, so this is better understood as a clarification than as a new reporting power.

The more significant change affects facilitating entities. The rules define these as businesses that assist with, broker, insure, finance, value, or process real estate transactions, including mortgage lenders, title insurance companies, property insurers, appraisers, and licensed real estate professionals. These businesses must file a complaint when they know, or should have known after reasonable due diligence, that a transaction violates SB 17. The attorney general’s office may refer a business that fails to report to its licensing or disciplinary authority.

The revised rules add a safe harbor for these businesses. A facilitating entity that runs know-your-customer checks consistent with a regulator’s guidelines, or with standards adopted in good faith by a recognized industry group such as a trade association, and finds no violation would not be deemed to have known, or to have had reason to know, of one.

For businesses assessing complex transactions, clearer compliance standards could reduce uncertainty. The practical question is how that protection would work when ownership information is incomplete or control of a buyer runs through several layers of entities.

Standards should make compliance predictable without encouraging businesses to treat a buyer’s name, ethnicity, or perceived national origin as evidence of prohibited ownership. Reporting should rest on information relevant to what the law actually requires.

Proposed Enforcement Task Force Raises Accountability Questions

The revised rules also direct the attorney general’s office to maintain a designated enforcement unit that includes a task force. Paxton’s announcement describes the task force as dedicated to “uncovering and stopping foreign land sales in Texas.”

A dedicated team could concentrate expertise and improve coordination. Its effectiveness would depend on verifying ownership and control, screening complaints, and identifying the transactions the statute actually prohibits.

Accountability should cover how resources are allocated and what results enforcement produces. The proposal’s fiscal note estimates no additional costs to state or local government beyond those of implementing the statute itself, even though the proposal contemplates a new enforcement unit, a task force, and a possible public portal. Complaint volume alone would reveal little about whether violations occurred.

Texas SB 17 Policy Implications for Private Property Rights

TPR opposed SB 17 during the 89th Legislative Session (2025) because of concerns about its scope and its effects on private property rights and economic activity. The revised proposal adds another dimension to those concerns: how the state publicly identifies property owners. The attorney general’s office concluded that the rules require no takings impact assessment because they impose no burden on property rights beyond what the statute already establishes. A public registry that could include lawful owners is a reasonable place to test that conclusion.

Before a registry moves forward, policymakers should examine several questions: what evidence a property needs for inclusion, whether lawful pre-2025 owners could be listed, what notice affected owners would receive, how owners could challenge mistakes, and who would be responsible for keeping records current. The final rules should answer these questions. Raising them is not a claim that the proposal lacks safeguards.

The state’s national security objective does not eliminate the need for accurate records, due process, and clear limits on administrative authority. The next stage of SB 17 enforcement should be judged by how precisely it identifies prohibited transactions and how carefully it protects lawful ownership.

---

---