The New US National Security Reality: A Guide to the Expanded CFIUS Real Estate Jurisdiction and the 60+ Military Installation Buffer Zones

In May 2024, the White House issued a rare and decisive order that sent shockwaves through the commercial real estate market: a Chinese-owned cryptocurrency mining company called MineOne was forced to divest its land near Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. The facility, located within a mile of a strategic nuclear missile base, had not been voluntarily reported to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) prior to its purchase. A public tip eventually triggered a federal investigation, culminating in a presidential directive that underscored a growing, bipartisan federal anxiety over exactly who owns the land adjacent to America's most sensitive military sites.[1][3]

That unprecedented divestment order served as the catalyst for a sweeping regulatory overhaul that alters the landscape of commercial development. In late 2024, the Treasury Department finalized a comprehensive rule that fundamentally rewrites the map of foreign real estate investment in the United States. The regulation substantially expands CFIUS's geographic jurisdiction, adding nearly 60 military installations to its oversight radius and capturing vast new tracts of American land under the umbrella of national security. For developers and investors, this marks a transition from localized scrutiny to a nationwide compliance mandate.[1][2]

The expansion is deeply rooted in the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) of 2018, landmark legislation which first granted CFIUS explicit authority to review non-controlling real estate transactions. Prior to this recent update, the committee's real estate purview was limited to a much smaller, highly specific subset of bases and maritime ports. The new rule, driven by a comprehensive Department of Defense assessment of domestic vulnerabilities, reflects a modernized understanding of how physical proximity can be leveraged for sophisticated electronic surveillance and long-term intelligence gathering by foreign adversaries.[1][3]

The mechanism of this expanded federal oversight relies on two distinct geographic buffer zones that dictate the level of scrutiny applied to a given area. Part 1 of the rule establishes a strict "close proximity" radius, extending exactly one mile outward from the boundary of a designated sensitive site. The final rule added 40 new military installations to this one-mile list, ensuring that any foreign purchase, lease, or concession within this immediate perimeter is automatically subject to federal national security reviews and potential intervention.[2][5]

Part 2 of the rule creates a much larger "extended range" zone, which stretches up to 100 miles outward from the boundaries of highly sensitive installations. The Treasury Department added 19 new sites to this expansive category, dramatically increasing the geographic footprint of the regulation. Because a 100-mile radius covers over 31,000 square miles of territory per base, these additions exponentially increase the total acreage of U.S. land now classified as covered real estate, encompassing entire counties and regional economies within their borders.[1][6]

Furthermore, the regulatory update upgraded eight existing installations—including Joint Base San Antonio in Texas and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio—moving them from the one-mile list to the 100-mile extended range list. This deliberate shift acknowledges that modern surveillance equipment, such as advanced signal interception arrays, low-orbit satellites, or high-altitude drones, no longer requires a next-door vantage point to effectively monitor troop movements, intercept classified communications, or map out the logistical operations of a major military hub.[2][6]

The definition of a "military installation" itself was also modernized to keep pace with the evolving organizational structure of the United States armed forces. The regulatory language was updated to explicitly include Space Force bases, stations, and major annexes, as well as Army major depots and Marine Corps logistics battalions. This definitional expansion ensures that the specialized infrastructure supporting next-generation warfare, satellite communications, and critical military supply chains is heavily shielded from foreign proximity and potential sabotage.[2][7]

While the rule is fundamentally designed to thwart state-sponsored espionage, its practical, day-to-day impact falls heavily on routine commercial enterprise. This regulatory net captures far more than traditional defense contractors or specialized technology firms. Clean energy developers, large-scale mining companies, and oil and gas operators frequently target rural, undeveloped, or federal public lands for their massive infrastructure projects—lands that now fall squarely within these newly established 100-mile extended range radii. Consequently, standard industrial development is now intertwined with national security compliance.[4][5]

For these heavy industries, a greenfield project that involves absolutely no existing U.S. business entity can still trigger a rigorous CFIUS review simply because of its geographic coordinates. A foreign-backed wind farm, a multinational logistics hub, or a massive solar array proposed 80 miles from a listed Space Force base is now legally classified as a covered real estate transaction. This classification requires the transacting parties to conduct the same level of exhaustive national security diligence as they would for a major corporate acquisition.[4][6]

Crucially, the CFIUS framework for real estate transactions remains largely voluntary by design. Foreign buyers and domestic sellers are not legally mandated to file a formal notice with the committee before closing a standard land deal. However, the financial and operational risks of bypassing the committee have never been higher. The MineOne divestment in Wyoming clearly demonstrated that CFIUS actively monitors public tips, local news, and county property records to independently identify unnotified transactions that may pose a threat.[1][5]

If a foreign entity completes a transaction within a designated buffer zone without first securing a safe harbor clearance from CFIUS, the committee retains the unilateral authority to review the deal indefinitely. Years after a commercial facility is fully built and operational, CFIUS can initiate a retroactive investigation and ultimately recommend that the President order a forced divestment. This worst-case scenario effectively wipes out the entire capital investment, making voluntary filing a highly recommended insurance policy for major developments.[3][4]

The Department of Defense has clearly signaled that this geographic expansion is not a one-time administrative adjustment. The military regularly assesses its installations and the geographic scope of the CFIUS regulations to ensure they align with rapidly evolving global threats. The updated rule establishes a flexible framework that allows regulators to be nimble and responsive, strongly suggesting that the list of covered sites and the definitions of sensitive infrastructure will continue to grow in the coming years.[1][7]

For the commercial real estate sector, this regulatory overhaul represents a permanent shift in the fundamental mechanics of deal-making. Geographic location is no longer just a matter of local zoning laws, tax incentives, and supply chain logistics; it is now a primary national security risk factor. Corporate legal advisors are urgently advising developers to map their prospective sites against the Appendix A list of military installations before signing any binding agreements or committing capital to a new project.[5][6]

Ultimately, the expanded CFIUS jurisdiction reflects a new era of geopolitical competition where economic investment and national defense are inextricably linked. As the lines between legitimate commercial development and state-sponsored intelligence gathering continue to blur, the U.S. government has chosen to aggressively defend its physical borders from within. By establishing these vast new buffer zones, regulators are ensuring that the land surrounding America's most critical military assets remains secure from unseen, over-the-horizon threats. This proactive stance redefines the boundaries of the open market.[4][7]