In 2021, a Chinese company purchased land near an Air Force base in Grand Forks, North Dakota, triggering widespread concern among lawmakers. They feared the acquisition could grant China access to sensitive U.S. information, markets, and critical infrastructure. Yet, despite these concerns, public discourse remains more focused on the Chinese social media app TikTok than on the land ownership issue that could pose significant strategic risks.

U.S. Concerns About Chinese-Owned Land

Although Chinese-owned land accounts for only a tiny fraction of all foreign-owned land in the U.S., these acquisitions have raised fears about potential control over U.S. assets and access to critical information. For decades, Chinese companies and investors have purchased U.S. land and major companies like Smithfield Foods, the largest pork processor in the United States. Such purchases, while ostensibly commercial, fuel worries that Chinese corporations—due to Beijing’s legal authority to access corporate data—could serve as conduits for the Chinese government.

Lawmakers, like Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, question how much land Chinese individuals or entities aligned with Beijing actually own, citing data gaps and insufficient reporting. These fears are compounded by broader U.S.-China tensions over issues like trade, Taiwan, and intelligence gathering. Acquisitions near sensitive locations, such as military bases, further amplify security concerns.

The Grand Forks Controversy: A Missed Opportunity?

In Grand Forks, the Fufeng Group—a Chinese chemical manufacturer—purchased land near a military base. Despite public outcry, the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment stated it lacked jurisdiction to intervene. Critics argue that inadequate oversight and a lack of transparency about land transactions near strategic locations leave the U.S. vulnerable.

For instance, Craig Singleton of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies warns of the potential for Chinese telecommunications equipment installed on such lands to disrupt U.S. military communications. He advocates for a pause on Chinese land acquisitions until more is understood about their implications.

TikTok vs. Land Ownership: A Misdirected Focus?

While concerns over TikTok’s data security have led to debates about banning the app, similar scrutiny is absent when it comes to Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland and critical infrastructure. This disparity raises questions: Why is the U.S. government more focused on a social media app than on large-scale land acquisitions? If national security is truly at stake, shouldn’t equal—if not greater—attention be given to land deals with potential ties to the Chinese government?

TikTok, while highly visible, poses a digital risk that can be mitigated through transparency and regulation. In contrast, Chinese land ownership presents tangible, long-term challenges—ranging from potential disruptions to the food supply chain to risks of espionage near military installations. Yet, U.S. lawmakers have been slow to act on the latter, with some efforts stalled due to inadequate reporting mechanisms and lack of funding.

The Numbers: Land Ownership in Context

Despite the heightened rhetoric, Chinese firms and investors owned just 383,934 acres in the U.S. as of 2021—less than 1% of foreign-owned farmland and significantly less than Canada or other European nations. However, the concentration of this land in strategic sectors like agriculture and energy, coupled with China’s rising geopolitical influence, has prompted concerns.

For example, Smithfield Foods, acquired by Chinese company WH Group in 2013, owns much of the land in North Carolina and Missouri marked as Chinese-owned. Similarly, Sun Guangxin, a Chinese billionaire with purported ties to Beijing, controls over 100,000 acres in Texas, where his plans for a wind farm were halted by state legislation.

Moving Forward: Balancing Risks and Fairness

Efforts to address Chinese land ownership are underway, with lawmakers introducing bills to limit purchases by Chinese entities near military installations. However, implementation remains slow due to bureaucratic challenges, such as outdated data reporting systems. Critics caution that blanket bans could inadvertently fuel anti-Asian sentiment, urging a nuanced approach to avoid conflating security risks with xenophobia.

If the U.S. truly aims to safeguard national security, lawmakers must reconcile the disproportionate attention given to TikTok with the broader risks posed by Chinese land ownership. Without a more comprehensive strategy, the U.S. risks overlooking tangible threats while fixating on the digital domain.

When the stakes are as high as national security, the Senate’s confirmation hearings should be a forum for serious inquiry into a nominee’s fitness to lead. Unfortunately, these hearings too often devolve into partisan theater, prioritizing personal attacks over the substantive questions that truly matter. This tendency undermines the integrity of the process and distracts from the critical responsibility of ensuring that our leaders are equipped to protect and guide the nation’s defense.

The position of Secretary of Defense is one of immense importance. This leader oversees a department responsible for managing a vast budget, safeguarding the country from global threats, and ensuring the readiness and welfare of our armed forces. At a time of mounting challenges—from the rising influence of China and Russia to escalating cybersecurity threats and the need for military modernization—this role demands a nominee with vision, competence, and an unwavering commitment to the mission. Yet, instead of focusing on these attributes, confirmation hearings too often veer into personal controversies, many of which bear little relevance to the nominee’s ability to fulfill their duties.

In the recent hearing for Pete Hegseth, for example, questions about his personal conduct overshadowed critical discussions about his plans to address pressing issues such as military readiness, the future of U.S. involvement in global conflicts, and the integration of advanced technologies into defense strategy. While character and ethics are essential in leadership, the line between legitimate vetting and partisan grandstanding has become increasingly blurred. This focus on personal allegations not only risks undermining the nominee but also diminishes public confidence in the process.

The hearing also missed opportunities to delve deeply into issues that affect the lives of millions of service members and the broader trajectory of national defense. For instance, little time was devoted to discussing how Hegseth would counter threats from China and Russia, modernize the military’s aging infrastructure, or address troop welfare and recruitment challenges. Instead, senators devoted significant time to questioning his past behavior, which, while worth addressing, should not eclipse the urgent need to evaluate his leadership approach and strategic vision.

This imbalance has real consequences. When hearings prioritize spectacle over substance, the public and the Senate lose the chance to fully assess a nominee’s readiness to lead. Moreover, these distractions can erode the nominee’s ability to articulate their priorities and set the tone for their potential tenure. In the case of the Department of Defense, this is particularly concerning, given the immense responsibility the position carries.

To restore faith in the confirmation process, it is crucial to refocus on what matters. Senators must ensure that their questions prioritize the nominee’s qualifications, leadership style, and plans to address the nation’s most pressing security concerns. Personal matters should only be explored when they directly bear on the nominee’s ability to lead with integrity. By limiting partisan grandstanding and emphasizing substantive inquiry, the Senate can uphold its duty to the American people and ensure that critical leadership roles are filled with capable, prepared individuals.

The confirmation hearing process is a cornerstone of our democracy, a mechanism through which leaders are held accountable to the public. But it must be conducted in a way that reflects the gravity of the positions at stake. At a time when national security challenges grow more complex each day, we cannot afford to waste this process on political theater. It is time to demand better—for the sake of the nation, the armed forces, and the defense of our shared future.