Chinese-owned US farmland raises concerns of foreign drone attacks
There are currently nearly 370,000 acres of farmland the Chinese own. Several of those sites have been linked to the mysterious drone sightings that took place across the United States last fall.
After Ukraine destroyed 40 Russian targets with 177 drones over the weekend, the attack has reopened questions about how vulnerable the United States is to such an attack given the farmland's proximity to military bases that could be targeted if the U.S. was to ever undergo a similar strike to what took place in Russia over the weekend.
Russia severely limited after attack: Ex-Ukraine ambassador
Those military installations stretch across the U.S. and include Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, where a Chinese company, Fufeng, purchased farmland close to the base and announced plans to open a corn mill. The U.S. Air Force called the sale a threat to national security, and the sale was shut down, NewsNation previously reported.
However, NewsNation has learned that the company still owns the land, which extends over more than 300 acres, again raising concerns that the military base and others could be prone to a drone attack.
Several states have laws in place that prevent the Chinese from purchasing land. However, the challenge of monitoring potential sales is that the Chinese often use shell companies to purchase the land or use American residents to shield officials from learning who owns the land.
Over the last five years, Chinese ownership of U.S. land has increased by 55%. Almost three-quarters of that land is located in the southern United States.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukrainian refugee awarded special recognition for art GCSE
A Ukrainian refugee says she has 'mixed feelings' but is 'so happy' after receiving special recognition for her art GCSE and achieving seven grade 9s and one 8 in total. Liza Minenko, 16, fled Ukraine in 2022 with her family after spending two weeks in a basement in Kyiv after the war broke out. When her family arrived in the UK, Liza and her two siblings were given full scholarships by Brighton College. She said: 'I was nervous, but I am so happy. I have mixed feelings. I want to go back to Ukraine but we are all really scared to go back to Kyiv. 'I haven't seen my grandparents for years since the start of the war but I know they will be proud of what I have achieved today.' Liza received recognition from the Cambridge OCR exam board as one of the top performers in art in the country. She is planning to take art, maths, physics and chemistry at A-level. At an assembly marking the third year since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February this year, Liza addressed the school. 'You need a lot of strength to live in a country that is in a state of war,' she said. 'You also need a lot of strength when you have to leave behind your home country and everything and everyone you know.' She is one of 23 Ukrainian refugees enrolled in scholarships at Brighton College, and her mother praised the school for their 'humanity, acceptance and warmth'. Also at the college, Nathanial Byng, 16, won a national award for achieving the highest mark in the country in his English Literature GCSE. The college said that both his parents are 'senior figures' in publishing, so he started reading at a young age.
Engadget
13 minutes ago
- Engadget
China reportedly discouraged purchase of NVIDIA AI chips due to 'insulting' Lutnick statements
Chinese regulators reportedly dissuaded local companies from purchasing NVIDIA's H20 chips, because they found certain statements by US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick "insulting." According to the Financial Times , the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) teamed up to intensify their efforts to push the use of homegrown chips following Lutnick's remarks in an interview with CNBC . The US, if you'll recall, blocked NVIDIA from selling its H20 chips to China back in April out of concern that the Chinese military would use them to develop AI technology. When the US government reversed its decision in July and allowed the company to start shipping its chips to China, Lutnick told CNBC : "We don't sell them our best stuff, not our second best stuff, not even our third best. The fourth one down, we want to keep China using it... The idea is the Chinese are more than capable of building their own. You want to keep one step ahead of what they can build, so they keep buying our chips. You want to sell the Chinese enough that their developers get addicted to the American technology stack. That's the thinking." To note, a previous Times report stated that the government allowed NVIDIA to ship its products to China again after agreeing to hand over 15 percent of its profits. As a response to Lutnick's remarks, the Times says Chinese authorities sought ways to prevent local companies from buying H20 chips. CAC issued an informal notice instructing China's biggest tech firms, such as ByteDance and Alibaba, to stop new orders for H20 chips until the government is done conducting a national security review. The companies are compelled to comply, because they could face substantial fines from the CAC if they don't. Meanwhile, NDRC also issued an informal notice, asking local tech companies not to purchase any NVIDIA chip. Reuters recently reported that NVIDIA is developing a new chip for the Chinese market that's more powerful than the H20, perhaps driven in part by China's move to discourage its purchase. It will be based on the company's Blackwell architecture, but will only be capable of half the computing power of NVIDIA's Blackwell Ultra GPUs. Their regulatory and export approval aren't guaranteed, but the president previously implied that he was aware of the project and said he expects NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang to talk to him about it. If you buy something through a link in this article, we may earn commission.
14 minutes ago
Why a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting matters -- and why it might not happen
LONDON -- The presidents of Ukraine and Russia "have not been exactly best friends," U.S. President Donald Trump said earlier this week, as he pushed for an in-person meeting that he says he hopes will lay the groundwork for an end to Moscow's three-and-a-half-year-old invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin last met in 2019, for ill-fated negotiations on ending the simmering conflict sparked by Russia's seizure of Crimea and fomentation of a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine in 2014. The 2019 meeting, which occurred shortly after Zelenskyy won power on a populist wave, ended with commitments to implement "all necessary ceasefire support measures" before the end of that year and to release all prisoners of war. Trump's seemingly tongue-in-cheek evaluation of the strained relationship between the two leaders belies the toxic effect of more than a decade of Russian aggression against its neighbor. And while the U.S. president has suggested the proposed sit-down is the key result of his own recent meetings with Putin and Zelenskyy, it is still far from certain Putin will actually do it, despite the White House's insistence he has agreed. Nearly six years on from their last meeting, Putin and Zelenskyy are locked in a war that both seem to consider existential. Trump's return to office has revived dormant peace efforts, but the warring parties are still far apart on key issues. Simply getting the two presidents in a room together would be a major achievement, but -- with hundreds of thousands dead and the futures of both countries on the line -- might not produce a positive result. Nonetheless, the White House has suggested that a bilateral meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin might help bridge the gulf. Trump appears positive fresh off a summit with Putin in Alaska on Friday, followed by White House meetings with Zelenskyy and a group of European leaders on Monday. "I hope President Putin is going to be good, and if he's not, it's going to be a rough situation," Trump said on Tuesday. "And I hope that Zelenskyy, President Zelenskyy, will do what he has to do. He has to show some flexibility also," Trump added. Despite Trump's positivity, the meeting is far from guaranteed. Putin has repeatedly refused to meet with Zelenskyy during the conflict, having consistently sought to undermine the Ukrainian president's legitimacy. Russian officials rarely use Zelenskyy's name, preferring to refer to "the Kyiv regime." Moscow is even accused by Ukraine of having dispatched kill teams to target Zelenskyy during the opening weeks of the 2022 invasion. Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak said Zelenskyy survived more than a dozen assassination attempts in the first year of the full-scale invasion. Russian officials have been far from effusive in their comments on the proposed bilateral meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy -- and the trilateral meeting involving Trump that the U.S. president has proposed as a follow-on. "We are not rejecting any forms of work -- neither bilateral nor trilateral," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday, as quoted by the state-run Tass news agency. Any meeting should be prepared "step by step, gradually, starting from the expert level and then going through all the necessary stages in order to prepare the summits," Lavrov reportedly added. "That gives a lot of room for speculation," Boris Bondarev -- who worked for the Russian permanent mission to the United Nations Office in Geneva until he resigned in 2022 in opposition to Putin's war on Ukraine -- told ABC News of the official Russian statements. "Western diplomacy first says out loud what they're going to do, so their opponent is ready," he added. "Russians would never do such a thing." The absence of Kremlin confirmation has been interpreted by some in Ukraine as a sign that Putin will not agree to meeting Zelenskyy. A source close to the Ukrainian government, who requested anonymity as they were not authorized to speak publicly, told ABC News that the Ukrainians "continue to be very, very skeptical -- that's an understatement -- of Putin and the Russians in terms of whether they will move forward." "Because the track record is that Putin has said 'no' to everything," the source added. "So, there is skepticism that he will agree to this. But they've done their part right. They've said 'yes' to everything, they've been constructive, they've demonstrated to Trump that they truly want to get to peace. And again, they feel that Trump sees that and understands that." Oleksandr Merezhko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament and the chair of the body's foreign affairs committee, told ABC News, "I doubt that Putin will agree to meet with Zelenskyy," "Putin is afraid of Zelenskyy," he added. "He understands that the picture will look like an old dictator, war criminal on the one hand, and a young and brave democratic war leader on the other hand." "To avoid a trilateral meeting, Putin will be putting forward different absurd demands," Merezhko said. "He might insist on elections in Ukraine or something. Most likely it will be shuttle diplomacy at the level of ministers of foreign affairs." The source close to the government said many pitfalls remain. "It could be that maybe we're all wrong and Putin accepts the meeting, but maintains unacceptable demands in terms of what security guarantees are," they said. "There are so many potential Russian 'no's along the way, even if they satisfy Trump with this meeting," they added. Oleg Ignatov, the Crisis Group think tank's senior analyst for Russia, told ABC News he believes a meeting between the two leaders is possible, but that it won't be easy to pull off. "I don't think it's a problem for Putin," Ignatov said. "He said that Zelenskyy, from his point of view, is not a legitimate leader," Ignatov continued. "It doesn't mean that they can't negotiate with Zelenskyy. The problem could be with signing any documents." The proposed meeting does not yet even have a location. Among the possible venues touted so far are Switzerland -- suggested by French President Emmanuel Macron -- and the Hungarian capital Budapest, suggested by Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. Putin even reportedly offered Moscow as a venue. If a meeting does go ahead, the location will be subject to major logistical and security preparations, while diplomatic teams work on the strategy and documents to underpin the negotiations. "With normal preparations we talk about months," Ignatov said. "We are not in a normal situation. Maybe if Trump pushes, [Putin] may agree, but it doesn't mean that they succeed." The chasm between the Ukrainian and Russian camps on key issues -- prime among them territorial questions and the shape of post-war Western security guarantees for Ukraine -- remains. The peace memorandums drafted by Kyiv and Moscow earlier this year "are too different, and we haven't seen any other texts," Ignatov said. Putin's 2021 screed -- "On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians" -- set out the ideological foundations of his war in Ukraine. The country, he asserted, is an "artificial" nation, with its people forcibly split from the collective descendants of the first eastern Slavic state -- the late 9th century Kyivan Rus -- by internal radicals and foreign meddling. Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, Putin claimed, together form a single "triune nation." For all the Kremlin's apparent evasiveness, Putin's position on Ukraine has not changed, Bondarev said. "They say we want Ukraine, and they are consistent on this," he explained. Already the narrative on the ongoing war has shifted dramatically, Bondarev continued. No longer do U.S. officials talk of backing Ukraine "for as long as it takes," he said, nor do they espouse their commitment to Ukrainian territorial integrity per its internationally-recognized 1991 borders or its eventual accession to NATO. Ahead of his meeting with Zelenskyy on Monday, for example, Trump posted to social media explicitly ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine and suggesting Kyiv abandon any hope of regaining Crimea. The president has also hinted that he might walk away from peace efforts if he cannot achieve a breakthrough. Despite their stauncher backing for Kyiv, European leaders also appear wary of antagonizing the president, while still defending Ukraine's demands for a ceasefire, security guarantees and its territorial integrity. If Putin does commit to a meeting, it would be seen by many as "more than a climbdown," Pavel Luzin, a Russian political analyst at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, told ABC News. "There would be a major ideological challenge for all the Russian leadership," Luzin said. "They deny that Ukraine is an enemy equal to them -- they still call the Armed Forces of Ukraine 'Nazi formations,' 'combatants' and so on. And they cannot agree that Ukraine is a sovereign and independent state." In 2019, Luzin said, "the Russian delegation was sure that Zelenskyy would sign a kind of ultimate Ukrainian capitulation. If they were to meet in 2025 and Ukraine was not to capitulate, that would damage all the ideological framework of modern Russia." Bondarev concurred. A face-to-face meeting that ends without a Ukrainian surrender "will be a humiliation" for Putin, he said, "because he met with someone who is seen by all of his people as someone inferior and he lost, because he was not able to press Zelenskyy into capitulation." While the Russian leader does not want to unnecessarily antagonize Trump, Bondarev added, "He doesn't want to negotiate with Zelenskyy, because Zelenskyy is not an equal for him." Ukraine and its Western backers have been vociferous in pushing back on Putin's narrative, though Trump has at times unsettled Kyiv and European leaders by aligning with Russian talking points casting doubt on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. "Putin's narrative about Ukraine as an artificial country and the proxy of the Western countries means that there is no point in talking to Zelenskyy or any other Ukrainian representative," Bondarev said. "It would mean that Zelenskyy or the Ukrainian government has its agency, and they can decide."
