Freedom Cities: What They Are, and Whether They Can Be Free

Updated 12 September 2026. This article first appeared in March 2025; the section “Where things stand in 2026” records what has happened since.

The idea entered American politics in March 2023, in a campaign speech that sketched a vision for national revitalization. Among many proposals, from flying cars to baby bonuses, was a plan to set aside a small share of federal land and create up to ten new cities through a competitive selection process. These “Freedom Cities” would restore the country’s reputation for ambitious, large-scale development and open new opportunities for homeownership and economic growth.

The idea was mentioned in passing several more times that year. Whether it would be pursued in office was still an open question when this article first appeared in March 2025; the section below records where things stand now. Either way, the concept caught the attention of urban policy thinkers, including the Charter Cities Institute (CCI), which has since developed a serious proposal based on the speech. While this proposal takes Freedom Cities beyond a campaign slogan, it also reveals a deeper issue: how layers of entrenched bureaucracy and regulation have made economic and urban innovation in the U.S. nearly impossible.

Where things stand in 2026

Whatever the federal programme becomes, the models it borrows from already exist. The charter cities hub gathers the research, and the project register lists the new cities operating today, from Próspera in Honduras to the village networks of Central America.

Freedom Cities as a Response to Over-Regulation

The CCI’s proposal, Freedom Cities: Accelerating American Innovation by Reducing Administrative and Regulatory Burdens, builds on the idea by identifying specific obstacles preventing growth in key industries: housing, biotech, aeronautics, energy and infrastructure. The report does not advocate for fully autonomous cities but instead suggests a framework where Freedom Cities would operate under a significantly relaxed regulatory environment, allowing for streamlined governance and economic experimentation.

One of the primary arguments for Freedom Cities is the difficulty of conducting large-scale development under current U.S. regulations. Projects that should take months can take years or even decades due to bureaucratic red tape. Environmental reviews, zoning laws, building codes, and an overlapping web of local, state, and federal requirements have created an almost insurmountable barrier to progress. The CCI proposal envisions a model where these constraints are lifted, allowing for rapid development in emerging sectors and much-needed infrastructure.

The proposal suggests that Freedom Cities could be established by making substantial regulatory exemptions. The plan includes allowing agency heads to waive or expedite regulations, streamlining environmental and building approvals to prevent delays, and offering tax incentives to businesses and investors willing to participate in these newly created cities. Additionally, the proposal emphasizes federal land acquisition and conversion, where municipalities and private landowners could opt into the initiative. To oversee the process, the creation of a White House-led task force would ensure consistency in granting regulatory waivers and implementing the project effectively.

While these recommendations would indeed remove bureaucratic obstacles to economic progress, they also expose the scale of the problem: how deeply entangled U.S. economic activity has become with federal agencies, environmental regulations and tax burdens. The mere fact that so many waivers and exemptions would be necessary to make a new city work is an indictment of the current system.

The Challenges of Freedom Cities

While the Freedom Cities proposal is an attempt to reinvigorate urban development, its reliance on continuous federal political support and cooperation makes it a politically challenging endeavor. Setting up the legal framework for these cities in the first place would also be incredibly difficult. For over a century, the trend has been toward increasing regulatory control, not reduction. Reversing this course would require a coordinated effort from Congress, federal agencies and the executive branch, an uphill battle at best.

Even if some deregulation were achieved, the fundamental structure of government-controlled land and centralized administration would remain, meaning that Freedom Cities would still operate within the existing framework of federal (and likely also state) power. This factor would make the realization of Freedom Cities dependent on political will first, and organic, market forces only second.

The challenge is not just political but also cultural. For decades, American institutions have reinforced the notion that regulations exist to protect people and prevent corporate overreach. While some of these protections serve important purposes, many have led to unintended consequences, including skyrocketing housing costs, stagnating innovation, and barriers to entrepreneurial success. The Freedom Cities model attempts to carve out exceptions to these issues, but in doing so, it acknowledges that broad regulatory reform is incredibly difficult.

Freedom Cities as Free Cities

Despite the similarity in terms, there is no guarantee that Freedom Cities would also be Free Cities. If they end up being built thanks to heavy federal support and investment, and the governance system of these cities will only amount to light deregulation, they would simply not qualify. We can call something a Free City only if its modus operandi and the conscious effort behind it really is to provide as much freedom for its residents and businesses as possible.

That being said, Freedom Cities could be built to be Free Cities, if it is done right. Strong political will and a certain alignment of interests across levels of government would be required either way at the city’s inception. However, no city can be a Free City unless it has the long-term guarantees and arrangements to be able to then operate independently, without the reliance on continuous federal political support. To be a Free City, the nascent Freedom City should also have as much of a blank-slate regulatory system as possible, likewise with a long-term stability guarantee. To maximize its independence, this city should be privately owned, and if it is established on federal land, this land should be promptly privatized.

With such an alignment of the most important factors, these cities could adopt development and governance models that are truly customer-oriented rather than politically driven. Their focus will be on flexibility, economic freedom, and voluntary participation.

Such Free Cities allow for organic growth without the need for constant government intervention. By focusing on voluntary association, residents and businesses choose to participate in an environment that prioritizes innovation, efficiency, and accountability. Instead of relying on the mercy of Congress with regard to their freedom and status, such cities would simply operate under a different legal and administrative framework from the start.

One of the biggest advantages of Free Cities is their ability to attract investment. With minimal and adaptive regulation, businesses are free to experiment and scale without bureaucratic roadblocks. Because they operate outside traditional political structures, Free Cities provide a stable and predictable environment, which is increasingly appealing in a world of economic uncertainty and government overreach. This is crucial for the cities’ success, since relying on state investment instead of private investment would be a highly risky endeavor.

Free Cities also embrace voluntary governance models. Unlike traditional municipalities, where rules are dictated from above, Free Cities rely on contracts and agreements between residents, businesses, and governance providers. This means that governance is customer-driven, ensuring that rules and policies are aligned with the needs and desires of the community rather than imposed through political agendas.

The Future of City Innovation

Although the concept of Freedom Cities acknowledges the fact that regulatory overreach has strangled economic innovation and urban development, new cities need to be truly innovative in their approach to governance and local autonomy. Despite their name, Freedom Cities are not necessarily Free Cities, but they could be, if they are established in the right way. The Free City model does not rely on continuous government support and an ongoing commitment to undo its own damage, making such cities more resilient, more stable and more likely to succeed in the long term.

Freedom Cities should choose the Free Cities path. It provides a true alternative, one that does not require an endless battle with bureaucracy. Instead, it creates environments where entrepreneurship, investment and governance innovation can flourish naturally.

If America truly wants to reclaim its pioneering spirit, it must make sure that Freedom Cities are also Free Cities. Only by allowing new jurisdictions to operate with real local autonomy can we unleash the next era of economic growth and human flourishing.