Regulatory exemptions
A central feature of the proposal is providing "regulatory relief" to spur innovation and development. According to draft legislation, these cities could be exempt from major federal laws, including: [5] [6]
Proponents envision each city becoming a hub for a specific industry, such as semiconductors, defense, biotechnology, or nuclear power, [6] [8] all operating without prior approval from agencies like the FDA or the EPA [8] , creating high tech company towns. [6] Critics, however, warn that removing environmental and labor protections could lead to exploitation and ecological damage with few legal remedies for residents or neighboring regions. [6]
Feasibility and infrastructure
Beyond political opposition, practical concerns have been raised. Building residential housing on federal land is not unprecedented, as seen in a 2024 Clark County, Nevada, purchase of 20 acres of BLM land for 210 affordable homes. [5] However, critics note that creating entire cities from scratch on the vast, remote tracts of BLM land presents immense logistical challenges, particularly regarding water access. [5] [7]
Governance and democracy
Critics argue that the proposed governance model would create undemocratic, corporate-run entities. The draft legislation suggests that residents of Freedom Cities would be prohibited from voting in state elections, [5] and the cities would be operated and maintained by the developers who won the initial bid. [5] [7] Political consultant Gil Duran predicted these would be "cities where the owners [...] have all the power and everyone else has no power." [5] [8]
Max Woodworth, an urban geographer at Ohio State University, compares the concept to authoritarian city-building projects abroad, suggesting they are "specifically designed to short-circuit any kind of democratic process [...] in favor of making top-down corporate structures that masquerade as cities". [4]
Ideological foundations
Academic analysis has focused on the ideological motivations behind the proposal. Woodworth argues that Freedom Cities represent a form of reactionary urbanism rooted in a nostalgic and exclusionary vision of America. He connects the proposal's rhetoric—particularly its references to the "frontier"—to a history of settler colonialism and "racial cleansing". In this view, the plan is not just about building new cities but about creating exclusive enclaves that materially manifest a political agenda. The emphasis on intensive policing and the desire to abandon and create alternatives to existing diverse cities are seen as efforts to build "a sanitized mirror-image of existing cities" for a select population. [1]
Georgetown University professor Jodi Vittori builds on this by linking the movement to crypto-utopians and far-right accelerationists who seek to hasten the collapse of the current governing system to replace it with a new, hierarchical one. She cites the work of figures like Curtis Yarvin, who advocates for an "alternative regime" run by an unaccountable CEO, a vision that an advisor to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) described as a "crisp articulation" of their goals. In this context, Freedom Cities are seen as a vehicle for a radical political project aimed at destroying existing institutions. She also analyzes the Freedom Cities proposal within a broader framework she terms "ungoverning"—a deliberate attack on the capacity and legitimacy of the administrative state. She connects the concept to historical and contemporary examples of leaders dismantling their own government's institutions for ideological or corrupt purposes. She further argues that the push for Freedom Cities aligns with a form of warlordism , not in the sense of literal civil war, but in the creation of corporate-governed fiefdoms that operate outside of the established legal and regulatory system. These "start-up cities" or special economic zones, like Próspera, are designed to allow residents and corporations to "exit" the existing system of liberal democracy in favor of a "marketplace of alternatives". [9]
In April 2025, Paul Dans, the former head of the conservative transition plan Project 2025, has described the Freedom Cities proposal as part of Donald Trump's "construction phase" that would follow his "demolition" of the administrative state. [12]
