Trump’s “Freedom Cities”

Trump’s “Freedom Cities” proposal is fundamentally aligned with and directly connected to the technology billionaire agenda for building network states—but with a crucial strategic difference: rather than relying on members to crowdfund land acquisition (Balaji Srinivasan’s original model), the Freedom Cities concept leverages federal land and executive power to bypass democratic approval processes entirely.wikipedia+2

The Network State Connection

In March 2023, Trump announced a plan to charter up to ten new “master-planned cities” on federal land, roughly the size of Washington D.C., to be awarded through a competitive process to development entities. The official campaign language—promising to “open up the American Frontier” and give “families and individuals a new shot at the American Dream”—is nearly identical to network state rhetoric. Most tellingly, technology billionaires and their advisors have been directly engaged in shaping Freedom Cities policy.techpolicy+1

The Peter Thiel Connection: The Freedom Cities initiative draws directly from the charter cities movement, which has been championed by Thiel protégés and allies. The Charter Cities Institute, working with the American Enterprise Institute and the Frontier Foundation, has been actively lobbying the Trump administration and drafting legislation to operationalize Freedom Cities. Trey Goff, chief of staff for Próspera (a Honduras-based charter city explicitly modeled on network-state principles and backed by tech investors), has briefed Trump administration officials directly on Freedom Cities implementation. Goff stated that “the energy in DC is absolutely electric” and that administration officials “feel empowered to pursue some of the ambitious ideas Trump has put forth.”chartercitiesinstitute+1

In other words, the Freedom Cities proposal is not an independent Trump invention; it is the tech billionaire / network state movement’s rebranding of their governance vision for mainstream political adoption.techpolicy

How Freedom Cities Bypass Democracy More Effectively Than California Forever

California Forever’s failed strategy: The original California Forever plan sought to create a new incorporated city through a ballot measure in Solano County. The project acquired 65,000 acres of farmland for $900 million to $1 billion and proposed a phased development of up to 400,000 residents marketed under the banner of “affordable housing.” In November 2024, the ballot measure failed due to “catastrophic polling”—voters were deeply skeptical that a billionaire-backed real estate venture would deliver actual affordability. The project then pivoted to annexation of existing Suisun City, which still requires municipal approval and environmental review.businessinsider+3

Freedom Cities’ more radical approach: The Trump proposal uses the federal government’s Property Clause—which grants Congress absolute authority to set rules on federal land—to create cities that would be completely exempt from nearly all federal environmental, healthcare, labor laws, and the tax code. Rather than seeking voter approval or even municipal permission, Freedom Cities can be created via:news.bloomberglaw+1

Interstate compacts between states with pre-approved regulatory zones (not subject to congressional review for each city).
Federal enclaves designated by the executive branch with special jurisdictional status.
Executive orders directly establishing Freedom Cities.

This means California Forever had to ask voters whether they wanted a billionaire-planned city. Freedom Cities, by contrast, can be imposed on federal land without any local or national democratic vote.wired+2

Housing Affordability: The Marketing Bridge

Both California Forever and Freedom Cities use “housing affordability” as their primary legitimacy claim, yet neither includes enforceable affordability mechanisms.

California Forever’s framing: After the ballot failure, the company repositioned itself as solving the “housing crisis” through “affordable homes in safe, walkable neighborhoods.” The Charter Cities Institute paper on Freedom Cities similarly emphasizes that “efficient, affordable housing is the backbone of any advanced economy” and promises “expanded living space for families, stabilized rents and home prices.”realtor+2

The reality: Neither project defines “affordable,” sets income-based deed restrictions, or mandates long-term affordability covenants. “Affordability” is framed as an outcome of density and regulatory relief—i.e., if you remove zoning restrictions and let developers build fast, housing will become cheaper. This is an economic assumption, not a policy commitment. Once developed, Freedom Cities housing would likely price based on market rates, with no mechanism to preserve affordability for lower-income residents.chartercitiesinstitute+1

Housing affordability language thus serves as a politically acceptable wrapper for what is fundamentally a private governance experiment—one where billionaires, not voters or elected officials, control land use, housing policy, labor standards, and environmental rules.ncrp

The National Park Land Appropriation Model

A particularly concerning aspect of Freedom Cities is the willingness to appropriate public lands and national parks for this purpose. The Freedom Cities Institute has identified the Presidio National Park in San Francisco as an ideal site for one of the ten cities.ncrp+1 (see below)

This represents a critical difference from network states that depend on crowdfunding members’ capital: if billionaires can convince the federal government to hand them national parks in exchange for “job creation” and “housing,” they have found a way to build network states without needing either member buy-in or democratic approval.news.bloomberglaw+1

Academic research on “crypto spaces” documents patterns of this kind of appropriation: virtual blueprints for cities like Liberland and Cryptoland have been drawn up despite local authorities’ opposition; Bitcoin mining has operated near Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo despite conservation status. The lesson is that crypto-backed development projects, when given access to public or protected lands, tend to pursue extractive, parasitic relationships with those lands and communities.pure.hva

Freedom Cities on federal or national park land would bypass:

Environmental impact assessments (federal exemptions).
Endangered Species Act protections (federal exemptions).
National Parks Act oversight (federal Property Clause interpretation).
Local democratic input (federal enclaves bypass municipal approval).

The Cryptocurrency Dimension

The connection between Freedom Cities and cryptocurrency infrastructure is less explicit but increasingly clear. The Trump administration, advised by Thiel protégés and crypto advocates, is pursuing parallel paths:

Federal cryptocurrency legitimation: David Sacks (crypto czar) and allies are pushing the Senate to pass bills like CLARITY Act and GENIUS Act that normalize stablecoins and DAOs.thehill+1
State-level DAO normalization: Wyoming’s DUNA law (2024) grants DAOs legal corporate status. Other states are being pushed to adopt similar frameworks. Andreessen Horowitz’s crypto advocacy arm explicitly frames this as a pathway to help DAOs “outcompete corporate networks” and “solidify the U.S.’ status as the crypto capital of the world.”a16zcrypto
Freedom Cities as execution: Once DAOs have legal status and stablecoins are normalized, Freedom Cities’ exemption from federal law becomes the template for token-gated, blockchain-governed enclaves operating within U.S. territory.wired+1

In this reading, Freedom Cities is not just a housing or deregulation policy; it is infrastructure for network states to operate on U.S. federal land with minimal oversight.techpolicy+1

Three Pathways Converging on Post-Democracy

Technology billionaires are pursuing network-state governance through three simultaneous channels:ChannelExampleKey FeatureDemocratic BypassPrivate capitalCalifornia ForeverBillionaires buy land via market ($1B+ land purchase)Vote fails; pivot to municipal annexation still requires approvalPublic land appropriationFreedom CitiesFederal government grants exemptions on federal/national park landBypasses all local, state, environmental review via federal Property ClauseBlockchain/DAOCrypto regulatory normalization (DUNA, CLARITY Act, GENIUS Act)Token-gated governance, smart-contract law enforcementGovernance by capital, not citizenship; no equal voting rights

The California Forever failure was actually a lessons-learned moment for the network-state movement. It revealed that billionaires cannot rely on voluntary crowdfunding or even local electoral silence; they need explicit government permission to opt out of democratic rules. Freedom Cities is the resulting pivot: use executive power, federal land, and regulatory exemption to create network-state infrastructure without asking voters.ncrp+2

Why This Matters

If Freedom Cities are implemented as proposed, the U.S. will have effectively created internal “special economic zones” governed by private entities with federal legal exemptions from labor, environmental, and healthcare law. These zones could then:wikipedia+1

Test blockchain-based governance and DAO structures without SEC/regulatory interference.
Attract crypto-native populations and capital, creating physical network states with legal U.S. backing.
Demonstrate that post-democratic, founder-centric governance is viable and scalable.
Serve as templates for similar projects globally, undermining democratic governance norms.

The genius of the Freedom Cities rebranding is that it wraps a fundamentally anti-democratic network-state agenda in pro-housing, pro-growth, and “American frontier” language—making it palatable to voters and policymakers who would reject “network state” or “exit from democracy” framing directly.

U.S. support for cryptocurrency is difficult to separate from support for the technological backbone of anti‑democratic “network state” projects such as Freedom Cities. Crypto does more than enable speculation; in the network‑state vision it is the core infrastructure for building private, exit‑based quasi‑governments that compete with and undermine democratic states.[1][2][3][4]

Why crypto is fundamental to network states

Network‑state proponents like Balaji Srinivasan explicitly describe blockchains and cryptocurrencies as the backbone of new digital countries.[2][3][4][1]

A network state is conceived as a “decentralized country” whose citizens are coordinated via on‑chain mechanisms: nodes, stakers, token‑holders, and smart contracts.[1][2]
The movement’s own literature says blockchain technology “will allow the foundation of new societies that can eventually evolve into digital nations and states” and that a network state must be “backed by a cryptocurrency that acts as the ledger of truth and the backbone of its economy.”[3]
The lifecycle Balaji sketches—online community → “network union” → “network archipelago” owning land → diplomatically recognized network state—is explicitly built on tokenized treasuries, on‑chain membership, and smart‑contract governance.[4][2][3]

In this design:

Money, identity, and law are all on‑chain. Tokens define who is “in,” how much voice they have, and how resources are allocated.
Exit replaces democratic voice. If you dislike the rules, you are supposed to sell your tokens and leave; there is no guarantee of equal suffrage or constitutional rights, just market exit.[2][3]
Censorship‑resistant rails are not just about protecting dissidents; they are framed as protection for secessionist communities from democratic states that might regulate or tax them.[3][2]

So if the U.S. aggressively normalizes and strengthens these rails without constraint, it is not just supporting a payments innovation; it is investing in the core infrastructure of projects whose goal is to route around democratic institutions and eventually claim sovereign standing.

Why this is anti‑democratic

The network‑state model is anti‑democratic in at least three structural ways:

Governance by capital, not citizens. Decision rights are tied to token holdings and founder authority, not to the equal citizenship typical of constitutional democracies. Wealth concentration becomes political power by design.[2][3]
Exit over accountability. There are no robust mechanisms for citizens to change the rules collectively; the primary “check” on authority is the ability to leave, which only the relatively wealthy and mobile can realistically exercise.[3][2]
Jurisdictional arbitrage. These entities explicitly aim to pick jurisdictions, regulators, and legal obligations à la carte, seeking places where democratic safeguards—labor law, environmental rules, taxation, civil‑rights protections—are weakest.[2][3]

In that sense, a fully crypto‑enabled network‑state ecosystem becomes a political technology stack for oligarchy: small founder/investor groups controlling communities via smart contracts, with public law and democratic oversight pushed to the margins.

If the U.S. wants to defend democracy, it should be wary of building and subsidizing technologies whose leading political use‑case is to create private, borderless, minimally accountable polities.

What crypto lobbyists want Washington to do

The crypto industry is now one of the most aggressive lobbying forces in Washington:

In just the first half of 2025, crypto firms spent more than $18.4 million on federal lobbying—on track to beat 2024’s record spending.[5]
At least 27 crypto companies or advocacy groups filed first‑ever lobbying disclosures this year across about 20 firms, reflecting a rapid expansion of influence.[6][5]

Their goals cluster around three themes:

Regulatory “clarity” that favors the industry

The industry backs bills like the CLARITY Act, a market‑structure bill that would hand oversight of many digital assets to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—an agency widely seen as more permissive than the SEC.[5][6]
Lobbyists want many tokens deemed commodities, not securities, shrinking SEC jurisdiction and easing compliance burdens.[7][8]

Favorable treatment for stablecoins and private rails

The GENIUS Act, a bipartisan bill signed by President Trump in 2025, created a federal framework for dollar‑pegged stablecoins, which crypto firms view as a major green light for their business model.[9][6]
Crypto lobbyists are pushing the Senate to advance the CLARITY Act and to pass laws that prohibit a Federal Reserve–issued central bank digital currency (CBDC), because a public digital dollar would be a direct competitor to private stablecoins.[10][6]

Blocking public alternatives and preserving the private moat

Industry groups support bills or policy language that ban or limit a Fed CBDC, frame it as “surveillance money,” and instead channel traffic through privately issued dollars on crypto rails.[6][10]
They seek bank‑like treatment and access to payment systems (sometimes even national charters) without taking on full bank‑level regulation.[10]

In short, the lobby is not asking for modest experimentation at the edges; it is asking Congress to lock in crypto as a core, privately controlled layer of the financial system and to weaken public options that might compete with or constrain it.

Key crypto bills currently in or near the Senate

Several major federal bills shape—or would shape—the crypto environment:

GENIUS / GENIUS Act (stablecoins)
A bipartisan stablecoin bill that passed the House and was signed by President Trump, establishing a federal framework for dollar‑pegged stablecoins.[9][6]
It is viewed by the industry as a strong endorsement that private dollar‑linked tokens should play a significant role in U.S. finance.[6]
CLARITY Act (digital asset market structure)
A House‑passed bill that defines which digital assets fall under the SEC vs. CFTC and moves many into the CFTC’s orbit, aligning with industry preferences.[5][6]
Key Senate Republicans have released a draft version; crypto firms are lobbying hard for Senate passage.[5]
Lummis–Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA) [S.2281]
A broad, bipartisan Senate bill that builds a detailed regulatory framework for digital assets, including definitions of “ancillary assets,” significant CFTC authority over spot markets, and registration paths meant to normalize crypto businesses.[8][7]
Lummis–Gillibrand Payment Stablecoin Act [S.4155]
A Senate bill creating a regulatory regime for payment stablecoins, with the stated goal of preserving dollar dominance while encouraging “responsible innovation.”[8]
CBDC prohibition bills
Various proposals, supported by the crypto lobby, aim to prohibit or sharply limit the Federal Reserve from issuing a retail CBDC, entrenched as a way to protect private stablecoin businesses from public competition.[10][6]

Taken together, these bills push the U.S. toward institutionalizing crypto and stablecoins as core infrastructure rather than treating them as speculative fringe products.

Argument: Why the U.S. should not support crypto in this context

Given these facts, a democracy‑focused argument against supporting cryptocurrency looks like this:

Crypto is not politically neutral infrastructure.
Its most ambitious political use case, as articulated by its own leading ideologues, is to build “network states” that bypass and ultimately supplant democratic governments, with token‑based, capital‑weighted governance and limited rights for non‑founders. Supporting crypto at scale is not just supporting “innovation”; it is supporting the core rails for anti‑democratic sovereignty projects.[4][1][3][2]
The architecture locks in oligarchic control.
Smart‑contract–based polities structurally tie power to token holdings and founder control, with exit as the only recourse. That is the opposite of one‑person‑one‑vote democracy and makes it nearly impossible for the poor, indebted, or rooted to participate on equal footing. Building public policy around such rails risks entrenching de facto plutocratic microstates alongside or even inside the republic.[3][2]
Lobbyists are steering Congress toward industry‑written rules.
With record $18M‑plus lobbying in half a year, and dozens of firms entering the influence game, the crypto lobby is pressing for exactly the legal regime network‑state builders want: stable, lightly regulated private currencies, CFTC‑dominated oversight, and a ban on public digital alternatives (like a CBDC) that might embed democratic constraints. This is a textbook case of regulated entities writing their own rules, not of neutral technology policy.[6][10][5]
Public digital money could meet legitimate needs without secessionist side effects.
If the U.S. wants faster, programmable, interoperable payments, it can pursue:

A carefully designed public or quasi‑public real‑time payments system or CBDC with democratic oversight, privacy protections, and explicit civil‑rights guarantees.
Regulated, bank‑linked digital accounts that are subject to elections, administrative law, FOIA, and judicial review.
These approaches deliver many of the efficiency benefits that crypto promises but without handing critical monetary and identity rails to private, secessionist‑inclined actors.

Democracy must not underwrite tools built to escape it.
Supporting crypto as a primary financial rail, in light of the network‑state agenda, means subsidizing a technological pathway for wealthy actors to exit from democratic obligations—taxation, labor standards, environmental rules—while retaining all the protections of U.S. nationality and markets. A democracy that voluntarily empowers an infrastructure of private, borderless, minimally accountable “states” is eroding its own sovereignty.[2][3]

On this analysis, a democracy‑protective stance would be:

Freeze further legal expansion of crypto’s role in core payments and banking until there is a clear firewall between legitimate, regulated uses and explicitly anti‑democratic, network‑state projects.
Oppose bills that favor private stablecoins over a public digital dollar, especially CBDC bans pushed by self‑interested lobbyists.[10][6]
Channel innovation into public and cooperatively governed systems rather than private, token‑gated polities.

The U.S. may reasonably tolerate crypto as a niche speculative asset, but it has strong reasons not to endorse or entrench it as foundational infrastructure—because that infrastructure is already being weaponized, conceptually and practically, to build post‑democratic network states.[1][4][3][2]

Sources
[1] Balaji Srinivasan on the Network State: Takeaways From His Talk at … https://evertas.com/news/balaji-srinivasan-on-the-network-state-takeaways-from-his-talk-at-eth-denver/
[2] We need network societies, not network states https://www.cip.org/blog/network-societies
[3] The Network State by Balaji Srinivasan — How To Start a Digital … https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/the-network-state-by-balaji-srinivasan-how-to-start-a-digital-country
[4] The Network State https://thenetworkstate.com
[5] Crypto Industry Is Spending More on Lobbying Than Ever – Sludge https://readsludge.com/2025/07/23/crypto-industry-is-spending-more-on-lobbying-than-ever/
[6] Crypto lobbying skyrockets under Trump; 27 firms file first-ever … https://thehill.com/business/5418639-crypto-lobby-trump-stablecoin-bill/
[7] Senator Gillibrand Calls for Clear Rules on Digital Assets and Firm … https://freedomforallamericans.org/gillibrand-digital-asset-rules/
[8] US Crypto Tracker Legislative Developments – Latham & Watkins LLP https://www.lw.com/en/us-crypto-policy-tracker/legislative-developments
[9] Gillibrand Statement On House Passage Of The Genius Act https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/gillibrand-statement-on-house-passage-of-the-genius-act/
[10] Wall Street faces a reckoning in Washington as crypto influence grows https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/23/banks-crypto-influence-lobby-washington-republicans-industry-00520995

Presidio National Park Freedom City

The Presidio is legally part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), just like Alcatraz, and its long, layered history that should make it one of the least plausible and most controversial candidates for a “Freedom City.”wikipedia+2 And yet it is the primary target for Trump’s 10 Freedom City proponents.

Where the Presidio fits in the park system

The Presidio of San Francisco sits at the south end of the Golden Gate Bridge and has been part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area since 1994, managed jointly by the National Park Service (NPS) and the Presidio Trust.nps+2
GGNRA includes Alcatraz Island, Fort Point, Muir Woods, Ocean Beach, Marin Headlands, and other units; the Presidio is one of these units and is also a National Historic Landmark District.npshistory+2

In park terms, Presidio and Alcatraz sit under the same GGNRA umbrella, even though Presidio has its own special management structure.

History of the Presidio

Key phases:presidio+3

Indigenous era: The land was home to the Yelamu, a local group of the Ramaytush Ohlone people.
Spanish period (from 1776): Founded as a Spanish military garrison on September 17, 1776, as the northernmost outpost of New Spain in western North America, supporting Mission Dolores and defending the bay.wikipedia+2
Mexican period (1821–1846): After Mexican independence, the Presidio became a Mexican military post for about 24 years.nps+1
U.S. Army period (1846–1994):
- Seized by the U.S. during the Mexican–American War in 1846; became the main Army post guarding the West Coast.
- Hosted major commands and generals (Sherman, Pershing, others); oversaw campaigns in the West and the Aleutians.
- Fort Point (at the base of the Golden Gate inside the Presidio) became a key 19th‑century coastal fortification.
- Intensively used in World War II as a headquarters, deployment, and training hub for Pacific operations.npshistory+2
National park era (since 1994): The base closed in 1994; it was folded into GGNRA and entrusted partly to the Presidio Trust, which has rehabilitated over 80% of the buildings and 60% of landscapes for housing, offices, and public uses.presidio+1

Current (non–Freedom City) plans for the Presidio

Outside the Freedom City talk, the Presidio has a clear, incremental plan: preserve, adapt, and lightly infill, not erase.sfchronicle+2

The Presidio Trust is restoring historic buildings and landscapes and leasing them for housing, offices, cultural uses, and hospitality, to generate revenue that keeps the park “beautiful, safe and clean…with no entrance fees, forever.”presidio
A recent example: in 2025 the Trust advanced plans for the first new ground‑up housing in 20 years—a 196‑unit, six‑building apartment complex on a 4.6‑acre site in the former Letterman General Hospital district.sfchronicle
- The project replaces non‑historic 1970s buildings with low‑scale structures designed to match the Presidio’s utilitarian, military vernacular.
- Units are mostly studios and 1–2 bedrooms, intended to diversify a housing stock that is currently dominated by 3‑ to 5‑bedroom family units.
- The stated goals: add residents, restore a historic district, and strengthen the revenue base that supports the park.presidio+1

Planning documents stress: preserve the historic district, repair underused areas, enhance trails, and keep the campus pedestrian‑oriented and park‑like. None of this resembles wholesale redevelopment into a tabula‑rasa “Freedom City.”presidio+1

Why the Presidio is compelling for visitors

For an architect:presidio+2

Cohesive military vernacular: simple, utilitarian barracks, officers’ quarters, and support buildings in consistent colors and proportions.
Adaptive reuse case study: historic structures turned into housing (Presidio Landmark), offices (Letterman Digital Arts Center), inns, and museums while maintaining district coherence.
Urban design in a park context: careful insertion of new low‑rise housing and paths into a protected cultural landscape.

For a historian:presidio+3

Continuous military history from Spanish empire to U.S. Cold War.
Material record of U.S. expansion, wars with Native peoples, Pacific wars, and the evolution of U.S. coastal defense (Fort Point, gun batteries, command posts).
Rich archives and interpretive exhibits on Ohlone history, Spanish colonization, Mexican governance, and U.S. Army operations.

For other visitors:

Trails, overlooks, and beaches with views of the Golden Gate Bridge, the Bay, and the Pacific.
Cultural sites like the Walt Disney Family Museum, the Presidio Officers’ Club, public art, and varied event programming.wikipedia+2

It’s both an outdoor recreation area and a living museum of layered urban and military history.

Freedom City talk and opposition

There is no formal federal decision to designate the Presidio as a Freedom City, but it has been floated in think‑tank and op‑ed circles as a potential site; this has already sparked pushback in the Bay Area.

An opinion piece in December 2024 asked whether San Francisco should build a Trump “Freedom City” in the Presidio, explicitly raising the idea of replacing a large portion of the park with Paris‑style mid‑rise housing for up to 120,000 residents.reddit+1
Local commentary (including urbanist and YIMBY circles) has been sharply divided:
- Some argue that, in a severe housing crisis, even the Presidio should be densified.
- Many others—including people who normally favor up‑zoning—call the idea “utterly ridiculous,” stressing the Presidio’s historic and park value and urging that infill focus on vacant city lots instead.sfchronicle+1

So while there is not yet an organized national campaign specifically branded “Stop the Presidio Freedom City,” there is already a vocal local movement in San Francisco public discourse opposing the idea of wiping out or radically densifying the Presidio for a Freedom City–style project. The existing Presidio Trust plan—small infill, historic rehabilitation, park revenue sustainability—functions as a de facto alternative vision.reddit+1

Would all structures be removed for a Freedom City?

The think‑tank Freedom City concept, as applied to the Presidio, is loosely sketched and not an adopted plan. However, the logic of that concept is large‑scale redevelopment, not surgical infill:

Freedom City advocates speak of bringing “Paris‑like density” and accommodating ~120,000 residents in six‑story buildings across much of the Presidio.sfchronicle+1
At that scale, maintaining the Presidio primarily as a historic park and military district becomes incompatible; large numbers of existing structures would need to be removed or radically altered, and open landscapes heavily built over.

By contrast:

The actual Presidio Trust projects (like the 196‑unit Letterman district infill) explicitly replace only non‑historic 1970s structures and preserve the overall historic pattern; they retain the park identity and National Historic Landmark status.sfchronicle+1

So if the Presidio were truly designated as one of ten Freedom Cities under an aggressive interpretation of federal authority, it would almost certainly mean:

Extensive demolition or overbuilding of existing structures,
Fundamental alteration of historic landscapes, and
A sharp break with current NPS/Presidio Trust policy.

Right now, however, that remains a speculative scenario. The active, implemented plan is the Presidio Trust’s slow‑build, preservation‑centered program—not wholesale replacement with a Freedom City.presidio+2