Many observers are struggling to keep up with the new Trump administration’s dizzying pace of executive orders and policy initiatives, so it’s no surprise that some big ideas have fallen by the wayside so far. But one of Trump’s best proposals from the campaign trail deserves more attention: building ten new “Freedom Cities.” As Trump described it, the cities, erected on federal land, would spark unprecedented innovation in fields like aerospace, construction, and manufacturing. Images of flying cars and next-generation factories instill the idea with futuristic flair.
The practicalities of Freedom Cities, however, remain undefined. Little serious policy work has been done to articulate what they are or how to implement them. I suggest that Freedom Cities be seen as a mechanism to experiment with policy and accelerate American dynamism.
Would-be builders of Freedom Cities should look to an unlikely example for inspiration: Shenzhen, China. The site of a Chinese experiment with capitalist reform, Shenzhen’s success tells us something about how to loosen America’s bureaucratic paralysis from the bottom up.
In the early 1980s, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping made an historic decision. The Chinese government was in the process of establishing special economic zones (SEZs), which delegated authority, including the right to establish markets in labor, land, and capital, to municipal governments. Rather than placing the first SEZ in one of China’s well-established urban centers, Deng designated Shenzhen—an unassuming backwater, just north of Hong Kong—to test unprecedented market-oriented reforms.
Over time, Shenzhen became a laboratory for free-market ideas. Its proximity to Hong Kong, already a global trading hub, offered a ready flow of foreign capital, technology, and knowledge. Local officials were authorized to make decisions that deviated significantly from the uniform socialism that characterized most of China at the time. In this sense, Shenzhen was not just an economic experiment but an administrative one, testing whether localized autonomy could work better than centralized bureaucracy.
The results were swift and far-reaching. Shenzhen experienced spectacular growth, sprouting high-rise buildings and industrial parks in a matter of years. The city pioneered the creation of labor, land, and capital markets in China. Its success in attracting foreign investment spurred Beijing to replicate the model elsewhere, launching new SEZs across the coast. These enclaves propelled China’s transformation into one of the world’s largest economies.
Today, the United States faces its own problems of administrative sclerosis, problems not so different from those Shenzhen addressed. A sprawling federal bureaucracy—formed over decades by political mandates, crisis responses, and worker capture—has grown so large that it often moves independently of the elected government, frustrating policymakers and the public alike.
Consider America’s byzantine approach to infrastructure development. Regulations like the National Environmental Policy Act require lengthy impact assessments for virtually any significant construction project. Though NEPA’s original intent was to protect ecosystems and communities, the protracted timelines and exhaustive studies often add years to essential projects like highways, rail systems, or renewable energy installations. As a result, the United States struggles to modernize its infrastructure, leaving crumbling roads and bridges.
Government hiring faces similar bottlenecks. Complex civil-service classifications, strict credentialing requirements, and an interminable hiring process scare the best and brightest out of government jobs. Even once inside, public servants encounter layers of necessary approvals and risk-averse cultures that can stifle novel solutions.
Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is tackling these obstacles head on. But its prospects remain unclear—it lost its first fight with Congress over a funding package. DOGE chief Elon Musk is a brilliant entrepreneur but lacks experience in government and could be underestimating the challenge. Bureaucracy tends to be self-perpetuating and will fight ferociously to sustain itself and its privileges.
If DOGE is a sledgehammer, Freedom Cities can be a scalpel. Much as in Shenzhen, they could be sites of innovation uprooting bureaucracy: specific areas where the government suspends or relaxes some regulations, offers incentive structures to businesses, and builds new infrastructure.
Historically, states have functioned as “laboratories of democracy.” As the federal government has expanded, however, the scope of state and local experimentation has decreased. And broader cultural resistance to change has yielded conservatism in local governments, best exemplified by the NIMBY movement. Freedom Cities could revive American federalism, forming new laboratories for democracy and experimentation designed to solve the problems of the twenty-first century.
New regulatory autonomy is especially important for expanding high-tech sectors. The Federal Aviation Administration, for instance, bans drones that fly out of sight, a major impediment to developing a domestic drone industry. Freedom Cities could offer dedicated airspace for drone deliveries, passenger-drone prototypes, and other autonomous systems, enabling innovators to refine technologies and gather data more quickly.
A similar dynamic plays out in biotech. The Food and Drug Administration, though important for patient safety, can delay life-saving medical innovation. Creating “fast-track zones” within Freedom Cities might let researchers begin clinical trials under localized oversight, as long as basic safety thresholds are met and data are collected rigorously. This could encourage breakthroughs in precision medicine that can then move into the broader market.
In nuclear energy, the stakes are even higher. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is famously slow and cautious—for example, waiting over a generation after Three Mile Island to approve new nuclear power plants. A Freedom City could serve as a testing ground for advanced reactors, developing stringent safety protocols within a well-defined geographic area. Successful projects could be scaled nationwide, hastening America’s move toward clean energy.
Ultimately, these ambitions hinge on innovators having enough regulatory freedom to move quickly without sacrificing safety. Investors will be more willing to finance daring ventures if they see a clear path through the regulatory thicket. So, an environment that encourages collaboration among industry, government, and local communities could propel the United States into global leadership in these emerging industries.
In many ways, Shenzhen’s rise from village to industrial hub exemplifies how autonomy can embolden entrepreneurship and accelerate innovation. Freedom Cities should replicate these energies in America. Administrative freedom, focused incentives, and a willingness to take risks can yield huge rewards.
At least in principle, American dynamism, national defense, and innovation are backed by both parties. By avoiding a confrontational approach with entrenched interests, Freedom Cities offer the possibility of more immediate action that can scale up over time as it proves itself. The United States has a long history of local experimentation. It’s time to use that approach to seize modern opportunities.
Photo by George Rose/Getty Images