What the Framework of “Freedom Cities” Could Be

This piece was originally published in Daring Greatly.

One of President Trump’s most interesting proposals in his official Agenda 47 platform was the creation of ten “freedom cities” on undeveloped federal lands – each roughly the size of Washington, D.C.

The proposal itself explicitly removes any lands that are “not part of any of our country’s magnificent national parks or other natural treasures,” with the charters awarded based on the quality of the proposals. It’s an exciting development, bolstered by a follow-up promise from President Trump to streamline federal regulations for these cities and make them “true frontiers for the return of U.S. manufacturing.”

In a sense, it’s a complete vindication of Alexander Hamilton’s focus on manufacturing in the early days of the American Republic, but also a unique and underappreciated revival of one of his most ambitious projects: The Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures.

“If by the necessity of the thing, manufactures should once be established and take root among us, they will pave the way, still more, to the future grandeur and glory of America, and by lessening its need of external commerce, will render it still securer against the encroachments of tyranny.” — Alexander Hamilton, A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress

In 1792, then-Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton submitted the Report on the Subject of Manufactures to the United States Congress, a wide-ranging document that formed a core part of his economic program – one he believed was essential for securing the long-term independence of the United States.

Much of it was adopted by successive Congresses over Democratic-Republican objections, but many forget one of the most immediate and important projects that was near-simaltaneous, and also spearheaded by Hamilton: The Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures, or S.U.M, which reflected Hamilton’s desire to promote internal improvements and domestic industry in the United States. The Society was arguably one of the first examples of what we’d now call a public-private partnership in American history – it was also a planned city and could have been one of the first “company towns” as well.

That’s a lot of firsts – but how did it happen?

The Report on Manufactures leaned heavily on government incentives or subsidies to establish manufacturing capabilities inside the United States, particularly those that could be deemed essential for security – like gunpowder. In a writing from 175, The Farmer Refuted, Hamilton touches on the subject by saying: “The welfare, perhaps the existence of Great Britain, as an independent, or sovereign state, depends, upon her manufactures and trade”. The Farmer Refuted goes into detail on the manufacturing limitations placed upon the colonies by Britain – something that no doubt influenced Hamilton’s perception that industry was necessary for sovereignty. The S.U.M, as first established, was one of the first endeavors in the United States to create, or “manufacture”, an industrial site from scratch. Completely from scratch – utilizing undeveloped land to develop a town and all the necessary infrastructure.

The incorporation and charter of the Society was passed by the State of New Jersey and signed by Governor William Paterson, which allowed the corporation to exempt its property from state tax for ten years and from local taxes forever. Not long after, the state bought $10,000 (roughly $330,000 in today’s dollars) worth of capital stock. I imagine the Governor was pleased to hear that the proposed town was to be named Paterson, after his own person. The S.U.M. chose what is now Paterson, NJ mainly for its proximity to New York City and Philadelphia, which were major population, financial, and trade centers in America, but also to utilize the local Great Falls, which was to be used to power mills & other manufactories.

A painting by Peter Waddell illustrating Alexander Hamilton and George Washington pondering over the beauty of the Great Falls.

Hamilton’s goal was lofty, and technically failed in its original purpose – to build and operate their own mills and facilities, populated by a town filled with their own workers – as the Panic of 1792 (along with other instances of mismanagement) drained the corporation of its funds with not enough output. The Society was forced to begin leasing its land, existing mills, and water power to new companies – again, the site was ideal because of its proximity to major financial and shipping centers – and saw a much better return on investment.

Paterson, New Jersey exploded in size throughout the 19th century, and its falls powered 150 years of industry, before companies moved cross-country and overseas in pursuit of better facilities and cheaper costs.

Paterson, NJ was bustling in the late 1800s. The system of canals, roads, and railroads brought in resources and exported products worldwide. Source: Library of Congress

Where are our modern Patersons in the United States? The domestic environment is arguably much, much better than 19th century America, including a more mature corporate and startup culture, investment mechanisms from stock to venture capital and more, and also widespread, underutilized manufacturing facilities left over from before our broader deindustrialization.

I’m not just talking about makerspaces here, or detached incubators (although it seems many incubators are software-focused given our tech saturated age). Where are the honest to God communities based around manufacturing, where private companies, enterprising individuals, local officials, and patrons of the future collaborate and come together for a common purpose?

We’ve already seen the strong but humble beginnings in this vein:

El Segundo, California, with its own storied history in manufacturing and defense production, now serves as a home-base for up-and-coming hard-tech (and many defense focused) companies run by a cadre of ambitious young Americans. These startups are focused on manufacturing real, tangible products, and have amassed millions of dollars in investments to make their dreams possible. The Mayor of El Segundo has been a vocal supporter of these startups as well – which bodes well for their future.

California Forever, a company in Solano County, California, has ambitious plans to rezone agricultural land into a new city. It’s backed by prominent Silicon Valley investors and is ambitious — they promise thousands of jobs for existing residents and millions in new tax revenue for the county — and their website contains testimonials from existing businesses and those that want to move there.

The plan is to create a mixed-use, walkable city (remember the craze about those?). I’d like to point out the districts on the map — there’s room specifically for maker & manufacturing businesses. It might not be manufacturing centric, but the ultimate goal here is to create a new, well-planned, person focused city.

Elon Musk has also publicly toyed with the idea of incorporating “Starbase,” a city that would cover SpaceX’ headquarters in South Texas – and just recently filed paperwork to make it a reality. The prospect of the “company town” is not new and many still exist in different structural forms (see: Disney’s Reedy Creek and the Texas Renfair’s Todd Mission municipality, along with Former NV. Governor Sisolak’s Innovation Zones). The main difference between Starbase and a company town versus the S.U.M. model is the reliance of the community on one major employer – which almost always sparks ethical concerns.

The S.U.M. model promoted a diverse manufacturing workforce and a wide array of companies instead of being dominated by one employer – some may outnumber others, to be sure, but the Society acted as the energy provider & landlord, which would give more protection to residents.

When Donald Trump creates freedom cities, he should not focus on the company-town model, but instead on individual “society” proposals, which in the modern sense could be an association of several companies or wealthier individuals, to propose wide-ranging and multipurposed developments that could benefit from overlapping industry and skillsets. A highly concentrated industrial or manufacturing center would also simplify supply chain efforts and provide centralized location for shipping the produced items.

The federal government could lease the land to these entities for a set period of time, and not only exclude them from some federal permitting laws (starting with the National Environmental Policy Act) but allow additional tax incentives according to pre-approved metrics or development standards.

The local government of the "Freedom Cities” could elect regular citizens to serve on their assemblies or councils, with representatives not just from the chartered associations, but the companies that choose to relocate their business there, and create new, potentially subsidized “makerspaces” for manufacturing start-ups to produce new products without being forced into the hinterlands for cheaper factory space and away from central locations.

This, too, could bring about more innovative and responsive state policy replications, particularly in de-industrialized areas, to both attract investment and fill up their abandoned and cheaper factory space.

We should use this freedom city model to create and test new manufacturing hubs across the country, spread out our capital, and make it cost-effective to set up shop and reinvest in our forgotten towns.