The Department of Homeland Security is launching a website called Freedom.gov. Let that sit for a minute.

In what I assume they see as a modern echo of Radio Free America, a division of DHS is rolling out a platform designed to let people around the world access internet content their governments have restricted. 

Does anyone else see the irony in the administration that killed Radio Free America, Radio Free Europe and I think Radio Free Marti, is now firing Freedom.gov up?

On paper, it sounds noble. America exporting freedom. Helping people break through digital walls. You can almost hear the oppressed masses in Paris, Berlin, London and Rome shouting USA, USA, USA.

But this isn’t 1955. We’re not beaming shortwave radio over the Iron Curtain.

And the way this story is being framed tells you everything about the moment we’re living in.

Same Story, Three Headlines

The Guardian leads with Europe:

The US is building a website that will allow Europeans to view blocked content.

They point out that this isn’t really about China’s Great Firewall or Iran’s broad shutdowns. Instead, they note that the “censorships” being targeted are European laws like the Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act. Hate speech and illegal content rules. That’s the battlefield.

Fox News takes a different angle:

For Fox, it is about a platform to bypass internet censorship in China, Iran and beyond (what no Russia?).

Also interesting is in the Fox story the State Department gets top billing. Homeland Security hosting it? Less emphasized. Europe shows up later in the piece, but only after the “repressed nations” framing is established.

Then Engadget:

No romance. No Cold War glow. They say flat out that the site will allow Europeans to view hate speech and other blocked content.

Same site. Three realities.

That alone should tell you something.

What It Actually Is

So what is Freedom.gov anyway? It says it will be a website and an app. Strip away the marketing language and it sounds like it behaves a lot like a giant VPN. 

It’s open source. It’s anonymous. A State Department official told Fox, “Anyone can see how it works. No one, including us, can track or identify you.”

That’s another bit of irony courtesy of the U.S. government.

In a country where surveillance concerns are real and growing. Especially when people returning from abroad have faced scrutiny over social media activity. Doubly especially when free speech debates at home are anything but settled.

But wait there’s more. The Department of Homeland Security, the agency tasked with protecting the homeland, is now hosting a tool to help foreign nationals bypass their own governments’ content laws.

Does that make us safer? Or does it make us feel righteous?

In case you need to be reminded, those aren’t the same thing.

Radio Free America? Not Exactly

If the goal is to beam alternative viewpoints into authoritarian regimes, fine. That’s a debate worth having.

But let’s not kid ourselves.

The people in China or Iran who truly want uncensored internet access are already savvy. VPNs aren’t new. Circumvention tools aren’t new. The cat-and-mouse game has been going on for years. You’re not teaching anyone in Tehran how to tunnel through a firewall.

So who is this really for?

If it’s primarily aimed at countering European content regulations, that’s a very different policy move. And if it connects to last year’s Munich scolding about Europe not being permissive enough toward certain political speech, then let’s call it what it is. That’s geopolitics. Not humanitarian tech.

Stones and Glass Houses

Yet more irony, we’re exporting “freedom of access” while at home speech boundaries are under constant pressure. Platforms moderate. Governments investigate. Agencies monitor. Citizens worry about digital footprints.

Yet we’re telling the world: trust us, we can’t track you and we want you to be free.

Maybe our own citizens would appreciate that level of confidence.

If we’re going to champion digital liberty abroad, we’d better make sure we’re consistent at home. Otherwise the branding feels kind of thin.

Is This Homeland Security’s Job?

CISA and Homeland Security have serious responsibilities. Critical infrastructure. Nation-state threats. AI-driven cyber attacks. Supply chain vulnerabilities. Real-world risks that don’t care about headlines.

Is building and operating an open-internet portal for foreign citizens the highest and best use of that machinery?

On my dime?

If this is strategic, explain the strategy. If it’s symbolic, admit it’s symbolic. If it’s political, don’t wrap it in Cold War nostalgia. Because from where I sit, we have bigger problems to solve.

If you want to export ideas, fine. Do it transparently. Debate it honestly.

But this isn’t 1950. And Homeland Security playing shortwave DJ for the world feels like mission drift at best. And at worst? A waste of time, money and goodwill. Don’t we have better things to do?