Under the Trump administration, the United States is asserting itself as the champion of global free speech online. The hypocrisy is staggering.

In response to the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act (OSA) driving censorship across Britain, the United States is stepping in with a new initiative to promote free speech abroad. Last month the U.S. State Department unveiled Freedom.gov, a website, likely using a built-in virtual private network (VPN), that will allow foreign nationals to use the internet unfettered by local content restrictions or government surveillance. Led by Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, Freedom.gov is intended to counter censorship abroad.

The problem is, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the U.S. government the power to surveil noncitizens without a warrant. Why would young voices in the UK replace their own government’s suppression and censorship with the American’s? If the U.S. is serious about free speech around the world, they should let Section 702 expire in April.

This is not to say Freedom.gov can’t be a powerful tool for free speech, or that the administration’s concerns are not legitimate. The UK government’s use of the Public Order Act and the OSA’s “False Communications Offence” to arrest and charge comedians and parents is extraordinarily undemocratic. And while supporters will say that these are isolated incidents without broader repercussions, one 2025 study of 548 UK residents showed worry about punishment was a significant driver for individuals to self-censor. This effect was particularly pronounced among conservatives and the non-political.

The administration’s plans to push back on this censorship should be celebrated. But it’s unclear how exactly Freedom.gov would achieve this goal. One method that has been suggested is the use of a built-in VPN to reroute internet traffic to the U.S. This would allow users to bypass content restrictions mandated by the UK and encrypt their web traffic. By returning anonymity to users and allowing them to freely express themselves online without fear of arrest or censorship, Freedom.gov could be a boon in the fight for freedom of expression around the world.

The problem is that Section 702 sends the message to the rest of the world that they aren’t allowed to surveil and silence their citizens, but we are.

Allowing this measure to expire would act as such a potent signal. It is one of the executive branch’s most powerful legal tools for law enforcement operations, but it is also one of its most abused. Whether it’s the Biden administration using it to surveil a U.S. Senator, or the NSA deploying it to conduct mass surveillance of all communications flowing in and out of the U.S., Section 702 represents the same type of illiberal and antidemocratic surveillance that is bringing the OSA under fire.

The US should lead the world in allowing and encouraging free expression. Freedom.gov could be an extraordinary project demonstrating a commitment to these goals. The best way to earn the trust of users is for Congress to end the provision that has fed the American mass surveillance regime for decades. When Freedom.gov launches, it should be a monument to the American principles of free speech, not hypocrisy.

The post If America Cares About Free Speech Abroad, Let Section 702 Expire appeared first on Free the People.

ChatGPT Health and Amazon’s AI Health Assistant are each powerful tools in their own right. But they’re limited only to promoting a healthy lifestyle and managing chronic disease so they may fit into the FDA’s “general wellness” regulatory exception. Despite AI’s consistent outperformance of most doctors in diagnostic capability and medical licensing exams, current FDA regulation bars them from the “diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment, or alleviation of disease or injury.” In other words, Americans have been given access to a good, but imperfect, health product, the direct improvement of which would be a legal risk for AI companies. This enforced stagnancy represents a fundamental rot in the regulatory approach of the FDA.

We know this because the FDA regulates according to intent. When general purpose chatbots like ChatGPT or Claude were released, they weren’t intended for use in a healthcare context. This put them outside of FDA regulatory purview and inadvertently gave millions of Americans access to history’s most powerful tool to understand and manage their own health.

If these AIs had been intended for medical use, they would have faced years of regulatory review by an FDA that has grown increasingly hostile to medical innovation. They may never have been released to the public.

AI companies are now facing the problem that any attempt to improve their products in the “diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment, or alleviation of disease or injury” may cause them to fall under FDA regulation. The FDA could then require them to spend years and millions of dollars awaiting regulatory approval.

The result is AI health tools like ChatGPT Health or Amazon’s AI Health Assistant: powerful tools shackled to fit into the FDA’s “general wellness” exception.

The modern FDA operates under the reality that any change to the status quo, any new drug that turns out to be ineffective, risks bringing political attention to the FDA. In order to protect itself, the FDA does next to nothing and requires companies to spend millions to get their drug approved. The result is that countless Americans die each year awaiting the cures stuck in the FDA approval process. And because FDA inaction causes it to appear as though these patients died from disease, the agency avoids any adverse attention.

AI has effectively drawn back the curtain on FDA regulation. If the FDA continues its existing regulatory philosophy, it will soon require AI companies to strip any medical functionality from their consumer products. Because of AI’s widespread adoption, the harms of this type of approach will be laid bare to the American public. By contrast, continuing the status quo will bar AI companies from resolving flaws and improving their products for medical use.

The best way to save Americans from harm is to allow for AI companies to freely compete to create the safest product for patients within the medical context. If the FDA won’t deregulate and allow AI companies to innovate, Congress should. Deregulating medical AI is a necessary first step. But as American health care costs continue to balloon while our life expectancies stagnate, it’s clear we cannot continue to allow the FDA to bar medical innovation.

The post Health AI Exposes Regulatory Rot at the FDA appeared first on Free the People.