FIRST ON FOX: The State Department has finalized a new privacy-preserving app intended to give users worldwide access to what officials describe as the same uncensored internet available to Americans, even in countries with strict online repression such as China and Iran and as Europe enacts tighter content oversight. 

The platform, Freedom.gov, will roll out «in the coming weeks,» Fox News Digital has learned. 

It will operate as a one-click desktop and mobile application compatible with iOS and Android devices.

MARCO RUBIO VOICES CONCERN THAT AMERICANS MAY SOMEDAY BE ARRESTED FOR SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS WHEN VISITING EUROPE

The app is open-source and includes built-in anonymity protections. 

The initiative comes as governments worldwide tighten control over digital speech, from China’s «Great Firewall» to sweeping internet shutdowns in Iran and new regulatory regimes in Europe. U.S. officials say Freedom.gov is designed to offer a technological counterweight — exporting what they describe as America’s open internet model to users living under censorship.

«In the interest of total transparency, we made Freedom.gov completely open-source. But we also made it completely anonymous,» a State Department official said. «Anyone can see how it works. No one, including us, can track or identify you.»

According to the official, the application does not log IP addresses, session data, browsing activity, DNS queries or device identifiers that could be used to personally identify users.

Specific details about the app’s underlying technical structure were not disclosed.

Governments with sophisticated censorship systems historically have moved quickly to block or criminalize circumvention tools. Authorities can restrict app downloads, block domains, throttle traffic or impose penalties on users.

Whether Freedom.gov maintains accessibility in heavily restricted environments may depend on its technical architecture and its ability to adapt to countermeasures.

Iran protests death toll rises as Rubina Aminian joins hundreds allegedly killed by government forces. (MAHSA / Middle East Images / AFP via Getty Images))

The rollout comes amid intensifying global battles over internet governance, as governments across Europe and beyond move to assert greater control over online content.  (Dominika Zarzycka/SOPA Images/LightRocket)

The initiative is being led by Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers, who oversees the State Department’s Digital Freedom office.

«Freedom.gov is the latest in a long line of efforts by the State Department to protect and promote fundamental freedoms, both online and offline,» Rogers said. «The project will be global in its scope, but distinctly American in its mission: commemorating our commitment to free expression as we approach our 250th birthday.»

Reuters previously reported that the State Department was developing the Freedom.gov platform.

The rollout comes amid intensifying global battles over internet governance, as governments across Europe and beyond move to assert greater control over online content.

GOOGLE’S DECISION TO WALK BACK BIDEN-ERA YOUTUBE ACCOUNT BANS HAILED AS ‘HUGE DEVELOPMENT’ FOR FREE SPEECH

In Europe, regulators have tightened oversight under new laws aimed at policing digital platforms. The European Union’s Digital Services Act expands government authority over major platforms and requires removal of illegal content, including hate speech and extremist material, with regulators empowered to impose steep fines for violations.

In the United Kingdom, the Online Safety Act imposes new obligations on platforms to address harmful and illegal content and includes age-verification requirements for certain services. Critics warn the measures risk incentivizing aggressive content removal and expanding government influence over lawful speech online.

Elsewhere, restrictions have been more direct. Russia recently moved to ban WhatsApp, further consolidating state control over digital communications.

China maintains the world’s most sophisticated online censorship system, widely known as the «Great Firewall,» blocking foreign news outlets and social media platforms while promoting a state-controlled digital ecosystem.

Iran repeatedly has imposed sweeping internet shutdowns during periods of unrest. During protests, government blackouts have cut citizens off from global communications.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The Wall Street Journal previously reported that thousands of Starlink satellite internet terminals were covertly brought into the country following a blackout, in an effort backed by the United States to help dissidents bypass censorship. 

Iranian authorities have attempted to jam satellite signals and criminalized possession of such equipment. Satellite connectivity — which does not rely on domestic telecommunications infrastructure — has emerged as one of the few viable lifelines during shutdowns.

Sara Goldring fue la primera mujer en entrar a la Bolsa de Valores de Montevideo (BVM), ubicada en el casco histórico de la capital de Uruguay. Viajaba dos veces por año para formarse en Estados Unidos y se convirtió en una gurú de las finanzas, que sabía todos los secretos del mundo de los negocios. A muchos de los que confiaban sus ahorros en ella les hizo ganar fortunas, de acuerdo a un perfil de esta empresaria publicado por El Observador.

Goldring sabía que, por ejemplo, cuando los operadores bursátiles de Wall Street se iban a almorzar era el momento de comprar. Ella estaba horas monitoreando en su mesa seis pantallas de Bloomberg con los precios de las principales acciones. Almorzaba en su escritorio. No quería perderse el minuto a minuto.

Desde ese lugar Goldring también vio cómo se derrumbó.

Goldring pasó de ser la “diosa” –en sus propias palabras– a ser una diabla que ahora enfrenta una pena de prisión de cuatro años acusada de estafar a sus clientes, de acuerdo al pedido del fiscal Enrique Rodríguez. Y también busca llegar a un acuerdo con ellos.

La corredora de bolsa uruguaya –que estaba al frente de Custodia Valores Mobiliarios (CVM)– vio cómo el saldo en las cuentas de sus clientes se desplomaba y decidió esconder esa información. Fue en 2022 que la empresa informó que enfrentaba pérdidas millonarias y una investigación reveló que utilizaba fondos de algunos inversores para compensar las pérdidas de otros.

De acuerdo a su versión, la desvalorización estaba explicada por la debacle que tuvieron durante la pandemia las acciones de empresas que cotizaban en Nasdaq. Y el ocultamiento de esta información llevaron a que Goldring esté imputada por apropiación indebida y ahora deba enfrentar la máxima pena para este delito.

Para el fiscal que sigue el caso, la corredora se apropió de forma indebida de USD 21 millones que pertenecían a los ahorristas.

¿Cómo fue la maniobra? La corredora se amparó en el mandato de libre administración que le habían dado los clientes para vender opciones de put para la cartera de clientes que tenían un perfil agresivo. En los bancos del exterior operaba a través de la modalidad de “cuenta ómnibus” –de varios clientes–, una práctica habitual en el mercado.

La venta de puts es una operación que implica que el comprador adquiere el derecho pero no la obligación de vender un activo, que en este caso eran acciones de empresas que cotizan en bolsas de Estados Unidos. Se trata de una operación que implica un riesgo alto porque, si bien pueden generar importantes beneficios, si el precio de las acciones baja más allá del valor acordado previamente pueden haber grandes pérdidas.

Según el relato del fiscal, los clientes que tenían posiciones en la cuenta ómnibus y que no habían invertido en operaciones put, vieron afectados sus valores porque fueron utilizados “en forma indebida e inconsulta por la acusada para solventar las pérdidas sufridas por los clientes”.

CVM tenía unos 479 clientes, de los cuales unos 120 tenían un perfil inversor moderado y otros cinco un perfil conservador, informó El Observador. Había uno que no había definido su perfil y otros 353 que tenían un perfil agresivo. Algunos pocos clientes tenían fondo de USD 1 millón a USD 2 millones en su cuentas y había otros pocos con USD 50 mil. Pero la media estaba entre los USD 100.000 y los USD 300.000.

Tras la acusación del fiscal Rodríguez, la ahora ex corredora de bolsa busca dar por cerrado el tema e intenta acordar con los damnificados para devolverles un 60% del total de los activos que les pertenecían.

La propuesta cuenta con el visto bueno de la Liga de Defensa Comercial –la interventora de la empresa–, al tiempo que algunos de los damnificados ya han adherido al acuerdo. Otro grupo de inversores se niega por completo. Los plazos originales que había establecido la interventora vencieron, pero aún se está a tiempo de cerrar un acuerdo porque se desconoce cuándo empezará el juicio oral.

Hasta ahora se ha alcanzado el 60% de las firmas y se requiere una mayoría del 75% de los créditos reconocidos para dar por cerrado el acuerdo. Con esto, el juicio penal se cerraría.

De acuerdo a la versión del medio uruguayo, los inversores que se oponen al acuerdo entienden que esta propuesta solo beneficia a Goldring, que tiene un patrimonio millonario. Pero los cercanos a la vieja corredora señalan que tiene 76 años y que su reputación ya fue dañada.

Los allegados a Goldring estiman que se llegará a cubrir unos USD 13 millones de los USD 21,8 millones de deuda estimada total.

El acuerdo propuesto señala: “Se ofrece asimismo el efectivo propiedad de CVM que resulte una vez cubiertos los pasivos y pagos pendientes (despidos, honorarios, etc), los saldos positivos que surjan concluidos los juicios y abonado el pasivo de United Brokers SA, la otra sociedad propiedad de Goldring, que operaba en zona franca, así como la venta de bienes”.

Pero hay un grupo de damnificados que asegura que se les debe unos USD 100 millones y tienen la esperanza de que en Estados Unidos haya cuentas con más dinero.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh called the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Trump’s emergency tariffs «illogical» in a fiery dissent on Friday and offered a roadmap of alternatives for Trump to attempt to carry out his signature economic policy.

Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said the 6-3 majority cherry-picked ways in which Trump could regulate imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, making what he said was a textualist case that the law already allows similar forms of regulation on imports, including quotas and embargoes. Tariffs are not just in the same category as those but are a «far more modest» alternative to them, Kavanaugh said. 

«If quotas and embargoes are a means to regulate importation, how are tariffs not a means to regulate importation? Nothing in the text supports such an illogical distinction,» Kavanaugh wrote.

Trump last year bypassed Congress and unilaterally levied tariffs on nearly every country in the world by invoking the IEEPA. The president argued that an influx of illicit drugs from China, Mexico and Canada and a trade deficit that has decimated American manufacturing constituted emergencies that justified the tariffs.

SUPREME COURT BLOCKS TRUMP’S TARIFFS IN MAJOR TEST OF EXECUTIVE POWER

The majority held in a 6-3 opinion that while IEEPA allows a president to «regulate importation» during a declared national emergency, the statute does not clearly authorize tariffs, a core congressional taxing power. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that when executive action carries sweeping economic consequences, Congress must weigh in on the matter with unmistakable clarity, alluding to what is known as the major questions doctrine.

Kavanaugh said the Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 upholding a vaccine mandate former President Joe Biden imposed on millions of healthcare workers «strongly supports» upholding Trump’s tariffs. Like tariffs, that executive action also carried major consequences even though Congress did not explicitly mention vaccines in the health and safety statute Biden used to justify his mandate, Kavanaugh said.

In oral arguments in November, Solicitor General John Sauer, appearing on behalf of the government, said tariffs were an invaluable way for Trump to negotiate with foreign partners. Weakening his «suite of tools» by removing tariffs from it was a «bit unusual,» Sauer said.

Sauer also said tariffs were the same as embargoes, which block imports altogether. The solicitor general conceded, though, that tariffs had the «incidental and collateral effect» of raising revenue, but he said their primary purpose was to regulate rather than collect income. Kavanaugh agreed.

«As the [majority of justices] interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China,» Kavanaugh wrote.

AS TRUMP TOUTS TARIFF WINDFALL, BATTLEGROUND STATES SHOULDER BILLIONS IN COSTS

The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (AP/Jon Elswick)

Kavanaugh referenced numerous other statutes he said Trump had in his toolbox, mapping out alternatives in the wake of the high court nixing IEEPA as an option. Kavanaugh said the majority «in essence» concluded that Trump «checked the wrong statutory box.»

Trump, in a speech remarking on the decision, praised Kavanaugh for «his genius and his great ability,» adding he was «very proud of that appointment.»

The president referenced a quote from Kavanaugh’s dissent, saying, «‘Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.’ So think of that … and it doesn’t. He’s right.

«We have very powerful alternatives.»

Kavanaugh also raised a glaring question left unaddressed by the high court’s majority of how the U.S. Treasury could go about refunding companies to the tune of billions of dollars that the government gained from the unlawful tariffs.

JONATHAN TURLEY: SUPREME COURT RULING ON TRUMP TARIFFS COMES DOWN TO A NUMBERS GAME

President Donald Trump shows off non-reciprocal tariff examples. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)

Kavanaugh said of the «serious practical consequences» of outlawing Trump’s ability to use IEEPA to levy tariffs that the refund process could be a «mess» as lower courts are likely to see an influx of lawsuits from business owners looking for their money back.

«The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,» Kavanaugh wrote. «As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’»

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The majority opinion, authored by Roberts, found that IEEPA’s language allowing a president to regulate imports intentionally omits the word «tariff.»

Roberts wrote that the other words in the statute «cannot bear» the same weight as the word tariff, which he said operates like a tax because it allows the government to collect revenue, which he said only Congress can authorize.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Kavanaugh’s dissent, and Thomas also wrote a separate dissent.