That stops it from being Free, which is freedom 0. From GNU.org:
A program is free software if the program’s users have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.
What you’re talking about is changing Free software to be non-Free. No thanks.
These are FOSS projects, not open source. They’d no longer be FOSS and that would be bad. Freedom 0 is important.
Its possible to add free for all except US govt and that does not stop it from being free for the rest of the world.
That stops it from being Free, which is freedom 0. From GNU.org:
What you’re talking about is changing Free software to be non-Free. No thanks.