#soft secession

Dan Rather at Steady:

Here’s hoping you are ready to pay attention, my Steady friends. You are about to read some ideas that may seem far-fetched, even radical, especially for Democrats. But the dissolution of our great democracy is happening faster than most rational Americans thought possible. Time to be calm and steady, yes, but also time to think tough and be smart.

For many who oppose Donald Trump and his race toward authoritarianism, the lack of a coordinated national effort to counter him has been frustrating to say the least. We face some tough truths. Democrats have virtually no power — not none, but not much. Trump holds the White House and both houses of Congress and rules his party with intimidation and actionable threats. The dearth of Republicans willing to stand up to his illegal measures is testament to that fact. He’s also got the Supreme Court eating out of his hand.

But Trump is not the all-powerful behemoth he believes himself to be. He is a very unpopular president with an even less popular agenda. Eight months into his second term, no modern president has been as unpopular as Trump, except for Trump the first time around. A majority of the American people don’t just dislike his policies — he is underwater on everything from immigration to the economy — but they deeply dislike how he is governing. All this means Trump is vulnerable if congressional Democrats can find an effective way to fight back. They will have that opportunity in the next couple of weeks. Back in March, Congress passed, with the help of Senate Democrats, a continuing resolution that funded the government for six months. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was vilified by many in his party for capitulating to Trump and getting him the votes he needed. Schumer had his reasons, but six months later, those reasons no longer hold water as the September 30 deadline looms.

The Republican-controlled Congress has three options: pass a full-year appropriations bill, which is extremely unlikely; pass another continuing resolution, for which they again would need votes from Senate Democrats; or shut down the government. Democrats are once again between a rock and a hard choice: fund Trump’s illegal authoritarian regime, or stand against it by shutting it down.

If they support funding, they will have the leverage to get measures into the continuing resolution that are popular with the American people, such as restoring Medicaid and food assistance funding, curtailing overreach by the Department of Homeland Security, and reinstating due process, for starters. But even if those provisions are in the CR, this Congress and this administration have proven they are not to be trusted to follow the law.

[...] If Democrats decide to vote against a new CR, the government will run out of money, causing a shutdown. This is where it gets interesting.

Ezra Klein in The New York Times brings a new argument and a new reasoning to this debate: “[J]oining Republicans to fund this government is worse than failing at opposition. It’s complicity. If there’s a better plan than a shutdown, great. But if the plan is still nothing, then Democrats need new leaders.” Klein is someone to whom Democrats in Washington listen. He’s finally saying enough is enough. Democrats should not be party to Trump’s lawlessness. He says (and the record bears him out) that Trump is corrupting the government the way the Mafia corrupts industries. To be effective, Democrats need a plan — one that would have the support of a majority of Americans. Shutting down the government is not something that should ever be taken lightly. Many government workers will be furloughed. National parks will close. Government payments will be delayed. Federal court proceedings will be disrupted. And Trump will blame Democrats for a debacle of his own making.

For national Democrats, who have virtually nothing to lose, it is an ace up their sleeve when it seems like Trump holds all the cards, according to Klein. For state Democrats, it’s a different and arguably rosier picture. Their multiple efforts are focused on navigating and circumventing the administration’s harmful policies, rather than trying to stop Trump.

[...] Some are calling these efforts “soft secession,” though that term makes more than a few Democrats uneasy. Secession is unconstitutional. And so far no one is suggesting any state unilaterally secede — except Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has said she wants a “national divorce.” Part of the quiet discussion of “soft secession”— or as Yale Law Professor Heather Gerken calls it, “uncooperative federalism”— is economic leverage. Most blue states are considered “giver” or “donor” states, meaning they provide more to the federal government in taxes than they receive in services. And conversely, many red states are “recipients” that are subsidized by the blue state tax base.

Democrats in both Houses of Congress should play hardball on the federal budget by shutting down the government to stop the Trump Regime’s lawless actions.

See Also:

Public Notice (Paul Waldman): It's time for Democrats to show some spine

Robert Reich: Should Democrats Shut the Government?

The Signorile Report (Michelangelo Signorile): Democrats should not vote to fund Trump's fascism

Stancil Culture (Wil Stancil): "You can't detain someone for being Latino" is a law worth shutting down the government for

Since the election, I have watched the blue governors with interest. I subscribe to Chris Armitage because I like how he thinks, and I especially like this one (link in comments if you would like to read and possibly subscribe)

Stuff like this goes into what I call a "hope bucket," which is filling slowly, but steadily.

****

Chris Armitage: It’s Time for Americans to Start Talking About “Soft Secession”

Behind closed doors, blue state leaders are planning. They’re war-gaming scenarios where federal agents show up and continue to transgress further and further past what is “legal.” Daily the courts are showing that that something is legal when Trump wants it to happen, and illegal when he doesn’t. How does a government function under these circumstance?

For many state Attorney Generals and Governors, the legal briefs are already drafted. The strategy sessions have been running since December. “We saw this coming, even though we hoped it wouldn’t,” former Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum told The 19th days after Trump’s inauguration.

This is what American federalism looks like in 2025: Democratic governors holding emergency sessions on encrypted apps, attorneys general filing lawsuits within hours of executive orders, and state legislatures quietly passing laws that amount to nullification of federal mandates. Oregon is stockpiling abortion medication in secret warehouses. Illinois is exploring digital sovereignty. California has $76 billion in reserves and is deciding how to deploy it. Three sources on those daily Zoom calls between Democratic AGs say the same phrase keeps coming up, though nobody wants to say it publicly: soft secession.

Not the violent rupture of 1861, but something else entirely. Blue states building parallel systems, withholding cooperation, and creating facts on the ground that render federal authority meaningless within their borders.

The infrastructure for this resistance already exists. Twenty-three Democratic attorneys general now gather on near-daily Zoom calls at 8 AM Pacific, which means the East Coast officials are already on their third coffee. They divide responsibilities and share templates for lawsuits they’ve been drafting since last spring.

California Governor Gavin Newsom called state lawmakers into a special session later this year to protect the state’s progressive policies, while Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker launched Governors Safeguarding Democracy, seeking to unify state-based opposition to Trump’s agenda. Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, describes preparations so thorough that challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship order required only to “cross the T’s, dot the I’s, press print, and file.”

From the August 18, 2025 essay:

Qasim Rashid at Let's Address This:

The only question Democratic Governors, Mayors, and County Presidents should be asking is this: When will we coordinate to enact our Soft Secession from the Federal Government? In August, journalist Christopher Armitage wrote an excellent piece titled “It’s Time For Americans To Start Talking About Soft Secession.” You can read it in full (linked below). Briefly, he summarizes the paradox of American federalism in 2025 as follows:

[“The same constitutional structure that allows red states to ban abortion permits blue states to stockpile abortion pills. The same Tenth Amendment that lets Texas deploy its National Guard to the border prevents Trump from commandeering state police for deportations.”]

In this piece I argue that we are far past the time to simply talk about soft secession. We must act upon it immediately. It is the moral, ethical, and yes legally right thing to do. The Federal government has ceased to function for the public good. It is currently shut down with no sign of reopening. Some 40 million Americans face starvation as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is suspended. Congress continues to funnel tax breaks to billionaires and weapons manufacturers. And Mike Johnson’s House has been in session for only 12 of the last 97 days. Thus, it is time for Democratic State and local governments to respond with soft secession by withholding federal taxes—and instead spend those funds on their own residents. This must continue until the Federal government can ensure it will uphold human rights and human dignity for all people in this country—as the Constitution obliges. But because the current Federal government cannot or will not fulfill its obligations to the American people, then we must say it clearly—it is time for Soft Secession.

What Is Soft Secession?

In a phrase: nonviolent noncooperation. Soft secession is when states and cities refuse to cooperate with a derelict or illegitimate federal government—not through violence or formal separation, but through the reassertion of local sovereignty. For example, States that protect abortion access even as the federal government refuses to act. Cities that deny ICE access to their property. States that pass stronger gun safety and minimum wage laws than federal standards. But the problem is, these are all still reactive measures—steps taken only after the harm done. We now need proactive soft secession: policies that anticipate and recognize federal failure and act before lives are lost or rights are stripped. Why should states have to wait for their residents to starve due to lack of SNAP funding, when they can act proactively to prevent the starvation in the first place? When Washington cannot or will not perform its basic obligations, states not only have the right but the sovereign duty to act. It is time for Democratic states to move from defensive posturing to proactive protection—to use their constitutional authority to safeguard their residents’ economic security and human rights with soft secession.

Mark Alfred at NOTUS:

President Donald Trump explicitly said his administration had been cutting and would continue to cut “popular Democrat programs” during the ongoing government shutdown, an admission that his administration was wielding its power to punish his opponents. “We’re only going to cut Democrat programs,” Trump said Thursday at a televised Cabinet meeting. “I hate to tell you, I guess that makes sense, but we’re only cutting Democrat programs. … We’ll be cutting some very popular Democrat programs that aren’t popular with Republicans, frankly, because that’s the way it works.” The president did not share his definition of “Democrat programs,” but Trump and his allies have repeatedly suggested they’ll inflict pain on Democrats over their votes against government funding. Last week, the administration sought to strip billions of dollars’ worth of energy programs from Democratic-led states while leaving similar ones intact in Republican-led states.

“The shutdown has been, you know, pretty damaging. I mean, not yet, because it’s early, but it gets a little bit worse as it goes along, and we’ll be making cuts that will be permanent.” Trump said. “They wanted to do this, so we’ll give a little taste of their own medicine.” Red states are expected to feel the impact of some of the administration’s energy program cuts even if they avoid direct cuts to their programs. Some of the programs already targeted by the Trump administration have bipartisan support, with members urging the president directly to avoid making such cuts.

Clara Jeffrey at Mother Jones:

In 2013, venture capitalist Tim Draper launched a “Six Californias” ballot initiative. The upshot was that with some 40 million people, more than the population of the 20 smallest states combined, California was too big, too diverse, to be “efficiently” governed. So why not, Draper argued, break it up into six new “startups,” a.k.a. states? Instead of two senators, we erstwhile “Californians” would get 12.

Draper’s scheme was part of a long tradition—since California was admitted to the Union as part of the Compromise of 1850, there have been more than 220 proposals for it to divide or secede—but derided as a Silicon Valley ploy to create a libertarian deregulation zone. (Tellingly, the Bay Area state was to be named “Silicon Valley.”) And aside from the feasibility of making it happen, state and federal constitution-wise, people worried that it would cleave four rich populous states from two poorer rural states (fair) and weaken Democrats’ voting share in the Senate (in retrospect, nah). Draper’s measure gleaned valid signatures from some 753,000 people—more, it must be said, than the populations of America’s three smallest states—but in California, that wasn’t enough to get on the ballot. After the 2016 election, which put the anti-majoritarian provisions of the US Constitution very much front of mind, Draper came back with a simpler proposal—three Californias, or Cal 3. This initiative got enough signatures to head to voters, but the day before the 2018 ballots were to be printed, the state Supreme Court blocked the measure—what about things like existing water treaties, the justices worried—and Draper eventually gave up.

While his motives were murky, Draper tapped into something now excruciatingly felt. The assignment of two senators per state, no matter its population, was always a deeply flawed (and deeply racist) proposition. But the unfairness has only gotten more acute. As my colleague Ari Berman has noted: “In 1790, the country’s most populous state, Virginia, had 12 times as many people as its least populous, Delaware. Today, California has 67 times the population of Wyoming. Fifteen small states with 41 million people combined now routinely elect 30 GOP senators; California, with 39 million residents, is represented by only two Democrats.” The Golden State is the fourth-largest economy in the world but doesn’t have political clout proportional to its population, let alone to our status as a global cultural, technological, and agricultural juggernaut. In case it’s not obvious why I’m taking a leisurely drive down a byroad of California electoral history, let’s review some of the abuses and usurpations that President Donald Trump has visited upon us.

The most vicious of those abuses has been over immigration. On June 6, at the urging of his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, ICE escalated raids in California, hitting farms, factories, construction sites, and schools, separating families and detaining undocumented people, legal residents, and even citizens. Federal agents arrested and hospitalized David Huerta, the head of one of the state’s most powerful unions. When protests erupted, Trump jumped at the chance to federalize the National Guard against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wishes—something that hasn’t been done since LBJ acted to protect civil rights protesters from segregationists. Border czar Tom Homan threatened to arrest Newsom, which Trump agreed was a “great” idea. When a reporter asked for what crime, Trump responded that his “primary crime is running for governor” and called protesters “insurrectionists.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson chimed in that Newsom should be “tarred and feathered.” Then Trump sent Marines into LA. When California Sen. Alex Padilla—who was voted for by more Americans than 18 GOP senators combined—tried to ask Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem questions at a press conference, federal officials knocked him down and cuffed him. One-quarter of California’s population are immigrants, and the continual attack on them—and anyone who is brown—is a moral injury that plays out in our streets and our feeds day after day after day.

But the direct assaults on California are by no means limited to raids and those protesting raids. Trump has dragged his feet about providing federal aid to address the devastation of LA’s wildfires, saying he’d release it only if we pass a voter-ID law; taken our own National Guard off fire lines; and made bizarre claims about sending us water for the fires from the Pacific Northwest. He’s canceled our car efficiency and emissions rules, attacked our renewable energy plan, and zeroed out federal money for rooftop solar and high-speed rail. He’s revoked federal grants to UCLA over spurious charges of antisemitism, then gave the school a list of demands, including a $1 billion settlement and the end of ­gender-affirming care in its hospitals. Amid all of that came Trump’s demand that Texas engage in midcycle redistricting to give the GOP five extra congressional seats that he says it’s “entitled to.” Newsom, both legitimately enraged and sensing an opportunity to help his presidential ambitions, has rallied California Democrats to mount a ballot initiative to temporarily set aside its nonpartisan redistricting commission and draw congressional maps to counterbalance Texas’ scheme.

We will vote on that initiative in November, and my bet is it will pass. But California, and the country, cannot await the outcome of the midterms to repel Trump’s siege on democracy. More drastic action is required. Unfortunately, especially as Trump berates generals and admirals on “the enemy within” and suggests they use US cities as “training grounds,” it’s all too easy to imagine a world where the commanders of California’s military bases are compelled to choose sides. (If you think such scenarios are out of the realm of possibility, ask yourself why he and Pushup Pete Hegseth have been purging the brass.) Our boundaries of oceans and mountains and deserts, our copious natural resources, and our technological prowess make a return to an independent California Republic more feasible than it might be for other states. But in advance, and hopefully in lieu, of that, it’s time to start applying our economic muscle.

[...] Unified action could further preserve what the federal government is destroying, law professors Aziz Z. Huq (University of Chicago) and Jon D. Michaels (UCLA) wrote in the Los Angeles Times. Blue states could create “large regional research consortia; re-create public-health and meteorology forecasting centers servicing member states; and finance pandemic planning.” (A proposal to do much of this is underway in Sacramento.) With the Justice Department doing little more than acting as Trump’s goon squad, states could also “mobilize interstate criminal task forces to track and prosecute corruption by politicians, ­lobbyists and government contractors (who invariably, when violating federal laws, run afoul of myriad state laws, too).” Ditto consumer and environmental investigations—the cost of which could be offset by fines, even as they lay the groundwork for federal prosecutions if America is ever restored to sanity.

But we need to be clear-eyed: Such a restoration may not come in time. So far, this year has been marked by a collective action problem. Media conglomerates, law firms, universities, banks, CEOs—too many powerful institutions and individuals have failed to meet the moment. This is why people all over the country, desperate for pushback against Trump’s autocracy, have embraced Newsom’s redistricting plan, whatever their broader opinions of him. With Trump provocatively sending troops into blue cities, and using recision and the shutdown to claw back congressionally appropriated funds from blue states, it’s time to turn the tables on him. Soft secession, powered by the presidential ambitions of multiple blue-state governors, could, should it come to that, be the proving ground of a new confederacy. Hopefully the threat of CalExit or a new Union will be enough. But that extreme measures might be necessary to ensure that American democracy shall not perish from the Earth is becoming more self-evident with every passing day.

I agree with this Mother Jones piece: it’s time for blue states to consider a soft secession.

See Also:

For Such A Time As This (Andra Watkins): Pain for Gain: Soft Secession and a Red Recession