It's Time for Americans to Start Talking About "Soft Secession"
Blue states are finally learning what red states have known all along: you don't need federal permission to govern.
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."
Weekly, SCOTUS is showing that something is legal when Trump wants it, and illegal when he doesn't. How does a government function under these circumstances?
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."
Currently, Massachusetts sends $4,846 more per capita to the federal government than it gets back. New Jersey and Washington are in the same position, bleeding thousands per person annually. Over five years, New York alone contributed $142.6 billion more than it received. Meanwhile, red states pocket $1.24 for every dollar they send to Washington. Blue states are essentially paying red states to undermine democracy.
This economic reality gives blue states leverage they've only begun to explore. California has accumulated $76 billion in reserves. The Bank of North Dakota, profitable every year since 1919, offers a model for state banking that could reduce federal dependence. When Trump threatened to cut funding from Maine over transgender sports policies, Governor Janet Mills had 22 other Democratic governors ready to stand with her, collectively representing the majority of America's economic output.
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey told MSNBC her state police would "absolutely not" help Trump's deportation efforts. She's not bluffing. In Printz v. United States (1997), Justice Scalia wrote that the federal government "cannot require states and localities to carry out its immigration policy." The anti-commandeering doctrine, reinforced in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), means states can't be forced to implement federal programs.
The legal foundation for soft secession was written by conservative justices who never imagined blue states would use it. Yale Law Professor Heather Gerken calls it "uncooperative federalism." States don't have to actively resist. They can simply refuse to help. And without state cooperation, much of the federal government's agenda becomes unenforceable.
We've seen this playbook work before. Northern states' personal liberty laws made the Fugitive Slave Act virtually unenforceable between 1780 and 1859, with only 330 slaves returned despite federal law. More recently, cannabis legalization has spread to 41 states despite federal prohibition, forcing Washington to essentially give up. When 25 states refused to implement REAL ID requirements starting in 2007, they delayed enforcement by nearly two decades.
A case in Washington state shows just how far this has gone. The state Attorney General is now seeking an injunction against Adams County Sheriff for cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, arguing he's violating state law. The sheriff faces a choice: follow federal directives or state law. Increasingly, state officials are choosing their states.
Eight states have already enacted State Voting Rights Acts that exceed federal protections. Twenty-two states have implemented automatic voter registration. Colorado has created what election security experts call the gold standard: risk-limiting audits with paper ballot requirements.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who successfully sued Trump during his first term, promised she's "ready to fight back again." During Trump's first term, Democratic attorneys general led more than 130 multistate lawsuits against the administration and won 83 percent of them.
Texas has been running this exact playbook for years. Operation Lone Star achieved an 87% reduction in border crossings through state action alone, regardless of federal immigration policy. Nearly 46% of U.S. counties have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries.
Blue states are finally learning what red states have known all along: you don't need federal permission to govern.
Pritzker has his staff exploring how to force Apple and Google to disable location tracking for anyone crossing into Illinois for medical procedures, preventing any digital trail that could be subpoenaed. Multiple governors are studying whether they can legally deny federal agents access to state databases, airports, and even highways for immigration enforcement. The discussions, according to sources, have gone as far as evaluating state authority to close airspace to federal deportation flights. States are creating pharmaceutical stockpiles, climate agreements, immigration policies. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has secured 209 electoral votes. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative's 11 states have reduced emissions by 50% while the federal government rolled back climate regulations. The U.S. Climate Alliance's 24 governors represent 60% of the American economy.
California doesn't wait for Washington anymore. Neither does New York. Or Illinois. They're building functioning governmental systems that operate independently of federal authority.
"Really, we have no idea what's coming down the pike," Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, chair of the Democratic Governors Association, admitted to CNN. That uncertainty is why states are preparing for everything. Multiple governors have been running tabletop exercises behind closed doors for months, with state attorneys general and other relevant officials. One participant described a December session where they walked through scenarios of federal troops being deployed to blue states.
The preparations are specific and practical. Draft lawsuits sit ready in what officials call "brief banks." States are identifying which federal funds they can afford to lose. They're studying their executive powers and state constitutions. They're building coalitions that transcend traditional partisan lines. Pritzker claims some Republican governors have quietly expressed interest in collaboration, though he won't say which ones, leaving observers to wonder if he's protecting sources or bluffing.
"Democrats in Congress, even if they really want to do things, what you can do in the minority is quite limited," strategist Arkadi Gerney observed. "But these governors have the opportunity to actually run their states very differently from how the president is running the country."
The paradox of American federalism in 2025: 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.
We're not heading toward another Fort Sumter. We're watching something else: states quietly walking away from each other. Blue states will protect abortion rights, support organized labor, and protect individual rights. Red states will allow Christian theocracy, suppress wages, and criminalize free speech, and destroy healthcare. The federal government becomes a hollow structure that states have a moral impreative to ignore.
Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, who won reelection in a state Trump carried by 31 points, insists "the concept of common ground and common sense is what this country is looking for." But common ground requires both sides to show up. And increasingly, they're not.
The phrase "soft secession" makes Democrats nervous. They prefer "resistance" or "federalism" or any other euphemism that doesn't acknowledge what's happening. But when democracy fails, when fair elections become impossible in certain states, when federal funds are withheld as political punishment, states don't have many options left.
The infrastructure is built. The legal precedents are established. The money is there. Blue states have spent two years sharpening these tools. Next week, the governors meet again. The agenda, according to three sources, includes a discussion of whether to coordinate state tax policy to offset federal cuts.
As blue states prepare to deny federal agents access to their databases, their highways, maybe even their airspace, the soft secession isn't coming. It's here.
If you found this article insightful, check out my book "Conservatism, America's Empathy Disorder" for a deeper exploration of how we got here and why some states have given up on the concept of shared humanity altogether.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment