![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Soft secession is a political and legal theory in the politics of the United States describing a state's gradual withdrawal from cooperation with the US federal government. This approach effectively withdraws from federal cooperation without formally declaring independence, which is illegal under US law. The major power lever in soft secession is when a state normally giving more in taxes to the federal government than it receives back would cease to send tax revenue to the federal government. [1] These states, which generally are blue states governed by a Democratic Party majority, could leverage finances to exert influence over the federal administration, particularly a Republican administration seen as hostile to their interests. The concept extends beyond finances, including political non-compliance on issues such as abortion access, immigration enforcement, vaccination policy, [2] cannabis legalization, and firearm ownership. [3] Recent conservative US Supreme Court decisions emphasizing federalism and states' rights have inadvertently provided the legal arguments that both conservative and liberal states can use to justify political non-cooperation with federal authority. [4]
Formal and soft secession differ in key ways. Unlike formal secession, which is unconstitutional, soft secession is non-violent and does not require absolute untethering between states and the federal government. [5] "Soft" secession as a term distinguishes it from unlawful and armed attempts to secede from the United States altogether, as the Confederate States of America did in the 1860s, precipitating the American Civil War. [6] In the years before the Civil War, the federal Fugitive Slave Acts were ignored by Northern states, an example of political non-cooperation.
The idea of blue states pursuing soft secessions has emerged as part of an effort to counter the Trump administration. In theory, wealthy blue states could leverage financial power to mitigate the impacts of Trump's federal government on issues ranging from healthcare and research to immigration and policing.
The challenge states have posed to federal cannabis law through legalization is considered by some a minor example of soft secession, as cannabis remains illegal at the federal level. [7]
In soft secession, a wealthy blue state would retain billions of dollars for its own use rather than send the tax revenue to the federal government. [8] The savings would allow greater state-level expenditure on social programs, public education, clean energy, infrastructure improvements, etc. Soft secession would increase state power and independence over the US federal administration.
Conservative areas of the US have enacted Second Amendment sanctuary laws to stop the enforcement of federal firearm laws.
Some critique soft secession as having costs that overshadow potential benefits. When proponents argue that blue states should cease subsidizing red states, one major downside pointed out is that disrupting the economy would not just harm the federal government or Republican states, but also blue economies. [9]