Soft secession

Last updated

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]

Contents

Blue and red states as of the 2024 US presidential election Presidential results map 2024.png
Blue and red states as of the 2024 US presidential election

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.

Description

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.

States and counties that have passed Second Amendment sanctuary (or other pro-Second Amendment) laws or resolutions as of February 17, 2023. Localities within counties that have adopted such resolutions are not displayed in this map.
.mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{}
County level
State level
Both state and county levels Second Amendment Sanctuary counties.svg
States and counties that have passed Second Amendment sanctuary (or other pro-Second Amendment) laws or resolutions as of February 17, 2023. Localities within counties that have adopted such resolutions are not displayed in this map.
  County level
  State level
  Both state and county levels

Criticism

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]

See also

References

  1. "MSN". www.msn.com. Retrieved 2025-08-30.
  2. Massachusetts becomes first state to impose its own vaccine coverage rules Axios, Maya Goldman, September 4, 2025
  3. "States Can Curb Federal Power through "Soft Secession"". Mises Institute. 2023-07-13. Retrieved 2025-08-30.
  4. Baker, Mike (August 22, 2025). "Soft Secession vs. Soft Fascism: How States Quietly Resist Federal Overreach". Law Offices of Michael D. Baker.
  5. Blundell, Dean (2025-08-27). "The Quiet Breakaway: How US Governors In 12 States Are Practicing Coordinated "Soft Secession" From Trump's America— Legally". Dean Blundell. Retrieved 2025-08-30.
  6. "War Declared: States Secede from the Union!". Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park (U.S. National Park Service). Retrieved 2025-08-30.
  7. "A Cannabis Conflict of Law: Federal vs. State Law". www.americanbar.org. Retrieved 2025-08-30.
  8. "Would a soft secession dividend outweigh the risks?". The Societarian. 2025-08-30. Retrieved 2025-08-30.
  9. Armitage, Chris (2025-08-18). "It's Time for Americans to Start Talking About "Soft Secession"". Medium. Archived from the original on 2025-08-20. Retrieved 2025-08-30.