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 American Civil War, the federal Fugitive Slave Acts were ignored by Northern states, an example of political non-cooperation.
The major power lever that could be used in soft secession is if 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.[7][8] These states, which generally are blue states governed by a Democratic Party majority, could leverage finances to exert influence over the federal administration, i.e. a Republican administration seen as hostile to their interests.[9]
Description
The idea of blue states pursuing soft secession has emerged as part of an effort to counter the Trump regime.[10][11] 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.[12]
In soft secession, a wealthy blue state could retain billions of dollars for its own use rather than send the tax revenue to the federal government.[13] 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.
County level
State level
Both state and county levels
History
In October 2025, Cook County’s top judge signed an order barring ICE from arresting people at court, barring the civil arrest of any “party, witness, or potential witness” while going to court proceedings, including inside courthouses and in parking lots, surrounding sidewalks and entryways.[14] In October 2025, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed the “ICE Free Zone” executive order, prohibiting federal immigration agents from using any City-owned property in their ongoing operations in Chicago.[15]
In October 2025, 15 states and territories formed a Public Health Alliance to counter the absence of federal leadership by tracking disease outbreaks, issuing guidance, buying vaccines, etc.
Members of the Public Health Alliance include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the state of Washington.
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.[16]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
