A soft secession to end Trump’s presidency

It's already legal, but can it be done?

Before we get into it: if you’re receiving this via email, thank you. You’re already subscribed. If you’re not, now is the time.

Talk of a “national divorce” comes up every few months, usually from confused Republicans or right-wing influencers who imagine a glorious red utopia free from the supposed tyranny of Washington DC and the federal government. The fantasy goes like this: red America walks away, blue America collapses under the weight of its own liberalism, and everyone finally gets the country they deserve.

The problem is, it’s not happening.

Actual secession is a legal and logistical impossibility. The U.S. Constitution provides no pathway for states to leave the Union. The Civil War and the Supreme Court case Texas v. White in 1869 settled the matter definitively: states cannot unilaterally secede. Even if they could, the practical challenges would make the idea collapse before the first “Republic of Texas” flag finished printing.

Who keeps the military bases? Who assumes the national debt? What happens to the interstate highway system, the power grid, or the water compacts that sustain entire regions? Secessionists love to imagine independence; they rarely explain how they’d disentangle the electrical infrastructure that literally keeps the lights on.

And then there’s the human element. Tens of millions of Americans live in politically “opposite” states, blue voters in red states and vice versa. To actually divide the country would mean uprooting tens of millions of people, redrawing borders, and reshuffling entire economies. The population swap alone would make Brexit look like a tidy divorce.

But what if blue states didn’t need to secede at all? What if they just stopped paying for everyone else?

Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: for decades, blue states have been net donors to the federal government, while most red states have been net takers. In other words, the blue states pay the bills, and the red states cash the checks.

In 2022, New Jersey got back just $0.91 for every federal tax dollar it sent to Washington. New York got $0.93. California got $0.99. Meanwhile, Mississippi received $2.53 for every dollar it sent, West Virginia $2.36, and Alabama $2.02. The pattern is unmistakable: the states shouting loudest about “freedom from Washington” are often the ones most dependent on Washington’s money.

That’s where the idea of a soft secession comes in, not a dramatic breakup, but a quiet, calculated withdrawal. Instead of tanks and trenches, it’s spreadsheets and budget lines. Blue states could start to scale back their participation in certain federal programs, decline to chase every federal grant, and craft policies that make federal aid less necessary.

No declarations, no fireworks, just a slow financial unplugging.

The effect would be devastating for red states. Without a steady flow of federal dollars, many would face enormous budget shortfalls, forcing cuts to education, healthcare, infrastructure, and emergency services. Unlike blue states, they don’t have diversified economies or large tax bases to make up the difference.

It’s the ultimate irony: the regions most obsessed with independence are the ones least capable of surviving without the support of the system they despise.

This isn’t about vengeance. It’s about reality. If red states truly believe in self-reliance, they should be ready to prove it. And if blue states ever decided to call that bluff, they could do it quietly, legally, and effectively.

It wouldn’t take a civil war to end Trump’s second administration, just a soft secession.

Of course, it’s not simple. Pulling off even a partial fiscal decoupling would come with serious hurdles.

Most federal dollars come with strings attached. Want highway funds? You have to meet federal speed-limit standards. Want Medicaid funding? You have to cover the populations Washington says you must. Blue states can’t have it both ways; they can’t reject federal control while still accepting federal money.

The workaround is straightforward but painful: say “no thanks” to the cash. That’s perfectly legal, but it means the state has to replace that money with its own tax revenue. It’s expensive in the short term but strategically freeing in the long term, especially for states wealthy enough to stand on their own.

In certain areas, state governments can’t override federal law. A state can’t nullify federal air-traffic rules or environmental protections. But what it can do is refuse to help implement them. States can decline to enforce certain programs or withdraw logistical support. That doesn’t stop the federal government, but it slows it down and makes the cost of administration skyrocket.

It’s a passive-aggressive approach, not rebellion, but resistance through bureaucracy.

Many federal programs involve agreements between states on water use, rail networks, or disaster response. Dropping out of those compacts can cause chaos. But again, there are workarounds. States can renegotiate the deals, fund them themselves, or build regional networks without federal oversight. In practice, this means states like California or New York could run their own regional climate initiatives or infrastructure plans with neighboring blue states, bypassing Washington altogether.

A soft secession wouldn’t look like Fort Sumter. It would look like California saying, “We’ll handle our own environmental policy.” It would look like Massachusetts funding its own public health programs (which it partially already does, with notable success), or New York declining to compete for certain federal grants. Over time, these decisions would amount to a re-balancing of power, a quiet decentralization that shifts financial leverage away from the federal government and back to the states that can afford it.

Politically, that’s the real nightmare for Trump and his allies. Their movement feeds on grievance, on the idea that coastal elites are leeching off the heartland. But the numbers tell the opposite story: the heartland depends on those elites more than it likes to admit.

If that dependence were ever exposed through action, through blue states simply stepping back, it would reveal how hollow the right’s “independence” rhetoric really is.

So maybe a national divorce isn’t necessary. Maybe it’s enough for blue states to stop subsidizing the illusion.

In the end, a soft secession wouldn’t be about leaving America. It would be about reminding everyone who’s really keeping it running.

---

We’re reaching over 100 million people every month across YouTube, podcasts, Substack, and beyond. But algorithms can change. Platforms can fold. And when that happens, this newsletter is how we stay connected.

If you’re not yet a paid subscriber, please consider joining.
If you’re already paid on one platform, consider supporting us on both Substack and our website.

You can subscribe on our website and right here on Substack.

And if you’re really on fire, consider gifting a subscription—we’ve got thousands on our waiting list ready to read, watch, and fight back.

MAGA cancel culture is real—and it’s coming for the press. But they can’t cancel what they don’t control.

Let’s keep building.

—David

PS: Can’t contribute right now? No problem. You can support us for free by subscribing on YouTube, listening to our audio podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, or become a free subscriber to this very Substack. Every bit counts.

---

I did a breakdown on this topic over on YouTube. Check it out below: