loading . . . Soft Secession ### Share this:
* Facebook
* Bluesky
* LinkedIn
* Email
*
I recently came across a lengthy Substack post from _The Existential Republic,_ titled “It’s Time for Americans to Start Talking About ‘Soft Secession.” It was fascinating–and (assuming the accuracy of the reporting) immensely comforting. If even half of the sub-rosa efforts reportedly underway really _are_ underway, the resistance is far more robust than I had imagined.
Evidently, Blue state leaders have been “war-gaming” a variety of scenarios.
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.
Soft, because we aren’t looking at secession Civil War style. This time around–again, according to the post–Blue states are building parallel systems and withholding cooperation. They are 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.
Yale Law Professor Heather Gerken calls this “uncooperative federalism,” an approach that doesn’t require states to actively resist, merely refuse to help. And as the article points out, without state cooperation, much of the federal government’s agenda becomes unenforceable.
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…
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.
I strongly encourage you to click through and read the rest of the lengthy post, which has multiple examples of the ways in which “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.”
Of course, as we repeatedly see, constitutional restrictions mean nothing to our Mad King, and our rogue Supreme Court has signaled a willingness to overrule many of the eminently correct decisions of the lower federal courts. Nevertheless, I found the extent of the coordinated activities of America’s Blue states to be immensely hopeful, especially since the majority of Americans live in those states–and since (as the article also documents) the country’s Red states are economically dependant on Blue state taxpayers.
As the post concludes:
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…
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. https://sheilakennedy.net/2025/09/soft-secession/
