Blue States: It Is Time For Soft Secession
Democratic run State and County Govts contribute 71% of the United States economy, and it's past time they flexed their muscle to protect our humanity
The only question Democratic Governors, Mayors, and County Presidents should be asking is this: When will we coordinate to enact our Soft Secession from the Federal Government?
In August, journalist Christopher Armitage wrote an excellent piece titled “It’s Time For Americans To Start Talking About Soft Secession.” You can read it in full (linked below). Briefly, he summarizes the paradox of American federalism in 2025 as follows:
“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.”
In this piece I argue that we are far past the time to simply talk about soft secession. We must act upon it immediately. It is the moral, ethical, and yes legally right thing to do. The Federal government has ceased to function for the public good. It is currently shut down with no sign of reopening. Some 40 million Americans face starvation as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is suspended. Congress continues to funnel tax breaks to billionaires and weapons manufacturers. And Mike Johnson’s House has been in session for only 12 of the last 97 days.
Thus, it is time for Democratic State and local governments to respond with soft secession by withholding federal taxes—and instead spend those funds on their own residents. This must continue until the Federal government can ensure it will uphold human rights and human dignity for all people in this country—as the Constitution obliges. But because the current Federal government cannot or will not fulfill its obligations to the American people, then we must say it clearly—it is time for Soft Secession. Let’s Address This.
What Is Soft Secession?
In a phrase: nonviolent noncooperation. Soft secession is when states and cities refuse to cooperate with a derelict or illegitimate federal government—not through violence or formal separation, but through the reassertion of local sovereignty. For example, States that protect abortion access even as the federal government refuses to act. Cities that deny ICE access to their property. States that pass stronger gun safety and minimum wage laws than federal standards.
But the problem is, these are all still reactive measures—steps taken only after the harm done. We now need proactive soft secession: policies that anticipate and recognize federal failure and act before lives are lost or rights are stripped. Why should states have to wait for their residents to starve due to lack of SNAP funding, when they can act proactively to prevent the starvation in the first place?
When Washington cannot or will not perform its basic obligations, states not only have the right but the sovereign duty to act. It is time for Democratic states to move from defensive posturing to proactive protection—to use their constitutional authority to safeguard their residents’ economic security and human rights with soft secession.
States Have an Economic Obligation to Protect Their Residents
Every state government has both a moral and constitutional obligation to safeguard the welfare of its people. That obligation does not disappear during a federal shutdown. When the federal government stops feeding hungry families or blocks already-approved infrastructure funds, the states must step in. They are not only justified—I argue they are economically and legally obligated to do so. For example, the Constitution to my home State of Illinois declares this in its very Preamble:
We, the People of the State of Illinois - grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors - in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social and economic justice; provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois.
How can any of the bolded provisions be fulfilled if the 2 million Illinoisans on SNAP—more than 15% of our population—suffer in poverty, economic injustice, and stunted development due to lack of food? They cannot. Allowing Illinois’ residents to starve while Washington hoards Illinois’ tax dollars is an abdication of Constitutional duty. And this injustice becomes even more extreme when you consider that blue states prop up red states and our entire national economy. Consider the numbers:
From 2018 to 2022, individuals and organizations from blue states contributed nearly 60% of all federal tax receipts. Red states contributed only 40%.
This amounts to a $1 trillion transfer payment from blue to red states—or $4,300 per capita.
On the county level, blue counties make up 71% of the U.S. economy, while red counties make up just 29%.
In short: however you slice it, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, Social Security, Education grants—blue states are bankrolling red states, and red states are actively undermining democracy in return. That’s not federalism. That’s economic extortion.
When the federal government refuses to deliver on its end of the bargain—when it blocks food aid, infrastructure funds, and disaster relief to punish political opponents—states have the right to withhold their payments and redirect that money to protect their own residents. It’s not revolt. It’s survival.
The Supremacy Clause Has Limits
Critics will cry that this violates the Supremacy Clause. It does not. Article VI of the Constitution holds that federal law is the “supreme law of the land”—when there is a conflict. But that clause has limits, and it cuts both ways.
The federal government cannot commandeer state governments, which is one reason states have laws that differ from each other on property, marriage, divorce, employment, etc—a principle the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed.
The federal government cannot compel states to regulate private activity, such as forcing local police to carry out immigration arrests on behalf of ICE.
The Supremacy Clause does not prevent states from setting higher standards of protection or welfare.
For example, the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. But 34 states have passed higher minimum wages, including California at $16.50/hour. The federal government cannot force California to lower its wage to the federal level—even though, technically, that’s a conflict.
By the same logic, if Washington refuses to release food or infrastructure funds, a state can—and must—use its sovereignty to protect its residents. Why? Because states have passed into law higher standards of protection and welfare, and have sovereign authority to act upon its higher standards. This is not defiance; it’s the literal fulfillment of the Tenth Amendment’s guarantee of state powers.
“Won’t Republicans Do the Same Thing?”
They already have. Red states have nullified federal immigration enforcement, rejected Medicaid expansion, and ignored environmental laws. So first, Democrats have nothing to fear—because the precedent already exists. Far from fear, Democrats should be willing to put up a fight to protect the basic civil rights of all people.
And second and more importantly, understand that the moral intent here is diametrically the opposite of how Republicans weaponize state’s rights. Republicans weaponize state sovereignty to strip people of rights—to ban books, criminalize abortion, and target LGBTQ Americans. Democratic states should use sovereignty to expand rights—to feed the hungry, build infrastructure, and protect the environment.
That distinction matters. One seeks domination; the other, dignity. This isn’t a violation of the Supremacy Clause—it’s a fulfillment of it. It’s using the same constitutional powers Republicans exploit to instead strengthen the safety and rights of residents. Why aren’t Democratic Governors, Mayors, and County Presidents already doing this?
Soft Secession Has Precedent—And It Works
Finally, soft secession is not a new or radical concept. It’s part of America’s historical and constitutional DNA. Some of the most transformative moments in U.S. history were acts of non-cooperation with federal failure:
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: Northern states like Vermont passed legislation refusing enforcement of The Fugitive Slave Act, and Wisconsin’s Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s: Many cities and states refused to enforce segregation before federal intervention finally banned racial segregation.
LGBTQ rights of the 2000s: Massachusetts recognized same-sex marriage a decade before the Supreme Court did.
Marijuana Legalization of the 2010s: States like Colorado and California legalized cannabis despite federal prohibition—and now Congress is finally catching up.
Each began as a defiant act of soft secession—and each expanded access to justice for millions proactively, rather than waiting for the Federal government to catch up.
The Path Forward
Soft secession is not about abandoning the Union. It is about defending it. It’s about preserving the lives, rights, and dignity of those the federal government has callously abandoned or cruelly targeted due to their immutable characteristics. Blue states generate the majority of the nation’s wealth, and they have the power to ensure that wealth serves their people first. When Washington breaks its social contract, states must honor their own. When you have financial power for good and you do not use it, you are as complicit as those doing the harm.
So to Democratic Governors, Mayors, and County Presidents I say this. Protecting the rights of your residents is not rebellion. It’s responsibility. It’s the reassertion of state sovereignty to prevent famine, preserve infrastructure, and protect democracy from collapse.
The question is no longer whether Democratic leaders of blue states should act—it’s why haven’t you already?
Read the excellent piece by
on Soft Secession Here.
Thank you so much for this. I've seen comments here and there about how blue states should hold back taxes from the federal government, but I didn't think it was possible or legal. I'm glad to know that it is, and thank you for listing some of the precedents. It didn't click in my brain that all your examples are tied to soft secession until I read this. Very informative. We should start movements in blue states calling for this. It's the only way to protect us. I just hope Pritzger doesn't lose the election to a republican.
Yesssss. No more free ride for states that are terrorizing our fellow Americans!