Don’t Listen to Anyone Who Thinks Secession Will Solve Anything | WIREDSkip to main contentMenuSECURITYPOLITICSTHE BIG STORYBUSINESSSCIENCECULTUREREVIEWSMenuAccountAccountNewslettersSecurityPoliticsThe Big StoryBusinessScienceCultureReviewsChevronMoreExpandThe Big InterviewMagazineEventsWIRED InsiderWIRED ConsultingNewslettersPodcastsVideoLivestreamsMerchSearchSearchRyan D. GriffithsThe Big StoryMar 23, 2026 6:00 AMDon’t Listen to Anyone Who Thinks Secession Will Solve AnythingAmericans increasingly fantasize about a divorce between red and blue states—but they dread the thought of civil war. You can’t have one without the other.ILLUSTRATION: JOAN WONG; GETTY IMAGESCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyIt’s become almost like a histamine response: After a shocking national event like the assassination of Charlie Kirk, or Donald Trump’s deployment of the military to Los Angeles last June, mentions of the term “civil war” and calls for secession surge online. This kind of talk flared again in January, when two citizens were shot and killed by immigration agents on the streets of Minneapolis, and governor Tim Walz mobilized the Minnesota National Guard to be ready to support local law enforcement. “I mean, is this a Fort Sumter?” Walz said in an interview with The Atlantic, invoking the battle that sparked the Civil War. In a loopier register, former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura urged the state to secede from the US and become part of Canada. “I think someone seriously should contact Canada and ask them if they’re open to this,” he said.These two statements by men who’ve held the same office pretty well sketch the basic outlines of popular discourse about American fragmentation: Spiraling civil war is the nightmare, tidy secession is the dream. But is it really possible to have one without the other? And what would secession actually look like in the United States?Ever since the 1990s, some Silicon Valley futurists have coolly forecast the crack-up of an obsolete American nation-state—without really specifying any grisly details. And the old meme that jokingly divides North America into a blue “United States of Canada” and a red “Jesusland” has been around since the mid-2000s. But as red and blue America have become more polarized on nearly every issue in the years since, a growing number of people across the spectrum have concluded that a secessionist breakup is indeed the best solution for America’s irreconcilable differences. “We need a national divorce. We need to separate by red states and blue states,” posted then Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia in 2023. “Everyone I talk to says this.” (This was the plot, more or less, of the 2024 hit film Civil War.)Hoping to channel this angst, a smattering of organized independence movements—like California’s Calexit and the Texas Nationalist Movement, among others—have cropped up in recent years and have seen growing support. A 2023 Axios poll showed that 20 percent of Americans favor a “national divorce.” And in a YouGov poll released within days of Trump’s second inauguration, some 61 percent of Californians agreed with the statement that their state would “be better off if it peacefully seceded.”The War MachineFrom Minnesota to the Middle East, WIRED reports from the modern world’s many battlefields.But that’s the rub. The truth is that secession, the process by which part of a sovereign state breaks away to form a new one, is always tortured. Most secessionist projects flop, and about half erupt into violence. When secession does turn out peacefully, as in Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Divorce, it is almost always because there is a nationally distinct and regionally concentrated population that possesses an internal border and some special administrative status that can be used to justify their demand for independence. None of these characteristics hold in the contemporary United States.In reality, red and blue America are intricately intermixed. Political divisions cut not just through states—blue California has millions of Republicans; red Texas, millions of Democrats—but also neighborhoods and even households. An ideologically driven secession scenario would almost inevitably force a dangerous unmixing and re-sorting of Americans. Imagine trying to draw a new map that is coherent yet still satisfies the greatest number of people in a hyper-polarized environment; then imagine a series of security dilemmas, stranded populations, and refugees on the run. This happened when India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947 and when Cyprus was partitioned in 1974; it would probably happen in America too.Many people want to draw an analogy between secession and marital divorce. But where the dissolution of a marriage is covered by civil law, there’s no decided-upon legal framework that governs secession—no procedure, let alone precedent, for dividing the estate. How should national debt be distributed? What about social security? What about military installations and naval vessels? Given the acrimony that would attend an American divorce, we should expect each side to attempt to grab what they can.Moreover, which side in a “divorce” would retain America’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council? A breakaway California, say, would never be able to join the United Nations as a recognized sovereign state as long as the US sits on the council and could veto its membership application. Moreover, if Washington doesn’t officially recognize a breakaway republic, neither will third-party countries like Canada or Mexico, lest they incur the wrath of their powerful neighbor. Consider the enormous coercive power that Trump is already wielding internationally. Now imagine how painful he’d make it for other countries to recognize a breakaway American state.Livestream: The War MachinePhoto-illustration: WIRED Staff; Kyle BergerOn March 26 at 12 pm EDT, a panel of WIRED experts will dissect the defense tech industry’s impact on modern warfare. Submit your questions now.Of course, that’s assuming the divorce is acrimonious. Secessionist groups like to imagine a mutual and amicable parting from the US. But this underestimates the practical, even existential, concerns of the US government. In its 1869 Texas v. White decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the union is “indissoluble” and that there is “no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.” That consent would be hard-won. Since all 50 states are juridically equal, America’s federal structure creates a serious precedent-setting problem where secession is concerned. If California pushed for independence and the federal government gave its blessing, Texas could then demand the same right. One secession could unleash a domino effect that fractures the country into more parts, particularly as states gradually saw diminishing returns to remaining in a shrinking US. The fear of secessionist contagion is one of the reasons that many countries like Russia and Indonesia are quick to clamp down on any secessionist claim as a way to deter all potential movements.Indeed, perhaps the only national authorities that do have a vested interest in supporting secessionist movements are those of the mother nation’s geopolitical rivals. From the perspective of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, the disintegration of American power into multiple, smaller countries, all hostile to one another, would be a victory. Russia has a long track record of boosting American secessionist sentiment, including in Texas and California. One of the early leaders of CalExit, Louis Marinelli, actually moved to Russia in 2016 and helped run the organization from there, even establishing a California “embassy” in Moscow, before breaking ties with the movement under a cloud of negative press. “Calexit was not created by Russia,” wrote Calexit founder Marcus Ruiz Evans in 2019, “but made a series of mistakes in associating with Russia early on.” Even when secession movements are homegrown, rival powers are likely to encourage them.ILLUSTRATION: JOAN WONG; GETTY IMAGESWalz was criticized for hyperbole after his remarks comparing Minneapolis to Fort Sumter. But what happens if tensions between state and federal forces do continue to increase, more protesters and ICE agents are injured and killed, and the security forces on each side clash directly with each other? A 2024 simulation run by the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania concluded that this is exactly how a civil conflict in America could start.Any number of events could continue to escalate polarization, distrust, and political violence in America. But a full-blown secessionist crisis would require a leader or party to champion the cause of independence—someone to articulate an alternative future and rally a substantial portion of the population around that flag.Thankfully, there are no prominent leaders, regional governments, or parties calling for secession today. Due in part to the centripetal pressures created by the American two-party system, there is no real opening for distinctly regional parties to arise—no equivalent to the Scottish National Party or the Parti Québécois. But there are potential secessionist tipping-point scenarios to watch for. Here are two that take off from the moment of a national election, neither of them pretty.First, imagine a disputed presidential election in 2028 or 2032. American politics has continued to deteriorate, and each side has increasingly adopted a “win-by-any-means” approach, with prominent leaders warning of a stolen election since early in the campaign. Now, with all the votes counted, neither side is willing to follow the example of Al Gore and concede a painfully close contest. So both sides claim the presidency and denounce the other. For the first time in its history, the US is torn between two competing chief executives.This bifurcation is accompanied by intense, cycling political violence. Amid growing clamor on the far right for a Red-State America and on the far left for a BlueExit, both presidents choose to declare martial law and demand that the military countermand the orders of their opponent. Months of deadlock finally drive both sides to attempt a brokered division of the country into two ideological main blocs—leading to further fractures and partition-like violence.In the second scenario—a variation on the first—imagine that one of the 2028 presidential candidates is tied to a state or region that already has latent secessionist leanings, like Texas or California. Again, the election results are questionable, and the incumbent party refuses to relinquish the White House and turn over power.This sense that democracy has failed has, in the past, served as a tipping point for prominent leaders in other countries to yield to local pressures and throw their weight behind a secessionist cause. A key moment for Catalonian independistas, for instance, came in 2012 when Artur Mas, the Catalan president, finally joined with secessionists over a constitutional crisis with Spain, galvanizing the movement from fringe to mainstream.In an American scenario where, say, a disenchanted Gavin Newsom chooses secession and throws in with the California Independence Party after an ambiguous national election, the US government would face a crisis. It could permit a referendum for California independence, risking a likely cascade effect and potential dissolution. Or it could deny any attempts at secession and risk violence.Abraham Lincoln called this the choice between dissolution and blood, and he chose blood. Still today, secessionist civil war is the chief cause of violence in contemporary international politics. Advocates for secession think it is a safety valve that will resolve and pacify American political violence. But it’s very much the opposite of that.Let us know what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor at [email protected].CommentsBack to topTriangleThe War MachineHassan Took a Bike Ride. Now He's One of the Thousands Missing in GazaDon’t Listen to Anyone Who Thinks Secession Will Solve AnythingMeet the Gods of AI WarfareWhat Happens When You Can’t Get a Death Certificate in GazaSubmit your questions for our livestream AMA on Big Tech and the militaryRyan D. Griffiths is a professor of political science at Syracuse University. He is the author of The Disunited States: Threats of Secession in Red and Blue America and Why They Won’t Work (Oxford University Press, 2025). ... Read MoreTopicslongreadsWar MachineImmigration and Customs EnforcementDonald TrumpCivil WarRead MoreA Billionaire-Backed Startup Wants to Grow 'Organ Sacks' to Replace Animal TestingR3 Bio has a bold idea for replacing lab animals: genetically-engineered whole organ systems that lack a brain. The long-term goal, says a cofounder, is to make human versions.Emily MullinA Mysterious Numbers Station Is Broadcasting Through the Iran WarFirst heard as US and Israeli strikes on Iran began, the shortwave broadcast has since been traced to a US military base in Germany—but its purpose and its operator remain unclear.Ruchi KumarOur Favorite Budget Earbuds Are Literally $19Do you need a pair of cheap earbuds? These JLabs are the ones.Brad BourqueICE Invades Airports Across the USAgents from ICE are being deployed to over a dozen airports around the country, including New York, Atlanta, and Chicago.Vittoria ElliottPolymarket’s Coming-Out Party in Washington Was a DisasterAt the Polymarket pop-up in DC, attendees were supposed to be able to bet on geopolitical crises in real time with their friends. That didn’t happen.Makena KellyMy Honest Advice on What Laptop to Buy, Having Tested HundredsI’ve been reviewing laptops for over a decade, and this is my sincere advice on how to find the right laptop for you.Luke LarsenThe Rise of the Ray-Ban Meta CreepBetween pickup artists and juvenile pranksters, the wearable device is becoming associated with pests of all kinds.Miles KleeMeet the Gods of AI WarfareIn its early days, the AI initiative known as Project Maven had its fair share of skeptics at the Pentagon. Today, many of them are true believers.Katrina MansonHassan Took a Bike Ride. Now He's One of the Thousands Missing in GazaIn a place denied access to basic forensic technology—and where people disappear into Israeli detention—the fate of thousands remains unknown. One of them is an autistic teenager.Mahmoud MushtahaDon’t Listen to Anyone Who Thinks Secession Will Solve AnythingAmericans increasingly fantasize about a divorce between red and blue states—but they dread the thought of civil war. You can’t have one without the other.Ryan D. GriffithsWhat Happens When You Can’t Get a Death Certificate in GazaFor families of the missing, systemic obstacles to identifying remains and locating people in Israeli detention has created a kind of social and legal purgatory.Mahmoud MushtahaThe AI Race Is Pressuring Utilities to Squeeze More From Europe’s Power GridsAs data center developers queue up to connect to power grids across Europe, network operators are experimenting with novel ways of clearing room for them.Joel KhaliliWIRED is obsessed with what comes next. Through rigorous investigations and game-changing reporting, we tell stories that don’t just reflect the moment—they help create it. When you look back in 10, 20, even 50 years, WIRED will be the publication that led the story of the present, mapped the people, products, and ideas defining it, and explained how those forces forged the future. WIRED: For Future Reference.More From WIREDSubscribeNewslettersLivestreamsTravelFAQWIRED StaffWIRED EducationEditorial StandardsArchiveRSSSite MapAccessibility HelpReviews and GuidesReviewsBuying GuidesStreaming GuidesWearablesCouponsGift GuidesAdvertiseContact UsManage AccountJobsPress CenterCondé Nast StoreUser AgreementPrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy Rights© 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad ChoicesSelect international siteUnited StatesLargeChevronItaliaJapónCzech Republic & SlovakiaFacebookXPinterestYouTubeInstagramTiktok

The escalating polarization within the United States, characterized by increasingly divergent political ideologies and social divisions, has fueled a persistent, yet ultimately flawed, fantasy of secession as a solution. As articulated by figures like former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura and Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, the notion of a “national divorce,” separating the country into distinct red and blue entities, has gained traction, particularly following periods of heightened national tension. However, a detailed examination reveals that such a proposition is inherently fraught with practical and historical challenges. The core argument, presented by Ryan D. Griffiths, is that secession, historically, is a remarkably unstable and violent process, frequently resulting in protracted conflict rather than a peaceful resolution. The sheer degree of socio-political integration between the “red” and “blue” states, encompassing deeply entrenched political differences across neighborhoods and households, significantly complicates any attempt at a clean break. Griffiths posits that attempting to redraw the map of the United States to satisfy diverse political demands would inevitably lead to a chaotic and potentially dangerous restructuring, echoing the experiences of other partitioned nations like India and Cyprus, where such attempts resulted in widespread violence and displacement. Furthermore, the legal and geopolitical ramifications of secession are substantial. There is no established legal framework governing the dissolution of a nation-state, leading to a chaotic dispute over assets like national debt and social security. The recognition of a breakaway state by international bodies, such as the United Nations, would be exceedingly difficult, particularly given the potential for geopolitical maneuvering by rivals like Russia and China. The historical precedent set by the Supreme Court’s 1869 Texas v. White decision, which effectively established the ‘indissolubility’ of the Union, further underscores the immense legal and political hurdles involved. The romanticized vision of a mutual and amicable separation quickly dissolves under scrutiny. The practical concerns for the US government, particularly regarding potential unrest and the specter of civil war, are substantial. The repeated invocation of “Fort Sumter” as a symbol of national division – a term notably used by Walz – highlights the deep-seated anxieties surrounding a potential breakdown of order. Moreover, the feasibility of secession is undermined by the decentralized nature of American political parties. The lack of distinct regional parties capable of effectively mobilizing support for a breakaway movement leaves the prospect even more tenuous. Griffiths acknowledges the argument of comparing secession to a marital divorce, but contends that the vastly greater complexity and potential instability of dissolving a nation-state far outweigh the similarities. The potential for an acrimonious “divorce” between the United States and its constituent states is magnified by the intense political rivalry and the willingness of key figures to employ rhetoric that risks escalating tensions. Ultimately, Griffiths argues, the fantasy of secession as a panacea for America’s divisions is a dangerous one, driven by a nostalgic yearning for a simpler past rather than a realistic understanding of present and future challenges.