In Feb. 2024, a standoff between the federal government and Texas’s National Guard was posited as an alleged “civil war” in many provocative headlines. In recent weeks, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber released a proposed measure that could put secession from the U.S. on ballots, in response to activist Marcus Ruiz Evans’ separatist movement. Although they started as relatively small fringe groups, TEXIT and CALEXIT — the names ascribed to these bold movements — have gained more notoriety and supporters.
Secession has a long, contentious history in the United States. Particularly in states with a strong basis for independence, like Texas and California, the idea of functioning as self-sufficient nations can seem like an appealing solution for evading the restricting nature of political polarization.
However, with weighty legal barriers and practical challenges, the possibility for any state to become a sovereign nation is little to none. For this reason, state secession movements are both infeasible and counterproductive, as they divert energy and resources away from more practical solutions to regional grievances and national issues.
Evans, the leader of the newest California secessionist movement, believes President Donald Trump’s election could spur radical action from Californians because of the stark political differences between the state and the president.
“When Trump was elected in 2016, Reuters and Stanford University both said about 32% of Californians were for full-blown secession,” Evans told Fox 26 News.
However, Article III Section I of California’s Constitution explicitly establishes its inseparability from the rest of the nation. On a greater level, the U.S. Constitution does not outline any way for individual states to withdraw from the union, and the landmark Supreme Court case Texas v. White further solidified that secession ordinances and actions of secession are legally invalid. Thus, the initiative stands more as a political statement than a feasible prospect.
A recent poll from the Sonoma Index-Tribune revealed that Californians “appear more favorable than before” to the idea of separation. The resurgence of CALEXIT was sparked almost solely due to grievances with the incumbent executive, similar to TEXIT’s revival following the election of former President Barack Obama. During his presidency, the state of Texas filed almost 50 lawsuits against Obama over issues pertaining to immigration, social issues and climate change, among others. Daniel Miller, a large proponent of Texas’s secession, told POLITICO that Obama’s reelection was a “catalyzing moment” for the movement, closely echoing the words of California’s Ruiz Evans.
When political power shifts at the top, states that feel threatened by the new leadership are often drawn to ideas of separation as a form of protest. As much as these movements may capture some of the public’s imagination, they fail to offer practical solutions to the challenges facing both states and the nation as a whole.
Even though contentious policy issues can seem impossible to resolve, states should focus on engaging with these issues constructively by compromising when necessary and pushing for change. This approach will help preserve national unity and ultimately drive meaningful progress, rather than simply making oppositional statements.
As an example, California has a legacy of distinctive environmental protection laws, something that often puts it at odds with Trump. One of the most contentious areas during Trump’s first term was the rollback of over 100 environmental regulations. Other recent actions, such as withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and eliminating pushes for environmental justice, compound this fact. To challenge or compromise on this pragmatically, California could defend and expand state-level climate change initiatives like the Cap-and-Trade Program, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act and its vehicle emission standards that exceed federal protocol. California could also push for a coalition with other states interested in environmental protection, even without a call from the national government to do so.
The Trump administration’s attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and to repeal and block grants for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, left many states scrambling to protect healthcare access for their residents. In response, California could push to build on existing state healthcare programs like Covered California and develop California-specific solutions to reduce healthcare costs. Viable options include promoting more insurer competition within the state by offering more options in the market or expanding efforts to eliminate low-value care, which are services that provide little to no benefit to patients. The state could also expand the role of state health policy commissions or create new ones to oversee healthcare pricing and market competition.
These are just a few ways for the state to address regional concerns and improve the lives of citizens, rather than focusing on secession — a means with a largely intangible end. Meaningful progress can be initiated by focusing on achievable solutions within the current framework, allowing states to strengthen their political, economic and social positions while maintaining the integrity of the union.
Casey Mendoza is an Opinion Intern for the winter 2025 quarter. He can be reached at caseym4@uci.edu.
Edited by Zahira Vasquez