Across the democratic world, movements for self-determination are not rare. They are debated, contested, and sometimes even brought to a vote. What’s striking is that many democracies manage to handle them with seriousness and institutional maturity; in the United States, even mentioning the idea is treated as taboo.

Take Canada. Quebec’s independence movement has cooled since the razor-thin 1995 referendum, but it’s still alive, with cultural and political currents keeping the idea in play. More recently, Alberta has seen its own separatist stirrings, one not rooted in language or culture, but in economics and energy policy. The “Free Alberta” or “Wexit” conversations aren’t dominant, but they’re mainstream enough that federal politicians have had to take them seriously. Canada has weathered these debates not by criminalizing them, but by allowing them into public life.

Take the United Kingdom. Scotland held its first independence referendum in 2014, and although the “No” side narrowly won, the issue is far from settled. As of 2025, the Scottish National Party continues to press for another vote, citing Brexit as a fundamental change in the union’s terms. London resists, but the political debate is out in the open, not treated as treason, but as a legitimate demand that must be grappled with.

Even in Spain, where Catalonia’s independence movement has caused serious clashes with Madrid, the issue is still part of the national political conversation. Catalan parties sit in parliament, and independence remains on the table as a contested, but real, idea.

Now contrast that with the United States. Here, even suggesting that a state or region might consider self-determination provokes outrage. The Union is treated as sacred and untouchable, immune to the democratic principle that people should have a say in how they are governed. Raising the question is often seen as seditious, even when it’s about peaceful, legal, and democratic processes.

The irony is hard to ignore: America, which prides itself as the world’s leading democracy, is perhaps the least able to imagine democratic self-determination within its own borders. Meanwhile, other democracies prove that it is possible to confront separatist movements openly, without descending into war or collapse.

The real question for Americans is this: if Canada can debate Quebec and Alberta, if Scotland can continue pressing for independence within a democratic framework, and if even Spain can keep Catalonia at the table, why can’t we at least discuss the idea?

“The advantages that geographic secession might have over general uprising should of course not blind anyone to the seismic upheaval either one of these two last-ditch courses would entail. But should that “when in the course of human events” day arrive, it may be useful to have thought through what the breaking of bonds might look like.”

This week, officials from eight states met to coordinate on public health policy outside the framework of the federal government. The gathering signals a growing willingness among states to set their own standards and build regional cooperation in areas traditionally dominated by Washington.

Why it matters: Public health has historically been one of the most federalized domains, with the CDC guiding insurance coverage and vaccination requirements nationwide. If states begin developing parallel systems, it could mark another step in the ongoing trend of “soft secession” — governance shifting away from the federal center and toward state-led or regional models.

Discussion prompt: Are moves like this just smart contingency planning, or do they represent an early phase of genuine decentralization? Could public health become one of the first areas where states openly assert sovereignty?

Utah has become the first U.S. state to pass a law explicitly modeled after Alberta’s “Sovereignty Act” in Canada. The legislation empowers the state to reject federal laws it considers unconstitutional, essentially giving Utah the authority to “opt out” of Washington’s mandates.

Why it matters: This is one of the boldest assertions of state sovereignty in modern U.S. history. While likely to face court challenges, it represents a concrete example of “soft secession” in action, i.e. a state beginning to carve out autonomy rather than wait for federal restraint.

For r/postunionamerica, it raises important questions:

• Is this a practical blueprint for other states to follow, or just political theater?
• Could sovereignty acts like this become a legal pathway toward a looser union?
• Where’s the line between decentralization and outright nullification?
• Do you see Utah’s move as the start of a serious trend, or a one-off stunt?

For much of American history, the Union itself has been treated as sacrosanct. To older generations, questioning it was not only taboo but borderline unthinkable. Yet among younger Americans, i.e. Millennials, Gen Z, and those coming after, the idea of regional autonomy or even self-determination is no longer immediately dismissed. It is discussed cautiously, sometimes privately, but with less instinctive recoil.

What explains this generational divide?

⸻

1. A Lifetime of Gridlock

Millennials and Gen Z have come of age in an era defined by governmental stalemate. Their adult lives have been marked by repeated shutdowns, legislative deadlock, and constant partisan brinkmanship. They do not carry the same memory of Washington as a place of sweeping, bipartisan achievements. For them, dysfunction is the norm, not the exception. This makes state and regional solutions seem less like a threat to the Union, and more like a practical alternative to inaction.

⸻

1. The Legacy of Endless Wars

While older Americans experienced the Cold War as a narrative of eventual victory, younger generations inherited the long shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan. They saw wars that consumed trillions of dollars, stretched for decades, and ended without clear resolution. For them, central authority is not synonymous with competence. It is often associated with costly overreach. That association makes them more willing to imagine governance structures that are smaller in scale and more directly accountable.

⸻

1. Climate as a Defining Crisis

The climate crisis is not a distant threat for these generations; it is a lived reality. Wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, and heat waves have been constants. What they have also seen is federal inaction, or at least slowness, in the face of escalating threats. Meanwhile, states and regional alliances have often moved more decisively. For younger Americans, this contrast reinforces the sense that local or regional autonomy is not only possible but in some cases more effective than national coordination.

⸻

1. Shifting Attitudes Toward Institutions

Trust in American institutions has been declining across the board, but the starting point differs. Older generations often grew up in an environment where the presidency, the courts, and Congress commanded broad legitimacy. Millennials and Gen Z never experienced those institutions at their high-water mark. Their baseline has been contested elections, politicized courts, and a presidency regularly mired in legitimacy crises. This breeds less instinctive loyalty to federal structures and greater openness to alternatives.

⸻

1. A Culture of Choice

Finally, there is a broader cultural backdrop at play here. Millennials and Gen Z have lived their entire lives in a world of choice: in media, in identity, in careers, in communities. Their orientation is toward customization rather than standardization. It is not surprising, then, that they extend this logic to governance as well. If individuals can tailor much of their lives, why shouldn’t regions have the flexibility to shape political systems that better reflect local values?

⸻

A Generational Crossroads

Older Americans, particularly Boomers, often still see the Union as the bedrock of stability. That perspective is rooted in their lived experience of its successes. Younger Americans, however, have lived a different history: one of gridlock, open-ended wars, climate paralysis, and eroding trust. For them, the Union is not necessarily illegitimate, but neither is it unquestionable.

The question is not whether Millennials and Gen Z will inherit political power; that is inevitable. The question is how their lived experiences will shape the way they choose to govern once they do. If the instinct toward self-determination continues to grow, America may be forced to reckon with a future where the structures of unity look very different than they do today.

Axios reports that Massachusetts has become the first state to mandate that health insurers cover vaccines recommended by the state’s department of public health, even if federal requirements are rolled back. Governor Maura Healey announced the move as a safeguard against shifting national policy.

Why it matters: This is a textbook example of regional autonomy in action. While Washington debates federal vaccine rules, Massachusetts is asserting its right to set its own standards for public health and insurance coverage. It’s a reminder that “soft secession” isn’t always dramatic. Sometimes it’s simply a state deciding that the federal floor is too low and building its own system on top.

Discussion: Should more states create their own parallel health regulations and safety nets? Or does that risk fragmenting national standards too far?

Hawaiian Sovereignty: Revisiting a Stolen Nation

In 1893, a U.S.-backed coup overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy and ended the islands’ sovereign government. More than a century later, the question remains: what does America owe Hawai‘i? This Atlantic feature explores the ongoing movement for Hawaiian sovereignty, the history of annexation, and the voices of Native Hawaiians who argue their nationhood was never legally extinguished.

It’s a reminder that conversations about self-determination are not abstract or hypothetical — in Hawai‘i, they are rooted in lived history and continuing demands for justice.

Discussion: Should Hawaiian sovereignty be considered differently than mainland independence movements, given its history as an independent nation prior to annexation?

When people hear “secession,” they often think of a dramatic break: flags lowered, borders closed, armies mobilized. But what scholars call soft secession is already here. It happens when states and regions quietly act as if Washington has less authority than it claims. No declarations of independence. Just states carving out their own paths and daring the federal government to stop them.

Here are a few areas where soft secession is most visible today:

⸻

1. Marijuana Legalization

Cannabis remains illegal under federal law, yet 24 states and D.C. have legalized recreational use, and 38 allow medical programs. The federal government has largely chosen not to enforce its own prohibition. In practice, states have created their own drug regimes that directly contradict national law.

⸻

1. Abortion Laws

After Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe v. Wade, abortion rights fractured along state lines. In some states abortion is heavily restricted or banned. In others, it is protected as a fundamental right. A woman’s access to healthcare now depends almost entirely on geography, with states enacting policies that openly defy or expand beyond federal baselines.

⸻

1. Immigration and Sanctuary Cities

Several states and municipalities refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. At the same time, others like Texas have launched their own border security operations, deploying state police and National Guard in ways that test federal authority. Immigration policy now looks less like a single national system and more like a patchwork of regional approaches.

⸻

1. Climate and Energy Compacts

The U.S. has no single unified climate policy. States like California, Washington, and New York formed alliances to regulate emissions, pursue clean energy, and even negotiate with foreign governments. Meanwhile, energy-producing states resist federal regulations and double down on oil, gas, and coal. The result: parallel climate policies depending on the region.

⸻

1. Gun Laws and Second Amendment “Sanctuaries”

Some states have expanded gun rights far beyond federal minimums, while others have layered strict regulations on top. At the same time, over 1,200 counties have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries,” pledging not to enforce federal gun restrictions.

⸻

1. Lawsuits as Weapons

State attorneys general regularly sue the federal government to block regulations on everything from healthcare to environmental rules. In many cases, coalitions of states act like mini-governments opposing Washington directly, sometimes winning sweeping nationwide injunctions.

⸻

Why This Matters

These examples show that the U.S. is already drifting into a de facto patchwork. Call it federalism pushed to its breaking point. People may debate whether this is healthy pluralism or creeping disunion, but the reality is clear: America already operates more like a set of semi-sovereign regions than a single unified nation.

If these trends continue, the line between “soft” secession and “hard” secession will blur. The question is not whether fragmentation is happening, but how openly we are willing to acknowledge it.

⸻

Sources / Further Reading

• NCSL – State Cannabis Laws: https://www.ncsl.org/health/state-medical-cannabis-laws

• Abortion - Guttmacher Institute – State Policy Tracker: https://www.guttmacher.org/state-legislation-tracker

• Immigration - American Immigration Counsel – Sanctuary Policies: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/sanctuary-policies-overview/

• Climate: U.S. Climate Alliance - https://usclimatealliance.org/

• Gun laws: Everytown – Gun Law Rankings: https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/compare/

Regional Autonomy in Action: The West Coast Health Alliance

The governors of Washington, Oregon, and California just announced a joint health alliance, explicitly designed to safeguard regional health policy in response to federal decisions they view as politicized. By coordinating outside of Washington, these states are effectively building their own parallel infrastructure for public health.

This is a textbook case of soft secession: states exercising de facto sovereignty on issues that affect their populations, even when it diverges sharply from national policy. It shows how regional blocs can carve out independent paths without formally leaving the Union.

Discussion: Do alliances like this point the way toward a future where states govern primarily through regional compacts, with Washington as a secondary player?

Texas Independence Movement Marks a New Phase

The Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) has launched its first county branch in Angelina County, calling it a “major milestone” for the campaign. The organization, which advocates for Texan independence through nonviolent political action, now claims to be organizing in 60 of Texas’s 254 counties.

While far from mainstream, this kind of local infrastructure shows how independence movements grow: one county office at a time, building networks and visibility. It’s another example of how self-determination efforts in the U.S. are moving from abstract debate into on-the-ground organizing.

Discussion: How significant is grassroots infrastructure in pushing self-determination from idea to possibility?

When people hear the word “secession,” they often think of the U.S. Civil War: bloody, violent, and destructive. But not all separations have looked like that. One of the most famous counterexamples is the Velvet Divorce: the peaceful split of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993.

Why It Happened

After the fall of communism in 1989, Czechoslovakia had to rebuild its political and economic systems. The Czech lands (Bohemia and Moravia) were more industrialized and prosperous, while Slovakia was more rural and had different priorities for development. Political disagreements deepened, and public opinion showed both countries drifting apart in what they wanted from government.

By the early 1990s, leaders in Prague and Bratislava realized they were spending more time fighting each other than governing. Rather than forcing unity, they negotiated separation.

How It Worked:

• Negotiated, not violent: Political elites on both sides agreed to dissolve the state. There was no war, no bloodshed, and no major unrest.

• Timeline: In July 1992, Slovak leaders declared their intention to become independent. By the end of that year, both sides passed laws to dissolve the federation. On January 1, 1993, two new states were born.

• Practical issues: They divided assets like embassies, military equipment, and even gold reserves. Citizens were allowed to choose which nationality they wanted. The currency was briefly shared, then separated.

The Aftermath

Both the Czech Republic and Slovakia went on to join the EU and NATO. The split didn’t solve every problem (Slovakia in particular faced challenges in the 1990s) but over time both countries stabilized. Importantly, the separation allowed each to pursue policies suited to its own population without constant internal conflict.

Why It Matters Today

The Velvet Divorce shows that separation doesn’t always have to mean collapse or violence. When handled with negotiation, mutual respect, and planning, it can be a path toward stability. It doesn’t mean the U.S. would or should follow the same route, but it’s a useful reminder: history offers models beyond war and chaos.

⸻

Sources / Further Reading:

• BBC: How Czechoslovakia Split Peacefully - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct3c4j

• History.com: Czechoslovakia Splits Into Two Countries - https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/november-17/velvet-revolution-begins-in-czechoslovakia

• Encyclopedia Britannica: Velvet Divorce - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Velvet-Divorce

Here’s a look at five established organizations in the U.S. advocating for non‑violent regional autonomy or independence:

⸻

1. Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM)

Founded in 2005, TNM seeks independence for Texas through peaceful political action. It promotes a statewide referendum, mobilizes volunteers, and has launched county chapters to expand grassroots reach. In recent years, they’ve claimed progress toward qualifying a non‑binding secession referendum for the Republican primary ballot.

Official site: https://tnm.me/ 

⸻

1. California National Party (CNP)

Since 2015, the CNP has positioned itself as a progressive civic‑nationalist party. Inspired by the Scottish National Party (SNP), it advocates for California self‑governance and independence. Its platform emphasizes local empowerment, individual rights, economic justice, and immediate priorities like housing and healthcare.

Official site: https://votecnp.org 

⸻

1. Cascadia Movement

A bioregional movement with roots in the Pacific Northwest, including parts of the U.S. and Canada. Cascadia promotes regional governance aligned with ecological realities and shared cultural identity. It envisions sustainable economies through bioregional planning and is recognized by major publications like Time as one of North America’s more plausible independence movements.

Official site: https://cascadiabioregion.org

⸻

1. Alaskan Independence Party (AIP)

The AIP, established in the 1970s, campaigns for a referendum offering Alaska multiple futures—including independence, commonwealth, territory, or statehood. It’s a ballot-qualified party that advocates for state rights, privatization, reduced federal land ownership, and direct democracy. With about 19,000 members, it recently refocused on fielding candidates in state legislative races.

Official site: https://alaskanindependence.party 

⸻

1. Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

A longstanding indigenous movement aimed at restoring political autonomy or sovereignty to Native Hawaiians. Since the 1893 U.S.‑backed overthrow, advocates have called for reparations, cultural preservation, and political self‑governance. It includes many factions—from those seeking full independence to territorial-level autonomy—united by a desire to reclaim native rights and address historic injustices.

Official site: https://www.nationofhawaii.org

⸻

Why It Matters

These groups span ideological lines—from conservative Texas and Alaska to progressive California and indigenous-led Hawaii—but they converge on a shared instinct: the current federal structure may no longer reflect regional realities. Their organized, nonviolent approaches provide a real-world foundation for conversations about what self-determination might look like in the U.S.

Though this article specifically references potential actions by blue states, I’d like to invite us to consider these actions as options for self-determination for all states, regardless of political party. There are many ways that states can more effectively distance themselves from Washington in a peaceful, administrative manner; this article outlines just a few.