#soft secession

[onlytiktoks]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Time To Play Hardball

It’s risky, but allowing Trump to remain unchecked is worse

Dan Rather at Steady:

Here’s hoping you are ready to pay attention, my Steady friends. You are about to read some ideas that may seem far-fetched, even radical, especially for Democrats. But the dissolution of our great democracy is happening faster than most rational Americans thought possible. Time to be calm and steady, yes, but also time to think tough and be smart.

For many who oppose Donald Trump and his race toward authoritarianism, the lack of a coordinated national effort to counter him has been frustrating to say the least. We face some tough truths. Democrats have virtually no power — not none, but not much. Trump holds the White House and both houses of Congress and rules his party with intimidation and actionable threats. The dearth of Republicans willing to stand up to his illegal measures is testament to that fact. He’s also got the Supreme Court eating out of his hand.

But Trump is not the all-powerful behemoth he believes himself to be. He is a very unpopular president with an even less popular agenda. Eight months into his second term, no modern president has been as unpopular as Trump, except for Trump the first time around. A majority of the American people don’t just dislike his policies — he is underwater on everything from immigration to the economy — but they deeply dislike how he is governing. All this means Trump is vulnerable if congressional Democrats can find an effective way to fight back. They will have that opportunity in the next couple of weeks. Back in March, Congress passed, with the help of Senate Democrats, a continuing resolution that funded the government for six months. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was vilified by many in his party for capitulating to Trump and getting him the votes he needed. Schumer had his reasons, but six months later, those reasons no longer hold water as the September 30 deadline looms.

The Republican-controlled Congress has three options: pass a full-year appropriations bill, which is extremely unlikely; pass another continuing resolution, for which they again would need votes from Senate Democrats; or shut down the government. Democrats are once again between a rock and a hard choice: fund Trump’s illegal authoritarian regime, or stand against it by shutting it down.

If they support funding, they will have the leverage to get measures into the continuing resolution that are popular with the American people, such as restoring Medicaid and food assistance funding, curtailing overreach by the Department of Homeland Security, and reinstating due process, for starters. But even if those provisions are in the CR, this Congress and this administration have proven they are not to be trusted to follow the law.

[...] If Democrats decide to vote against a new CR, the government will run out of money, causing a shutdown. This is where it gets interesting.

Ezra Klein in The New York Times brings a new argument and a new reasoning to this debate: “[J]oining Republicans to fund this government is worse than failing at opposition. It’s complicity. If there’s a better plan than a shutdown, great. But if the plan is still nothing, then Democrats need new leaders.” Klein is someone to whom Democrats in Washington listen. He’s finally saying enough is enough. Democrats should not be party to Trump’s lawlessness. He says (and the record bears him out) that Trump is corrupting the government the way the Mafia corrupts industries. To be effective, Democrats need a plan — one that would have the support of a majority of Americans. Shutting down the government is not something that should ever be taken lightly. Many government workers will be furloughed. National parks will close. Government payments will be delayed. Federal court proceedings will be disrupted. And Trump will blame Democrats for a debacle of his own making.

For national Democrats, who have virtually nothing to lose, it is an ace up their sleeve when it seems like Trump holds all the cards, according to Klein. For state Democrats, it’s a different and arguably rosier picture. Their multiple efforts are focused on navigating and circumventing the administration’s harmful policies, rather than trying to stop Trump.

[...] Some are calling these efforts “soft secession,” though that term makes more than a few Democrats uneasy. Secession is unconstitutional. And so far no one is suggesting any state unilaterally secede — except Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has said she wants a “national divorce.” Part of the quiet discussion of “soft secession”— or as Yale Law Professor Heather Gerken calls it, “uncooperative federalism”— is economic leverage. Most blue states are considered “giver” or “donor” states, meaning they provide more to the federal government in taxes than they receive in services. And conversely, many red states are “recipients” that are subsidized by the blue state tax base.

Democrats in both Houses of Congress should play hardball on the federal budget by shutting down the government to stop the Trump Regime’s lawless actions.

See Also:

Public Notice (Paul Waldman): It's time for Democrats to show some spine

Robert Reich: Should Democrats Shut the Government?

The Signorile Report (Michelangelo Signorile): Democrats should not vote to fund Trump's fascism

Stancil Culture (Wil Stancil): "You can't detain someone for being Latino" is a law worth shutting down the government for

The Big Picture (Jay Kuo): Shut It Down If You Have To

[labelleizzy]

Since the election, I have watched the blue governors with interest. I subscribe to Chris Armitage because I like how he thinks, and I especially like this one (link in comments if you would like to read and possibly subscribe)

Stuff like this goes into what I call a "hope bucket," which is filling slowly, but steadily.

****

Chris Armitage: It’s Time for Americans to Start Talking About “Soft Secession”

Behind closed doors, blue state leaders are planning. They’re war-gaming scenarios where federal agents show up and continue to transgress further and further past what is “legal.” Daily the courts are showing that that something is legal when Trump wants it to happen, and illegal when he doesn’t. How does a government function under these circumstance?

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.

Not the violent rupture of 1861, but something else entirely. Blue states building parallel systems, withholding cooperation, and 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.

California Governor Gavin Newsom called state lawmakers into a special session later this year to protect the state’s progressive policies, while Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker launched Governors Safeguarding Democracy, seeking to unify state-based opposition to Trump’s agenda. Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, describes preparations so thorough that challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship order required only to “cross the T’s, dot the I’s, press print, and file.”

Currently, Massachusetts sends $4,846 more per capita to the federal government than it gets back. New Jersey and Washington are in the same position, bleeding thousands per person annually. Over five years, New York alone contributed $142.6 billion more than it received. Meanwhile, red states pocket $1.24 for every dollar they send to Washington. Blue states are essentially paying red states to undermine democracy.

This economic reality gives blue states leverage they’ve only begun to explore. California has accumulated $76 billion in reserves. The Bank of North Dakota, profitable every year since 1919, offers a model for state banking that could reduce federal dependence. When Trump threatened to cut funding from Maine over transgender sports policies, Governor Janet Mills had 22 other Democratic governors ready to stand with her, collectively representing the majority of America’s economic output.

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey told MSNBC her state police would “absolutely not” help Trump’s deportation efforts. She’s not bluffing. In Printz v. United States (1997), Justice Scalia wrote that the federal government “cannot require states and localities to carry out its immigration policy.” The anti-commandeering doctrine, reinforced in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), means states can’t be forced to implement federal programs.

The legal foundation for soft secession was written by conservative justices who never imagined blue states would use it. Yale Law Professor Heather Gerken calls it “uncooperative federalism.” States don’t have to actively resist. They can simply refuse to help. And without state cooperation, much of the federal government’s agenda becomes unenforceable.

We’ve seen this playbook work before. Northern states’ personal liberty laws made the Fugitive Slave Act virtually unenforceable between 1780 and 1859, with only 330 slaves returned despite federal law. More recently, cannabis legalization has spread to 41 states despite federal prohibition, forcing Washington to essentially give up. When 25 states refused to implement REAL ID requirements starting in 2007, they delayed enforcement by nearly two decades.

A case in Washington state shows just how far this has gone. The state Attorney General is now seeking an injunction against Adams County Sheriff for cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, arguing he’s violating state law. The sheriff faces a choice: follow federal directives or state law. Increasingly, state officials are choosing their states.

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.

Texas has been running this exact playbook for years. Operation Lone Star achieved an 87% reduction in border crossings through state action alone, regardless of federal immigration policy. Nearly 46% of U.S. counties have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries.

Blue states are finally learning what red states have known all along: you don’t need federal permission to govern.

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.

“Really, we have no idea what’s coming down the pike,” Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, chair of the Democratic Governors Association, admitted to CNN. That uncertainty is why states are preparing for everything. Multiple governors have been running tabletop exercises behind closed doors for months, with state attorneys general and other relevant officials. One participant described a December session where they walked through scenarios of federal troops being deployed to blue states.

The preparations are specific and practical. Draft lawsuits sit ready in what officials call “brief banks.” States are identifying which federal funds they can afford to lose. They’re studying their executive powers and state constitutions. They’re building coalitions that transcend traditional partisan lines. Pritzker claims some Republican governors have quietly expressed interest in collaboration, though he won’t say which ones, leaving observers to wonder if he’s protecting sources or bluffing.

“Democrats in Congress, even if they really want to do things, what you can do in the minority is quite limited,” strategist Arkadi Gerney observed. “But these governors have the opportunity to actually run their states very differently from how the president is running the country.”

The paradox of American federalism in 2025: 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.

We’re not heading toward another Fort Sumter. We’re watching something else: states quietly walking away from each other. Blue states will protect abortion rights, support organized labor, and protect individual rights. Red states will allow Christian theocracy, suppress wages, and criminalize free speech, and destroy healthcare. The federal government becomes a hollow structure that states have a moral impreative to ignore.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, who won reelection in a state Trump carried by 31 points, insists “the concept of common ground and common sense is what this country is looking for.” But common ground requires both sides to show up. And increasingly, they’re not.

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. Next week, the governors meet again. The agenda, according to three sources, includes a discussion of whether to coordinate state tax policy to offset federal cuts.

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.

[sweetfirebird]

It’s Time for Americans to Start Talking About “Soft Secession”

It’s Time for Americans to Start Talking About “Soft Secession”

Blue states are finally learning what red states have known all along: you don’t need federal permission to govern.

An interesting look into what the governors of blue states are doing.

[nodynasty4us]

It’s Time for Americans to Start Talking About “Soft Secession”

Blue states are finally learning what red states have known all along: you don’t need federal permission to govern.

From the August 18, 2025 essay:

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. ... The legal foundation for soft secession was written by conservative justices who never imagined blue states would use it. Yale Law Professor Heather Gerken calls it “uncooperative federalism.” States don’t have to actively resist. They can simply refuse to help. And without state cooperation, much of the federal government’s agenda becomes unenforceable. ... The paradox of American federalism in 2025: 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. ... 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.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

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 ou

Qasim Rashid at Let's Address This:

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.

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.

Qasim Rashid is speaking my language: Blue states and cities should consider soft secession to protect themselves from the hostile Trump Regime.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trump Says He’s ‘Only Cutting Democrat Programs’ During Shutdown

The president suggested he would make permanent cuts to blue-state programs.

Mark Alfred at NOTUS:

President Donald Trump explicitly said his administration had been cutting and would continue to cut “popular Democrat programs” during the ongoing government shutdown, an admission that his administration was wielding its power to punish his opponents. “We’re only going to cut Democrat programs,” Trump said Thursday at a televised Cabinet meeting. “I hate to tell you, I guess that makes sense, but we’re only cutting Democrat programs. … We’ll be cutting some very popular Democrat programs that aren’t popular with Republicans, frankly, because that’s the way it works.” The president did not share his definition of “Democrat programs,” but Trump and his allies have repeatedly suggested they’ll inflict pain on Democrats over their votes against government funding. Last week, the administration sought to strip billions of dollars’ worth of energy programs from Democratic-led states while leaving similar ones intact in Republican-led states.

“The shutdown has been, you know, pretty damaging. I mean, not yet, because it’s early, but it gets a little bit worse as it goes along, and we’ll be making cuts that will be permanent.” Trump said. “They wanted to do this, so we’ll give a little taste of their own medicine.” Red states are expected to feel the impact of some of the administration’s energy program cuts even if they avoid direct cuts to their programs. Some of the programs already targeted by the Trump administration have bipartisan support, with members urging the president directly to avoid making such cuts.

Psycho-in-Chief’s threats to shut down “Democrat programs” is retaliation against blue states and Democrats for the government shutdown that Trump and the GOP caused.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

It’s time for soft secession

How blue states can use their economic clout to stand up to Trump’s agenda—starting with California.

Clara Jeffrey at Mother Jones:

In 2013, venture capitalist Tim Draper launched a “Six Californias” ballot initiative. The upshot was that with some 40 million people, more than the population of the 20 smallest states combined, California was too big, too diverse, to be “efficiently” governed. So why not, Draper argued, break it up into six new “startups,” a.k.a. states? Instead of two senators, we erstwhile “Californians” would get 12.

Draper’s scheme was part of a long tradition—since California was admitted to the Union as part of the Compromise of 1850, there have been more than 220 proposals for it to divide or secede—but derided as a Silicon Valley ploy to create a libertarian deregulation zone. (Tellingly, the Bay Area state was to be named “Silicon Valley.”) And aside from the feasibility of making it happen, state and federal constitution-wise, people worried that it would cleave four rich populous states from two poorer rural states (fair) and weaken Democrats’ voting share in the Senate (in retrospect, nah). Draper’s measure gleaned valid signatures from some 753,000 people—more, it must be said, than the populations of America’s three smallest states—but in California, that wasn’t enough to get on the ballot. After the 2016 election, which put the anti-majoritarian provisions of the US Constitution very much front of mind, Draper came back with a simpler proposal—three Californias, or Cal 3. This initiative got enough signatures to head to voters, but the day before the 2018 ballots were to be printed, the state Supreme Court blocked the measure—what about things like existing water treaties, the justices worried—and Draper eventually gave up.

While his motives were murky, Draper tapped into something now excruciatingly felt. The assignment of two senators per state, no matter its population, was always a deeply flawed (and deeply racist) proposition. But the unfairness has only gotten more acute. As my colleague Ari Berman has noted: “In 1790, the country’s most populous state, Virginia, had 12 times as many people as its least populous, Delaware. Today, California has 67 times the population of Wyoming. Fifteen small states with 41 million people combined now routinely elect 30 GOP senators; California, with 39 million residents, is represented by only two Democrats.” The Golden State is the fourth-largest economy in the world but doesn’t have political clout proportional to its population, let alone to our status as a global cultural, technological, and agricultural juggernaut. In case it’s not obvious why I’m taking a leisurely drive down a byroad of California electoral history, let’s review some of the abuses and usurpations that President Donald Trump has visited upon us.

The most vicious of those abuses has been over immigration. On June 6, at the urging of his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, ICE escalated raids in California, hitting farms, factories, construction sites, and schools, separating families and detaining undocumented people, legal residents, and even citizens. Federal agents arrested and hospitalized David Huerta, the head of one of the state’s most powerful unions. When protests erupted, Trump jumped at the chance to federalize the National Guard against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wishes—something that hasn’t been done since LBJ acted to protect civil rights protesters from segregationists. Border czar Tom Homan threatened to arrest Newsom, which Trump agreed was a “great” idea. When a reporter asked for what crime, Trump responded that his “primary crime is running for governor” and called protesters “insurrectionists.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson chimed in that Newsom should be “tarred and feathered.” Then Trump sent Marines into LA. When California Sen. Alex Padilla—who was voted for by more Americans than 18 GOP senators combined—tried to ask Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem questions at a press conference, federal officials knocked him down and cuffed him. One-quarter of California’s population are immigrants, and the continual attack on them—and anyone who is brown—is a moral injury that plays out in our streets and our feeds day after day after day.

But the direct assaults on California are by no means limited to raids and those protesting raids. Trump has dragged his feet about providing federal aid to address the devastation of LA’s wildfires, saying he’d release it only if we pass a voter-ID law; taken our own National Guard off fire lines; and made bizarre claims about sending us water for the fires from the Pacific Northwest. He’s canceled our car efficiency and emissions rules, attacked our renewable energy plan, and zeroed out federal money for rooftop solar and high-speed rail. He’s revoked federal grants to UCLA over spurious charges of antisemitism, then gave the school a list of demands, including a $1 billion settlement and the end of ­gender-affirming care in its hospitals. Amid all of that came Trump’s demand that Texas engage in midcycle redistricting to give the GOP five extra congressional seats that he says it’s “entitled to.” Newsom, both legitimately enraged and sensing an opportunity to help his presidential ambitions, has rallied California Democrats to mount a ballot initiative to temporarily set aside its nonpartisan redistricting commission and draw congressional maps to counterbalance Texas’ scheme.

We will vote on that initiative in November, and my bet is it will pass. But California, and the country, cannot await the outcome of the midterms to repel Trump’s siege on democracy. More drastic action is required. Unfortunately, especially as Trump berates generals and admirals on “the enemy within” and suggests they use US cities as “training grounds,” it’s all too easy to imagine a world where the commanders of California’s military bases are compelled to choose sides. (If you think such scenarios are out of the realm of possibility, ask yourself why he and Pushup Pete Hegseth have been purging the brass.) Our boundaries of oceans and mountains and deserts, our copious natural resources, and our technological prowess make a return to an independent California Republic more feasible than it might be for other states. But in advance, and hopefully in lieu, of that, it’s time to start applying our economic muscle.

[...] Unified action could further preserve what the federal government is destroying, law professors Aziz Z. Huq (University of Chicago) and Jon D. Michaels (UCLA) wrote in the Los Angeles Times. Blue states could create “large regional research consortia; re-create public-health and meteorology forecasting centers servicing member states; and finance pandemic planning.” (A proposal to do much of this is underway in Sacramento.) With the Justice Department doing little more than acting as Trump’s goon squad, states could also “mobilize interstate criminal task forces to track and prosecute corruption by politicians, ­lobbyists and government contractors (who invariably, when violating federal laws, run afoul of myriad state laws, too).” Ditto consumer and environmental investigations—the cost of which could be offset by fines, even as they lay the groundwork for federal prosecutions if America is ever restored to sanity.

But we need to be clear-eyed: Such a restoration may not come in time. So far, this year has been marked by a collective action problem. Media conglomerates, law firms, universities, banks, CEOs—too many powerful institutions and individuals have failed to meet the moment. This is why people all over the country, desperate for pushback against Trump’s autocracy, have embraced Newsom’s redistricting plan, whatever their broader opinions of him. With Trump provocatively sending troops into blue cities, and using recision and the shutdown to claw back congressionally appropriated funds from blue states, it’s time to turn the tables on him. Soft secession, powered by the presidential ambitions of multiple blue-state governors, could, should it come to that, be the proving ground of a new confederacy. Hopefully the threat of CalExit or a new Union will be enough. But that extreme measures might be necessary to ensure that American democracy shall not perish from the Earth is becoming more self-evident with every passing day.

I agree with this Mother Jones piece: it’s time for blue states to consider a soft secession.

See Also:

For Such A Time As This (Andra Watkins): Pain for Gain: Soft Secession and a Red Recession

David Pakman: A soft secession to end Trump’s presidency