The Fake & Fraudulent Prophets Around the President
September 4, 2026 |
Daniel Henderson
The concept of a “national divorce,” has gained prominence in recent years as a shorthand for mass state secession from the United States. Popularized by political figures such as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the concept proposes a formal separation of the United States along ideological lines, typically envisioned as a split between politically conservative “red states” and progressive “blue states”.
Arguments for a “national divorce” reflect a growing belief that the deep ideological chasm between progressives and conservatives has reached a state of “irreconcilable difference.” This rhetoric is tied to extreme political polarization, where partisan identity is defined by visceral animosity toward the opposing side. This conflict isn’t seen as a negotiable policy dispute but as a clash of fundamental cultural values on issues like abortion, gun control, immigration, and LGBTQ+ rights. Public opinion confirms this, with a 2024 Gallup poll finding that a record 80% of Americans think the nation is deeply divided on our core values, a number that has grown since the same poll was taken in 2016.
This sense of cultural incompatibility is coupled with a perception of profound political alienation, where the federal government is framed by each side as actively hostile toward their values. Philosophically, the metaphor of divorce appeals to the American principle of self-determination, reframing our Union as a voluntary contract that can simply be dissolved. Because these values-based conflicts are often perceived as zero-sum battles, advocates find the idea of an irreconcilable “divorce” more plausible than the difficult work of finding common ground.
The metaphor of a national “divorce” is, however, deeply misleading. It evokes the image of a civil, no-fault legal proceeding, when the reality of a national dissolution would be anything but civil. Framing it as an amicable separation detaches this concept from its actual historical precedent in the United States: the Civil War. Experts of all political leanings are nearly unanimous in warning that this metaphor is deceptive. As Professor Ryan Griffiths states, “An American divorce will not be peaceful,” emphasizing that any attempt to dissolve the Union would not be a legal procedure but a revolutionary act likely to devolve into widespread violence; effectively, a new civil war.
The current conversation around a “national divorce” isn’t without precedent. Threats of dissolving the union are a recurring theme in American history whenever ideological tensions peak. Early examples include the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812 and the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s. Of course, the most significant secessionist movement was in 1861 when eleven southern states declared their withdrawal from the Union, primarily to protect and perpetuate the institution of slavery. This act precipitated the American Civil War, a powerful historical precedent that underscores the devastating consequences of secession.
Beyond the historical and legal obstacles, the concept of a national divorce collapses under logistical and demographic realities. The vision of a clean, amicable separation of “red states” and “blue states” is a fiction that ignores the complexity of American society. Our nation isn’t a collection of monolithically conservative or progressive states; every state contains significant political diversity. The current political divide is less about state lines and more about population density and the urban-versus-rural split that cuts across the entire country.
Any attempt at secession would strand millions of Americans on the “wrong” side of new borders, such as the 4.7 million Biden voters in Texas or the 6 million Trump voters in California. This geographic clustering creates a jigsaw of intermixed red and blue clusters at the county and neighborhood level, making a single coherent border impossible to draw. Attempts to do so would necessitate mass relocations of political refugees, raising the risk of violence toward disenfranchised groups even higher. Thus, the very process of attempting to separate would become the source of violence that a “peaceful divorce” was intended to avoid.
The logistical impossibilities of a national divorce are matched by the economic barriers. American states aren’t just bound together by the constitution but by a deeply integrated national economy. The fifty states don’t operate as fifty distinct economies, but as components of a single market. Severing the ties between those parts would be an act of unprecedented economic self-destruction, with far-reaching consequences to our banking system, supply chains, and the free movement of goods across state lines. Untangling that web would be staggeringly complex, disrupting every sector of the economy.
A national divorce would also require a division of national assets and liabilities, a process for which there is no legal or historical precedent. This includes assets like national parks, federal buildings, military bases, and interstate highways, and federal intellectual property. Even more daunting would be the division of the national debt that currently exceeds $30 trillion. Trying to allocate these liabilities between two or more newly formed nations would inevitably lead to disputes and likely trigger a debt crisis of global proportions.
The dissolution of the United States would also deal a massive blow to global security, beginning with the improbable task of dividing the integrated U.S. Armed Forces. This would force millions of service members to choose sides, fracturing loyalties up and down the chain of command and, even worse, sparking a crisis over the control of a contested nuclear arsenal. This level of instability would likely be eagerly exploited by the United States’ global competitors who might try to gain influence or capitalize on the chaos, creating a volatile international crisis.
While talk of a national divorce has grown in recent years, it’s worth considering the extent to which this sentiment is actually shared by the American public. Polling efforts to gauge public support for the idea of a national divorce or state secession shows a mixed picture, speaking more for our deep frustration with the state of American politics than a concrete desire to dissolve the country. Research suggests that while frustration is high, most Americans don’t see leaving the country as the solution to our political problems.
A 2023 Axios poll found that 20% of Americans support a “national divorce” and a 2024 YouGov survey found that 23% of Americans would support their state seceding from the United States. It also found that Republicans were more likely to support secession regardless of whether their state was primarily red or blue. Despite this, a clear majority of people from both parties opposed the idea when asked directly. This suggests that while the rhetoric has become louder, the public’s appetite for actual disunion remains limited to a frustrated minority.
Ultimately, the data we have leads to an unequivocal conclusion: While the rhetoric of a national divorce might offer a cathartic outlet for citizens exhausted by political polarization, it’s neither a plausible or desirable path forward. It is a political fantasy rooted in legitimate national frustration, but one that’s legally baseless, logistically and economically catastrophic, and a grave threat to both domestic and global stability. The seemingly benign metaphor of “divorce” masks a dangerous call for violent revolution that would have no foreseeable peaceful outcome.
Nonetheless, this debate is still a critical warning sign of the fragility of the American democratic experiment. The deep polarization that fuels this rhetoric is real and demands serious attention. If divorce is not the answer, then the only viable alternative is to begin the arduous task of repairing the “marriage.” Political science experts agree that the solution is to find common ground and address the structural drivers of division.
Our nation’s political leadership is significantly more polarized than the general populace, indicating that the problem may lie more in our political institutions than in the hearts of the American people. The path forward must therefore focus on systemic reforms designed to reduce polarization and enhance democratic representation. Proposals like the Fair Representation Act, which aims to combat partisan gerrymandering and give an equal voice to all communities represented in districts, offer a starting point for discussion.
Ultimately, navigating this period of intense division requires a recommitment from both citizens and leaders to the principles of pluralistic democracy—a commitment to reject extremism, denounce political violence, and engage in the difficult but essential work of healing our nation’s schisms from within the Union, not by dismantling it.
