Seemingly every presidential election in the past twenty or so years has been accompanied by prominent public figures announcing they are moving overseas when their preferred candidate lost.

But this recent election cycle, news that Donald Trump will once again serve as America’s president generated a different type of talk of leaving the United States: this time for state governments.

New York state senator Liz Kreuger has not only floated the idea of New York seceding from the United States but also invited Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont to join it as a new province of Canada. In subsequent media interviews, she has reiterated the idea as a solution available to states looking to resist policies a second Trump administration might bring and which are at odds with the values of various left-leaning state governments.

Talk of secession is not uncommon in the history of American political discourse, from the Indian Stream Republic to the more than 20 active secession movements currently in the United States, but since the Civil War, it has largely been the domain of specific groups of malcontents, usually in bigger states like Texas or California who feel there is a mismatch between the resources they contribute to the federal government and the benefits they receive, rather than a subject of mainstream political interest.

Support for secession is low across the country, and even lower in Connecticut, but New England has a long regional history of political divergence. And it has an equally long history of capitalizing on that political unrest.

In 2024, that tradition is alive and well. While some politicians might balk at discussing secession, there are still groups and movements who view secession as a serious solution to modern political problems and who are working to win over others.

Connecticut has the least support for secession among its residents of any state according to February 2024 polling conducted by YouGov.

Support for secession is at 27 percent nationally. The highest support for secession is at 36 percent in Alaska.

In Connecticut, just nine percent of surveyed residents said they would support the state seceding from the United States. Support for other states seceding was higher, with 21 percent saying they wanted another state to secede. And 13 percent said they believe the Constitution gives them a right to secede, much lower than the 26% national average.

Inside Investigator polled our readers on social media about their support for secession and thoughts on Kreuger’s proposal. While unscientific, the results pretty much aligned with YouGov’s polling: most people thought the idea of Connecticut seceding was ludicrous, with many seeing it as a partisan reaction to incoming president Donald Trump’s re-election.

A few also questioned how secession would work in practice, noting that Connecticut’s defense industry would likely be eliminated.

According to 2023 data from the Department of Defense, Connecticut receives roughly $25 million annually in defense contracts, the fourth highest rank in the nation.

In 2022, defense sector jobs accounted for 7.8 percent of the state’s full-time employment and generated $13.7 billion in labor income, or 10 percent of the state’s total, according to the Southeastern New England Defense Industry Alliance (SENEDIA), an organization founded in 2002 to coordinate between the defense industry and politicians in response to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). In addition, SENEDIA found Connecticut’s defense sector generated $40 billion in economic output in 2022, which equates to 12.5 percent of the state’s GDP.

If Connecticut were to secede, either to join Canada or become its own independent nation, it seems unlikely U.S. officials would allow Naval Submarine Base New London to continue operations or that defense contractors would remain in the state.

But is the revenue Connecticut collects from defense just a small drop in a larger ocean?

Connecticut’s balance of payment (BOP)—the difference between the revenue the state generates for the federal government and the amount it receives—is one of the worst in the nation. According to the Rockefeller Institute of Government’s annual report on BOP for 2024, in 2022 Connecticut had the worst per capita balance of payment in the nation, with a negative balance of $4,909 per capita. That means, there’s $4,909 more leaving the state per person than returning in federal funding.

The national average was $2,799, meaning there is a $7,709 difference between Connecticut’s BOP and the national average.

According to the Rockefeller Institute of Government, Connecticut has consistently ranked in the bottom five states on a per capita basis, even during years affected by the COVID-19 pandemic when states received huge amounts of federal stimulus dollars.

The leaders of the New England Independence Campaign (NEIC) argue this imbalance is one of the strongest arguments for secession, not just for Connecticut, but New England as a region. The organization’s mission is to “cultivate a resilient and inclusive New Englander community” and to “encourage economic self-reliance, small business, regional autonomy, and an ethic of harmonious living.”

The Northeast has the highest concentration of states that pay more to the federal government than they receive, with New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New Jersey all in the red.

“We collectively give more money to the feds than we get. Much more money.” NEIC treasurer Maddie, who asked to be identified by her first name, told Inside Investigator.

Not only do they see this as unfair to New Englanders, but they also note that the money the region sends to Washington is used to fund certain programs in regions of the country, like the redder south, that might be at odds with the political values of the bluer northeast.

“That money goes towards abstinence-only programs in the south, incarcerating poor people and people of color for existing in the south. We’re not going to fund any more money to a federal government that uses it to fund fundamentalist religious beliefs.” Maddie added.

Their arguments for secession fall into two broad but related categories: economic benefits New England would receive as an independent country and cultural benefits that would result from having the self-determination to direct the region’s funds, rather than sending them to other parts of the country to fund programs at odds with the liberal beliefs that tend to dominate most New England state governments.

The benefits of secession, they argue, greatly outweigh the downsides.

“When you look at the pros and cons of potential separation, the pros would be more say in our own government compared to a very limited share in the current US compared to completely different cultures that we share a country with.” NIEC secretary Justin, who also asked to be identified by his first name, told Inside Investigator. “We would have more funds to put into our own region compared to funding other regions that we don’t really see any kind of positive return on.”

“The cons would be less projection of power and of military power across the planet. We don’t believe the average New Englander cares very much about that. There might be economic instability, but also compared to the economic instability we’re very likely to see if 25 to 50 percent tariffs are implemented against our three largest trading partners.” he added, referencing tariffs Trump has threatened to levy when he returns to office.

Trump has threatened to impose a 25 percent import on all tariffs from Mexico and Canada and an additional 10 percent tariff on imports from China. Researchers at The Budget Lab at Yale University have found the implementation of those tariffs could raise prices by 1.4 to 5.1 percent within the first four years, equivalent to $1,900 to $7,600 per household in 2023 dollars. Elsewhere at Yale, experts have warned that tariffs could affect Connecticut’s defense industry.

“[t]here are some significant unappreciated possible tariff burdens Connecticut defense contractors may incur under the new Trump Administration as they are required to make significant purchases in all 27 NATO partner countries, which would lead to billions of dollars per company in extra costs—thus inadvertently adding to the tax burdens of defense companies.” Yale faculty Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian wrote recently.

NEIC doesn’t shy away from the potential challenges that would come with secession, but they have also thought about solutions.

“We don’t want to sugarcoat things. But with the right negotiations and deals, the problems can be mitigated.” Justin stated.

On what would happen to Connecticut residents if they suddenly had to cross an international border to visit New York, he suggested a border agreement was possible, with the potential of having a “fast pass” who travel frequently across the open border. He pointed to travel between Ireland and Northern Ireland as a possible model.

The United Kingdom and Ireland are part of an arrangement known as the Common Travel Area that allows British and Irish citizens to move back and forth between the two countries without requiring visas or passports or any kind of residency permit or other form of permission to cross the border. The arrangement was most recently reaffirmed by both countries’ governments in 2019.

NEIC representatives see their bid to turn New England into its own country as a long-term project.

“Essentially we would need to raise an entire generation of New Englanders to understand they are culturally distinct from America.” Maddie said. Right now, they’re raising awareness of their existence and that “every cultural group has a right to self-determination.” They’re using social media marketing and protests to spread their message. When Inside Investigator spoke to NIEC, they had obtained permits to hold a women’s march in Boston and were in the planning stages of the event.

They say they’ve seen a huge upswing in support recently—over 50 percent in November alone. This follows a pattern they saw during the previous Trump administration where, following a particularly controversial action—such as the “Muslim ban” and stockpiling of personal protective equipment despite state shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic—support would increase.

How could peaceful secession come about? Via a ballot question.

In 1869, the Supreme Court ruled on unilateral secession, which occurs when a territory leaves without the consent of the group it is seceding from, in Texas v. White. The case was related to U.S. bonds owned by Texas and dating back to 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederacy. Because the Constitution doesn’t allow states to unilaterally secede, the court found, all legislative acts Texas had undertaken after it joined the Confederacy were void.

But the Constitution doesn’t actually say anything specifically about secession—and the Supreme Court has famously reversed itself in a number of high-profile cases, which leaves the question of whether states can secede open for many. Article IV of the Constitution also requires the consent of both Congress and the legislatures of all states affected by proposed boundary alterations.

“On the federal level, it is possible. The Philippines were at one point part of the U.S., just as much as Puerto Rico. The Treaty of Manila, one bill from Congress, released the Philippines and granted them independence. It’s possible to change what is part of the U.S. with just acts of Congress. A joint resolution is how Hawaii was annexed. There’s plenty of precedent for changing the status of territory.” Justin said.

The 1946 Treaty of Manila, which was ratified by the Senate and signed by president Harry Truman, released the Philippines from U.S. sovereignty and recognized its independence. But several provisions extended U.S. influence. In secret, Truman and Philippine president Sergio Osmeña signed an agreement to maintain U.S. military bases. A subsequent agreement gave the U.S. control over the bases for 99 years.

 Under the treaty, pending court cases before the Supreme Court would still go into effect. If both countries agreed, the U.S. would also temporarily represent the Philippines diplomatically.

Hawaii was annexed by a joint resolution of Congress in 1898. While Hawaiian queen Liliuokalani protested what was effectively a coup led by the U.S. against the island’s government, the joint resolution stated Hawaii had “signified its consent, in the manner provided by its constitution to cede absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America, all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies.” By simple decree, the treaty transferred lands, buildings, ports and harbors, military, and all other public property to the U.S.

At lower levels of government, there’s more recent precedent for secession being on the ballot.

In November 2024, seven counties in Illinois, citing cultural differences, voted to explore the option of separating from Cook County (where Chicago is located) to form a new state and seek readmission to the U.S. as a new state. The ballot question would have put a final decision back in front of voters. All seven counties who were asked about the possibility of secession voted in its favor.

In New England, residents of Killington, Vermont, a ski town, voted at town meetings held in 2004 and 2005 to secede from Vermont and join New Hampshire. They cited an imbalance between the amount they paid in taxes to the state and the amount they received from the state. The vote to secede passed twice—first by voice vote and then by ballot.

In 2004, New Hampshire’s legislature passed a law authorizing the creation of a commission to negotiate with Vermont over Killingly’s secession, if it ever chose to create a similar commission. To date, Vermont has not done so and a 2005 Vermont bill that would have required the town to pay “exit” fees and would have stripped Killingly residents of state residency benefits died when the legislature adjourned sine die in 2006.

But with significant support for secession unlikely to materialize anytime soon, NIEC did outline other lower-stakes solutions they say could be implemented in the meantime.

Maddie states they would accept devolution—the transfer of power from the federal government to lower-level organizations, like the state or municipality—if it removed New England from the federal government’s taxing authority.

Another solution: nullification, which would not require states to enforce federal laws if they did not agree with them.

“A similar thing happened with the Fugitive Slave Act. The Northeast chose not to enforce that law. A type of policy like that, I would certainly support.” Justin said.

“What we’re trying to say is other states should do what they want but that shouldn’t have financial ramifications for us.” Maddie said.

While secession may seem radical, some of what NIEC proposes is not actually that far afield from political ideas that already exist and have influence in the region.

New England has previously tried to secede from the rest of the country. And Hartford, Connecticut was at the center of that effort.

Against the backdrop of the War of 1812 and the economic disaster it wrought upon the region, 26 Federalist delegates from all five existing New England states (Maine was still a part of Massachusetts) met in Hartford in 1816 to discuss the possibility of seceding from the United States. A number of signers of the Constitution were among the delegates, including Connecticut’s Roger Sherman.

In short, the delegates believed that policies pursued by Thomas Jefferson’s administration and other Federalists who succeeded him did not adequately protect or promote New England’s interests.

While they went into the convention with talks of seceding, more moderate voices won the day and the meeting turned into more of an airing of grievances.

An anonymous secret journal of the convention, which is light on details of how conversations progressed from day to day, notes that on December 16, the convention’s second day, a committee of delegates appointed to examine subjects that should be considered voted to approve a number of topics, including: the president’s power to call up state militias (an idea similar to Defend the Guard legislation circulating today), failure of the president to pay and supply state militias, a national draft that had been proposed by then-president James Madison, military spending, and the federal government’s failure to “provide for the common defence” and subsequent requirement that states defend themselves among other topics.

The convention’s final report reads something like the Declaration of Independence, including a list of charges the federal government had to protect New England’s regional interests and the ways in which they had been breached.

The report also recommended seven amendments to the Constitution, including banning Congress from placing an embargo on U.S. ships for more than sixty days and restricting Congress’ powers to restrict trade between American vessels and foreign nations. One amendment also would have prevented anyone naturalized as a U.S. citizen following its adoption from holding a seat in either Congress or in any civil office in the federal government. Another would have term-limited presidents to a single term and prohibited successive presidents from being elected from the same state.

It also concluded that, if the final report was disregarded and peace “should not be concluded and the defense of these States should be neglected” another convention would be held in Boston the following June ”with such powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so momentous may require.”

However, between the end of the war and the final collapse of the Federalist Party in 1816, another convention never materialized.

What NEIC is looking for with regard to devolution is in keeping with federalism—the idea that even though the federal government has some overarching powers, states should still have sovereignty and say over what happens within their borders.

As a region, New England has a fairly robust history of devolving power to the lowest level, being the principal place in the country where town meetings are used. Sometimes described as the purest form democratic governance can take, town meetings are essentially public forums that give residents the chance to not only give their voice on local government issues, but to vote directly on proposals. Their history in New England spans the arrival of Puritans in 1600 to the present day.

Such direct public participation also promotes the idea that governance should be directly influenced by the ideas and opinions of local people who are directly affected by laws. It is more in keeping with the delegate model of government—in which elected representatives are expected to strictly follow the beliefs their constituents outline—rather than the trustee model—which charges elected representatives with following their own ideas about what is in the best interest of their constituents, even if it goes against the expressed wishes of their constituents—that tends to operate more at the federal level of government.

The idea that states should be in control of their own internal policies is also seeing a resurgence in popularity in Connecticut as state leaders grapple with Trump’s return and policies that are likely to be at odds with those the state’s leaders prefer.

In Connecticut, several of the state’s top Democratic leaders have signaled their intent to look for ways to reduce the impact of policies Trump may implement that are at odds with the state’s leadership.

Attorney General William Tong has said Democrats in the state are “locked arm and arm” and referred to the state as a “firewall” against Trump’s policies. Sens. Martin Looney, D-New Haven, and Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, sent a letter to Gov. Ned Lamont in November asking him to “take anticipatory measures to ensure that Connecticut is well-prepared to safeguard our common values and safety” ahead of Trump’s inauguration.

“We are prepared to partner with you and other New England governors and legislatures to establish a unified, regional response to protect our citizens and families. Partnering with our surrounding New England states will strengthen our reaction to any Trump administration attack on human rights and the economy while amplifying our commitments to our citizens. We must act now to ensure that Connecticut remains a safe, fair, and inclusive state for all, as promised in our Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.” they wrote.

NEIC officials ultimately don’t wish to become part of Canada, as Kreuger has suggested, but said “that outcome would still be preferable to staying in the United States, as our cultural values are slightly closer to those of Canada than to those of Alabama.”

“Staying in the US will not end well for New England. The incoming administration will try to pass legislation to restrict the rights of New Englanders. The US regime has and will continue to unfairly tax us and funnel the money to states diametrically opposed to ours.” the group said.

Ultimately, while their solutions may be outside the realm of what most people who have problems with political leadership might consider viable, NIEC’s messaging is not that far outside the mainstream.

In polling from March 2024, 81 percent of respondents from two polls targeting both major political parties believe American democracy is under threat.

Politicians in the state are already making statements indicating Connecticut needs to take steps to preserve its culture and values. (Inside Investigator reached out to all four state caucuses for comment about Kreuger’s comments and secession and received no response). That’s not that different than what NIEC is looking to do, they’re just advocating for different tools to accomplish it.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.