What if the United States is no longer one nation, but already two — or more — in all but name? Scenario analysis might give us a peek at the answer.

Scenario analysis does not predict the future. It identifies plausible outcomes by tracing independent and other forces already in motion. My company, IVA LTD, used this method after the 1982 breakup of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) to correctly determine the aggregation of Bell Operating Companies. Here, I use it to assess whether the US is shifting from a unified federal system toward a decentralized federation — or even a confederation of states.

With rising legal clashes between states and the federal government, partisan control of national institutions, and the growing capacity of state bureaucracies, we may be heading for either a soft breakup or a deeper constitutional rupture. The federal government is no longer a plausible release valve for the pressures that divide states.

Deep-seated divisions motivate the states to break up

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.”

— Winston Churchill

Or, as some wise wag put it:

“If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you have probably failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation.”

— Anonymous

On January 20, 2025, 22 state attorneys general (see Appendix) sued US President Donald Trump in two district courts. They sought to block an executive order that refused to recognize children born in the US to unauthorized immigrants as citizens. A federal judge temporarily blocked the order.

Several states have aligned to either ban or allow abortions under specific conditions. Before 1973, individual states had discretion to prohibit or regulate abortion. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that a federal right to abortion existed. In 2022, the Court overturned that ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, restoring discretion to the states.

Similar legal and political divides have emerged over gun control, public education, the role of religion in public life, the COVID-19 pandemic, the January 6 Capitol attack and the spread of misinformation labeled as “alternative facts.” These cases suggest the US stands at a constitutional crossroads.

The US is fractured along lines of deep disagreement over reproductive rights, immigration, gun control, education, religion, public health and misinformation. These differences stem not only from ideology but also from federal actions that some states view as overreach.

This conflict plays out through legal battles, legislation and executive actions. These confrontations draw hard lines between groups of states. This signals a possible reconfiguration of political authority.

The situation intensified when the neo-Republican party gained control of Congress, the Supreme Court and the broader judiciary. The president’s increasing reliance on a unitary executive model has supported this capture. These developments are adding strain to the constitutional order.

The press, long considered the fourth pillar of US democratic norms, now serves as a site of resistance. However, its influence varies across traditional and digital platforms.

Given this one-sided domination of national institutions by one party, groups of states aligned with the other party may increasingly try to challenge, defy or bypass federal authority. This movement arises from deep disagreements, as well as structural and cultural discontent.

Many states have the motivation — do they have the means?

Each of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia, operates under its own constitution. Each maintains a judiciary, collects taxes and controls state-based institutions such as the National Guard. State governments also operate large bureaucracies that manage voting, education, health, transportation and emergency services. These systems rely on state taxation and could expand to fill voids left by federal withdrawal. This decentralized structure supports greater autonomy: Namely, “We the people…”

In other words, the US once was a more decentralized system. The states lost administrative power to the national government over time but retained the constitutional and bureaucratic means to take it up again — should the opportunity arise.

Notably, California’s economy has overtaken Japan, making this US state the fourth-largest global economic force. Governor Gavin Newsom touted new data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the US Bureau of Economic Analysis showing California’s GDP hit $4.10 trillion in 2024, surpassing Japan’s $4.01 trillion. California now only trails Germany, China and the US as a whole.

Still, there are aspects of the constitutional order that encourage the passage of power between the states and the national government to be unidirectional. For one thing, the constitution stipulates that a simple act of Congress overrides any contrary state law, even the state’s constitution. Yet even barriers like this are not necessarily insurmountable.

Should states need to make a more radical change than a simple transfer of administrative responsibilities, there exists a legal means to do so. Article V of the constitution provides that “The Congress … on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” States could use this mechanism to alter the federal balance of power, although no such convention has occurred in US history.

Two possible scenarios: A soft vs. hard breakup

Given the balance of pressures acting on the states — including legal conflict, institutional misalignment and administrative divergence — two particular scenarios are possible, from the standpoint of scenario analysis.

One is a “soft breakup” that would not require constitutional disunion. It could occur through gradual federal withdrawal and expanded state-level administration. If federal agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) lose funding, state governments will need to absorb their responsibilities.

Over time, the US could come to resemble a de facto federation or confederation of states — still unified in law, but fragmented in practice. As previously noted, states already have the institutional capacity and legal authority to do so.

A more radical “hard breakup” scenario would have the states alter the terms of constitutional union itself. This could be a rupture more profound than the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union. Irreconcilable cultural, legal and political disputes would provoke a fundamental reorganization of the United States, a diminution of national governance, or both.

It is difficult to predict what such a breakup would look like, but we can say that national disintegration might not be tidy or geographically consistent. It could produce a patchwork of cooperating state blocs or a modified Canadian model with its independently powerful provinces. One possibility is that ideologically aligned states aggregate into two large blocs within a binary confederal structure, resembling that of Bosnia and Herzegovina today. Deep internal division would persist despite nominal unity.

Of course, major issues, including national defense, international treaties, participation in global institutions such as the UN, World Health Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Labour Organization, World Trade Organization, etc., would require resolution — not exactly an easy task!

The evolution of the United States toward a looser federation of states is not inevitable. Adaptation within the current constitutional republic remains possible and even perhaps more likely. However, strong independent forces — cultural, economic, religious, and political — are, in the author’s view, increasingly pulling the country toward something resembling a confederal republic.

Appendix

The 22 states that challenged the executive order eliminating birthright citizenship for children of unauthorized immigrants are:

1. Arizona

2. California

3. Colorado

4. Connecticut

5. Delaware

6. Hawaii

7. Illinois

8. Maine

9. Maryland

10. Massachusetts

11. Michigan

12. Minnesota

13. Nevada

14. New Jersey

15. New Mexico

16. New York

17. North Carolina

18. Oregon

19. Rhode Island

20. Vermont

21. Washington

22. Wisconsin

These states predominantly have Democratic governors and electorates.

[The author updated this piece on April 26, 2025.]

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.