The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States in 2016 had profound repercussions in the political and social fabric of the United States. Among the most striking reactions to the new administration’s policies is the ambitious initiative of a political movement proposing an independent California. This project, called ‘Calexit‘, draws inspiration from the British referendum on Brexit and is a direct response to the sense of alienation felt by many Californians towards federal politics. The issue has sparked a lively national and international debate, raising questions about the legal, political and economic feasibility of a possible secession.

The Calexit movement and its genesis

California, with its 40 million inhabitants and a GDP of over $4 trillion, is not only the most populous state in the US, but also one of the most dynamic and progressive economies in the world. However, the election of Donald Trump, perceived as antithetical to the state’s inclusive and progressive values, has triggered an unprecedented political backlash.

Thus was born the Calexit movement, supported by groups such as Yes California, determined to promote state independence. The group claims that American federalism no longer serves the interests of California, whose culture, economy and political priorities would be incompatible with those of most other American states, especially the more conservative ones.

The project was formalised by Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who authorised the signature collection campaign to demand a referendum on independence, scheduled to coincide with the 2028 midterm elections. The initial target is ambitious: to collect over 540,000 signatures by July this year. A feat that, if achieved, would mark a milestone in the history of Californian and US politics.

Legal and constitutional challenges

Despite the enthusiasm of the Calexit movement, the path to Californian independence is fraught with obstacles, especially at the legal level. The US Constitution provides no mechanism for a state to leave the Union. This principle was further enshrined by the Supreme Court in 1869, following the American Civil War, in Texas v. White. The Court ruled that membership of the Union is ‘indissoluble’ and that secession is only possible through a revolution or with the consent of the other federated states.

Consequently, even if California succeeded in holding a referendum and gaining popular support for independence, almost insurmountable legal barriers would remain. Any attempt at secession would likely require constitutional revision or political negotiation at the federal level, both prospects difficult to realise in such a polarised political environment.

Economic and political motivations

Calexit supporters point out that California, if it were an independent nation, would be a major economic power in the world. With an economy larger than that of countries like the United Kingdom, India, and France, California boasts global leadership in technology, entertainment, agriculture, and renewable energy. According to the International Monetary Fund, the state ranks fifth among the world’s economies.

Fiscally, many Californians feel that they contribute disproportionately to the federal budget compared to the benefits they receive. The state pays more in taxes to the federal government than it receives in funding, a fact that fuels feelings of frustration and a desire for greater autonomy.

In addition, Calexit is supported by a strong sense of identity. California is known for its cultural diversity, environmental leadership and commitment to civil rights. Its inhabitants often feel at odds with federal policies on key issues such as immigration, climate change and minority rights.

Economic and political motivations

However, there is no shortage of criticism of the project. Opponents of Calexit warn that a secession could lead to economic instability, social divisions, and national security problems. California’s dependence on water and energy from other states could become a critical issue, as well as the need to renegotiate trade treaties and military agreements.

Moreover, a political separation from the American Federation could have negative consequences for Californian companies, which would risk losing privileged access to the US market, the largest in the world. The geopolitical implications would be equally significant: the United States might strongly oppose the loss of its richest and most influential state, while the international community might face the challenge of recognising a new nation.

The symbolic and political role of Calexit

Although Californian secession seems unlikely in the short term, the Calexit movement is an important signal of the discontent of a significant part of the American population with the current political system. It reflects the desire for greater autonomy and the increasing political polarisation that characterises the United States today.

The campaign for California independence could also push for a revision of the relationship between the federal government and the states, leading to a broader debate on the balance of power in America. Regardless of its outcome, Calexit has already opened a new phase in American political history, challenging the traditional boundaries of federalism.

Conclusion

The dream of Californian independence, while appealing to many, remains an extremely complex and controversial undertaking. Nonetheless, the Calexit movement has the merit of highlighting the deep political and social rifts that run through the United States, emphasising the need for a more inclusive dialogue and a rethinking of the relationship between the federated states. Whether Calexit comes to fruition or not, its impact will be felt for a long time in American politics and beyond.