He almost did that in 2016.  This incident in Oregon got memory-holed pretty quickly, but it is indicative of just how precarious the union of the States really is:

‘Two days after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, two Portlanders have submitted a petition for a 2018 ballot initiative to have Oregon secede from the United States. On Thursday morning, Jennifer Rollins, a lawyer, and Christian Trejbal, a writer, filed the Oregon Secession Act. “Oregonian values are no longer the values held by the rest of the United States,” Trejbal said over the phone Thursday. Those values? “Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness,” Trejbal said, “plus equality.” “Obviously,” he said, the ballot proposal “came about partially in response to the election results on Tuesday.” “But,” he added, “it’s been developing over time.” Trejbal said that he and Rollins are hoping to start a serious conversation in Oregon about what it would mean to peacefully leave the United States. They opted for 2018 to give Oregonians some time to really think about what seceding from the union would mean. Some Californians have already expressed interest in seceding and the language of the Oregon proposal includes the option to bring other states into a “Constitutional Convention.” Trejbal said that joining forces with other states like Washington, California and Nevada is “a viable way to go forward.” These states, he said, “could all get together and form a nation that uphold the values that we share”’ (Lizzy Acker, ‘After Donald Trump victory, Oregonians submit ballot proposal to secede from the union’, oregonlive.com).

The initiative was quickly withdrawn, only lasting one day in public life.  And yet President Trump’s ability to shake up and break up the union has not dissipated.  And this time, in 2024, the discontented parties may well be pro-life States, for Donald Trump has begun touting an abortion-friendly campaign message to win the ‘woman vote’:

‘Former President Donald Trump has signaled a shift in his stance on abortion, vowing to ensure “powerful exceptions” if elected in 2024, in what appears to be an attempt to appeal to women voters.

‘In recent statements, Trump expressed opposition to Florida’s six-week abortion ban, calling it “too short” and saying “there has to be more time.” When asked about Florida’s Amendment 4, which would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, Trump indicated he would vote for “more than six weeks,” as previously reported by Resist the Mainstream.

‘Nonetheless, it appears Trump is again trying to appeal to women voters by vowing a more moderate approach to abortion.

‘ . . . Trump’s shift comes as the Republican Party has moved away from its long-standing position of advocating for strict abortion limits. In July, the party abandoned this stance, reflecting the complex political calculus surrounding the issue in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s reversal.

‘As the 2024 election approaches, Trump’s evolving position on abortion highlights the delicate balance Republican candidates must strike between appealing to their conservative base and attracting moderate voters, particularly women.

‘The issue remains a contentious and divisive one in American politics, with both parties seeking to frame their opponents as extremists while positioning themselves as reasonable on the matter’ (Anthony Gonzalez, ‘Trump Makes Major Shift in Abortion Stance, Vows ‘Powerful Exceptions’ for Women’, resistthemainstream.com).

In 2016, Leftist Oregonians decided they didn’t like the prospect of living under a revivalist Trump presidency and took some initial steps to leave the present union and form a new one.  In 2024, or in some year not too distant from this one, pro-lifers in Midwestern and Southern States may well decide they don’t like the prospect of living under a pro-abortion federal president who pressures them to loosen their abortion laws (whether that is Trump or someone else) and take steps of their own to leave the union.

That will hinge on how strong the Christian Faith remains in those States.  From her earliest days, the Church has condemned the murder of unborn children.  The Didache (also called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), a first-century Christian text, reads, ‘[D]o not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant’ (2:2, ccel.org).  Many other citations could be given from Church Fathers over the years.

Christians realize something more is at work in abortion than the Enlightenment ‘right’ of a woman to do what she wishes with the little baby growing in her womb.  It is an intensely religious act, one instigated by the demons and intended to destroy mankind and to dishonor God, Who made man and woman in His own image:

‘As mankind spread across the face of the earth, the darkness spread, deception grew, and men forgot their Creator. The fallen angels, servants of the serpent, appeared in the form of men with heads of animals, seeking to be worshiped as gods—Baal, Molech, Ashtoreth, Osiris, Enki, Khnum, and many others. Capricious and cruel towards the human race, these false gods took pleasure in man’s humiliation and death. They threatened man with plagues and destruction, and demanded endless blood sacrifices. The blood of animals was grudgingly accepted, but what they most desired was the sacrifice of men. The murder of the innocent was best of all. It greatly pleased them to see wretched men plunge knives into the hearts of their virgin daughters and newborn infants, hoping to receive favor from the gods. It pleased the demons even more to betray these men, providing them with nothing in return’ (Fr Joseph Gleason, ‘Two Brothers, Two Sacrifices, and The Strategic Lie’, orthochristian.com).

(For another instantiation of these kinds of sacrifices in modern times, see the short video shared by Jeff LeJeune.)

Pro-life Red States that are firm in those Christian convictions will one day find it necessary to separate from a federal government that is intent on forcing evil acts to be committed within their borders.  Their people (the greater part, at any rate) understand that they will one day stand before Christ God at the Dread Final Judgment, and will have to give an account of what they did or did not do to protect innocent babies.  Their love for God and man will trump (no pun intended) their dedication to a voluntary, utilitarian political union.

Whether conscious of them or not, each State has her own red lines that, if crossed, will cause her to secede.  For Texas, along with infanticide, it may be the lack of any border enforcement.  For Leftist States like Oregon, it could well be any semblance of Christian governance emanating from DC.

This is consistent with US history:  Thirteen new nations were born in 1776 when they seceded from the world-spanning British Empire because of the grievances spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, not a single nation, as we have pointed out before.  Each one was fully independent of the others, fully sovereign, possessing its own unique culture and history.  John Dickinson of Delaware, one of the delegates to the Philadelphia convention in 1787, alluded to this when he wrote,

‘[A] territory of such extent as that of United America, could not be safely and advantageously governed, but by a combination of republics, each retaining all the rights of supreme sovereignty, excepting such as ought to be contributed to the union; that for the securer preservation of these sovereignties, they ought to be represented in a body by themselves, and with equal suffrage’ (Gregery Ahern, ‘The Spirit of American Constitutionalism’, theimaginativeconservative.org).

As these sovereign States approach the 250^th anniversary of their independence from Great Britain, we may well see the birth of new confederations of States as they secede for various reasons from what has unfortunately become the world-spanning American Empire, and recombine.

It will be a great irony if this occurs because of a second Trump term as president, since he styles himself something of a restorer of America.  On second thought, though, if he did cause the union to be reshaped via secession of one or more States, this actually would be returning the US to what make them ‘great’ politically in the past:  their decentralized, localist political system, which has been gravely damaged by centralizers like Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, GWB, Obama, etc.

But a reshaping could just as easily happen if Kamala Harris is elected.  No matter who becomes president, many States are going to be very unhappy.  Every State, for that reason, should make contingency plans in case a crackup does occur.  Perhaps some already have.  We will find out as events unfold.

But it is a fool’s errand to try to hold all these nations/States together as if they all had a single culture, a single spirit and mind.  It always was.  The coordinating government in DC should never have been given the amount of power over them that it received from the delegates at the 1787 convention.  The States may get a chance to remedy that before long.