FAQPage
main entity: What is the difference between TEXIT and Texas independence?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: There is no difference in the goal. Texas independence is the destination. TEXIT is the name for the campaign that gets us there. One is the where, the other is the how. Texas independence is the outcome Texas independence means Texas governing itself again as a free and independent nation, the way it did before it joined the union in 1845. It is a state of being. It is Texas making its own laws, signing its own treaties, spending the money Texans earn on the things Texans need, and answering to no government but its own. That is the end we are working toward, and it is the same end free peoples have reached all over the world. TEXIT is the movement that gets us there TEXIT is shorthand for "Texas Exit." It is the word for the organized effort to restore that independence. It follows the same naming the world used for Brexit, when Britain voted to leave the European Union. The campaign, the strategy, the referendum, the vote, the transition, all of that is TEXIT. Independence is what TEXIT delivers. Why we use both words The two words do different jobs, so we keep both. "Texas independence" is the precise, honest description of what Texas would have on the other side. "TEXIT" is the rallying point, the one word that tells a Texan exactly what we are fighting for and connects it to a global pattern they have already seen work. You will see us move between them, and that is on purpose. Neither word is "secession" What both words share is what they are not. They are not "secession." Secession is the word our opponents use to drag a peaceful vote back to 1861 and the Confederacy. Texas independence is restoration, not rebellion. The Texas Constitution still calls Texas "a free and independent State." We are reclaiming something Texas already had, not inventing something new, and we use the words that say so. The bottom line Texas independence is the goal. TEXIT is how we win it. Same fight, two words, one outcome: Texans decide the future of Texas.
main entity: What does it mean for Texas to "reassert its status as an independent nation"?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: It means Texas would take back something it already had. "Reassert" is the right word, because Texas was a free and independent nation before it ever joined the union. This is restoration, not invention. Texas was a nation first For nine years, from 1836 to 1845, Texas stood as a country among countries. It had a president, a congress, and a supreme court. It had its own army and its own navy. It signed treaties with other nations and was recognized by them. Texas did not begin as a piece of the United States. It began as the Republic of Texas, and it chose to join the union on terms it negotiated as a sovereign nation. "Reassert" means reclaim, not create When we say Texas would reassert its status as an independent nation, we are saying Texas would resume an identity it already held. You cannot reassert something you never had. The word is deliberate. It rejects the idea that independence would be a leap into the unknown. Texas has been a nation before. The machinery of self-government, the courts, the agencies, the military, the treasury, is already here. Reasserting independence means switching it fully back on. The exact words are on the ballot for a reason This is not loose language. It is the question the Texas Nationalist Movement intends to put to the people of Texas: "Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?" That single sentence carries the whole argument. It frames independence as a return to a known status, decided by the people, in plain words, with no trick in it. The Texas Constitution already speaks this way Texas has never stopped describing itself in these terms. Article 1, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution calls Texas "a free and independent State." Article 1, Section 2 says all political power is inherent in the people, and that they have at all times the inalienable right to alter or reform their government as they see fit. The legal language of restoration is already written into the founding document of the st…
main entity: What would an independent Texas actually look like day to day?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: For most Texans, day to day, it would look a lot like it does now, only with the decisions made closer to home. The morning after a successful vote, the sun comes up, the coffee gets made, and the work of building a nation begins quietly, not with chaos. The day after is calmer than people expect Independence is not a single dramatic moment where everything changes at once. It is a process. The day after an affirmative vote, things continue as they have. The mail gets delivered. The trash gets picked up. Goods move. Money is earned and spent. The lights stay on, because Texas runs its own power grid. Independence is a state of being that is reached through negotiation and transition, not a switch that plunges the state into the unknown overnight. Your daily life mostly stays put You would still wake up in the same house, drive the same roads, hold the same job, bank at the same bank, and shop at the same stores. Texas already has a state-level agency for nearly every function people rely on. The institutions that run daily life in Texas are, overwhelmingly, already run from Texas. Independence does not tear them down. It removes the layer above them that answers to Washington. What changes is who makes the decisions The real difference is upstream, in who decides. Today, a large share of what the Texas Legislature does is reacting to federal law, federal money, and federal mandates. An independent Texas sets its own direction. Tax policy, border policy, energy policy, the rules that shape life here, would be decided in Texas, by people Texans elect and can hold accountable, instead of in a Capitol most Texans will never visit. The change you would feel is not disruption. It is control. The hard work happens at the negotiating table, not in your kitchen The complicated parts of independence, dividing assets, settling the relationship with the United States, signing trade and treaty agreements, happen at the negotiating table between governments. That is where the exp…
main entity: Is TEXIT a serious movement or just talk?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: It is serious, and the record proves it. TEXIT is not a slogan or a venting session. It is an organized political campaign with a written plan, legislation that has been filed, a measurable base of support, and a party platform behind it. The support is real and it is documented More than 667,890 Texans are on record demanding a vote on independence. That is not a mailing list of vague sympathizers. It is a base of support that rivals the largest single-issue organizations in the country as a share of registered voters. On top of that, polling has shown around 60 percent of Texans supporting peaceful independence and about 66 percent wanting the chance to vote on it. Movements that are "just talk" do not post numbers like that. The legislation has already been filed This is not a someday idea. The Texas Independence Referendum Act was filed in the Texas Legislature as House Bill 1359 in 2021 by Representative Kyle Biedermann, with Representative James White as coauthor, and it has been refiled since. The bill is on the public record. The single question it would put to Texans, whether Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation, has been drafted and is ready. You do not write and file a bill for something you are not serious about. The party platform is behind it The Republican Party of Texas, the largest political party in the state, has put this in its platform. In 2020 its delegates adopted a plank affirming Texas's right to leave, passed with 93 percent support. In 2022 the party went further and called for a referendum on Texas independence, a position it reaffirmed in 2024 and again in 2026. When a state's dominant party writes your goal into its platform, the conversation has moved well past talk. There is an actual plan, not just a wish The Texas Nationalist Movement runs a four-part strategy: build the organized capacity to win, pressure the Legislature to pass the referendum, win the vote, and secure independence in the transition that follow…
main entity: What is the difference between Texas independence and "national divorce"?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: They are not the same thing, and the difference matters. "National divorce" is a slogan about splitting the country along partisan lines. Texas independence is a specific, lawful proposal for Texans to govern themselves. One is a mood. The other is a plan. What "national divorce" actually proposes The phrase "national divorce" was popularized by federal officeholders, most prominently Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who in 2023 called to "separate by red states and blue states." It is a framing built on partisanship: the idea that the country should break apart into a conservative bloc and a progressive bloc. It is a country-wide argument about sorting Americans by their politics. Commentators across the spectrum have noted it is often used as a softer-sounding stand-in for a partisan breakup. Texas independence is about Texas, not about teams Texas independence is not a plan to sort the country by party. It is a proposal for one specific outcome: Texas resuming self-government as a free and independent nation. The case for it does not depend on who wins a federal election or which party is up. It rests on a permanent fact: decisions about Texas should be made in Texas, by Texans, close to the people they affect. That argument holds no matter who is in the White House. Independence is not partisan, and the coalition shows it A national divorce is a partisan idea by definition. Texas independence is not. Support for it has crossed party lines, drawing conservatives, independents, and others who are simply tired of being governed from far away. We take no position on the issues that divide left from right. The single thing this movement asks Texans to agree on is that they deserve the right to decide their own future. That is a Texan question, not a Republican or Democratic one. One has a legal path. The other does not Here is the most practical difference. Texas independence has a defined, lawful route: a bill in the Texas Legislature, a referendum, a vote of …
main entity: Does TEXIT mean Texas wants war with the United States?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: No. The opposite. TEXIT is a peaceful, lawful, democratic process, decided by a vote. There is no version of it that involves Texas attacking anyone. Anyone who says otherwise is describing 1861, not what is on the table today. The whole method is a ballot, not a battle TEXIT runs through the Texas Legislature and then through the people of Texas in a referendum. The decisive act is Texans marking a ballot. A vote is not an act of war. Casting a ballot is the most peaceful instrument a free people have. The movement has been explicit and unwavering: where there is a legal path, it must be followed, and that path is political, not military. Independence means separation, not conflict Wanting to govern yourself is not the same as wanting to fight your neighbor. Britain left the European Union and did not go to war with Brussels. Scotland held an independence vote and no shots were fired. The Soviet Union came apart into fifteen nations without a civil war. Separation between governments is settled by negotiation, the way grown nations settle their affairs. War is what happens when that process fails, and the entire TEXIT plan is built so it never has to. A negotiated exit is in everyone's interest After a vote, Texas and the United States would sit down and divide the relationship: trade, assets, the practical handoffs. Both sides have every reason to keep that calm. Texas is a top trading partner, a major energy producer, and deeply tied into the continent's economy. A peaceful, negotiated separation keeps goods flowing and the border quiet. Conflict would wreck the economy of both nations for no gain. The rational path, the one nations almost always take, is to talk. The threat of force is a scare tactic, and history undercuts it When opponents raise the specter of war, they are not describing Texas's plan. They are trying to frighten people away from a peaceful vote. No elected official has credibly threatened to answer a lawful referendum with troops. And the worl…
main entity: Would TEXIT be peaceful?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Yes. Peaceful is not a hope attached to TEXIT. It is the design of it. The entire process is built on a vote, the rule of law, and negotiation, and the modern record shows this is exactly how independence happens now. Peace is built into the method TEXIT is achieved through a referendum authorized by the Texas Legislature and decided by the people of Texas. Every step is a legal, political step. A bill is filed. A vote is held. A result is certified. A transition is negotiated. There is no point in that sequence that requires force, and the movement has been clear that the lawful, peaceful path is the only path. The Texas Nationalist Movement's job is to win at the ballot box and secure the result through negotiation. The modern world votes on this, and it stays peaceful This is not theoretical. Britain voted to leave the European Union and the transition, however slow, was peaceful. Scotland held a full independence referendum under an agreement with London and accepted the result without violence. Czechoslovakia split into two countries on January 1, 1993, peacefully, in what is remembered as the Velvet Divorce. Fifteen nations emerged from the Soviet Union without a civil war. The pattern of the last several decades is clear: free peoples settle this with ballots, not bullets. Even pressure does not have to break the peace Where governments have tried to resist a peaceful vote, the lesson has been that force backfires. When Spain met Catalonia's 2017 referendum with a crackdown, support for independence went up, not down. The instinct to suppress a democratic vote is not just wrong, it is counterproductive, and serious people know it. That reality is itself a force for keeping the process calm. Texas has every incentive to keep it calm, and so does Washington A peaceful, negotiated separation protects what both sides value. Trade keeps moving. The border stays orderly. Investment stays put. Texas is too economically important to the continent for either side to w…
main entity: Is this about leaving America, or leaving the federal government in Washington?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: It is about leaving the federal government in Washington, not about leaving the values most people mean when they say "America." Texas is not turning its back on liberty, self-government, or the rule of law. It is leaving a federal system that has drifted away from those things. The target is Washington, not your neighbor The grievance that drives this movement is with a federal government that has grown too big to reform, too far away to listen, and too indebted to fix itself. It is not with the people of Ohio or the families of Florida. Texas independence is a separation from a system of government centered on the Potomac, not a rejection of ordinary Americans or the founding ideals they share with Texans. We are leaving an institution, not a people. "America" and "Washington" are not the same thing Part of the confusion is that the two words get treated as one. They are not. There is the country, the people, the history, the founding principles, and then there is the federal apparatus in Washington that claims to act in their name. You can be devoted to the first and done with the second. Texans send hundreds of billions of dollars to Washington and watch a shrinking share come back with strings attached. That is a complaint about a government, not a country. Texas keeps the ideals, and arguably keeps them better Independence is not Texas abandoning the principles the country was founded on. It is Texas carrying them forward. Government by the consent of the governed, accountability to the people, limited and answerable power: those are the ideals an independent Texas is built to honor more fully, not less. Leaving Washington is how Texas keeps faith with the founding idea, not how it breaks with it. This is restoration, not exile Texas is not running away. Texas was a free and independent nation before it joined the union, and reasserting that status is a return to its own history, not a departure from American values. The Texas Constitution still calls Texas "a…
main entity: Would Texans still consider themselves American?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: That would be up to each Texan, and independence does not take the choice away. Identity is personal. A change in which government Texas answers to does not reach into anyone's heart and rewrite how they see themselves. Identity is yours, not the government's to assign How you identify is not issued by a capital. Plenty of people hold layered identities with no contradiction at all. Someone can be Texan, and feel a connection to the broader American story, and be a citizen of an independent Texas, all at once. Independence settles a question of government. It does not hand out or take away the labels people choose for themselves. Those stay with the individual, where they belong. Texas has always carried a double identity, and it works Texans have lived with a strong, distinct identity inside the union for generations. The Lone Star, the pledge to the Texas flag, "Texas, our Texas," a history taught to every Texas schoolchild. People have been proudly Texan and part of the larger country at the same time their whole lives. Independence does not break that habit of mind. If anything, it formalizes what Texans have always felt: that Texas is its own place. Shared history does not disappear when the flag changes Independence does not erase the past. The history, the family ties across state lines, the cultural threads that run through the continent, all of it remains. Britain leaving the European Union did not make British people stop being European in the cultural sense. A Texan who feels American in heritage and values will go right on feeling that way. What changes is the government, not the bloodline or the story. Citizenship and identity are two different things It helps to separate the legal question from the personal one. Citizenship is a legal status. Identity is how you feel and what you claim. They are not the same. An independent Texas would sort out citizenship through the transition, the way new nations always have, and how Texans feel about being American…
main entity: What does "self-government" really mean here?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: It means the people who live under a government are the ones who get to choose and shape it. For Texas, self-government means Texans, not a distant capital, making the decisions that govern Texas. That is the whole idea, and it is older than the country itself. The people are the source of the power Self-government starts from a simple premise: political power belongs to the people, and a government is just an instrument they create to serve them. The Texas Constitution puts it plainly in Article 1, Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit. And the people have at all times the inalienable right to alter or reform their government as they think best. Self-government is the people exercising that right. Distance is the enemy of accountability Government works best when the governed can reach the people who govern them. The closer a decision is made to the people it affects, the more those people can scrutinize it, influence it, and throw out whoever gets it wrong. A decision made fifteen hundred miles away, by people most Texans cannot name and will never meet, is a decision Texans cannot truly hold to account. Self-government is about closing that distance so accountability is real. It is the right to be wrong on your own terms Self-government does not mean every decision will be perfect. It means the decisions are yours. If a policy fails, Texans can change it, scrap it, and try something else, without asking permission from forty-nine other states or a federal bureaucracy. The freedom to make your own choices, and to correct your own mistakes, is the heart of governing yourself. Right now, Texans do not fully have that. Independence gives it to them. It is the oldest American idea, applied to Texas This is not a radical concept. It is the consent of the governed, the principle the founders staked everything on. Free peoples around the world have claimed it, in Britain, in S…
main entity: Is TEXIT a left-wing or right-wing idea?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Neither. Self-government is not a left or right idea. It is a Texan one. The case for independence does not sit on one side of the partisan map, and the support for it does not either. The argument is not partisan The case for Texas independence is not "your team wins." It is that decisions about Texas should be made in Texas, by Texans, close to the people they affect. That argument does not belong to conservatives or progressives. It belongs to anyone who would rather be governed by people they can hold accountable than by a distant capital they cannot. The principle is the consent of the governed, and that predates the modern left-right divide by centuries. The support already crosses the lines The numbers bear this out. Support for independence has reached levels that no single faction could produce on its own. You cannot poll around 60 percent in a state as varied as Texas by appealing to one wing. That support runs across party lines and includes Texans of every background, from lifelong conservatives to disillusioned progressives to people who have never been political at all. A coalition that broad is, by definition, not the property of one side. We take no position beyond independence itself This movement is deliberately disciplined about staying in its lane. The Texas Nationalist Movement does not take sides on the policy fights that divide left from right. What an independent Texas does about taxes, spending, or any contested issue is for the government Texans elect to decide. Our single ask is that Texans get the right to govern themselves. Loading independence with a partisan policy agenda would be a mistake, and it is one we refuse to make. Scotland is the cautionary tale There is a reason for that discipline. In Scotland's 2014 independence vote, the campaign tied independence to one party's policy program. Opponents pounced, recast the vote as a referendum on that party, and independence lost ground it did not need to lose. The lesson is clear. The m…
main entity: Is independence about one issue, or many?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Many issues lead people to it, but they all run into one. The many are the symptoms. The one is the cause. Independence is the answer to the single problem underneath all the others: Texans do not govern Texas. People arrive from a hundred different doors Ask Texans why they support independence and you will hear a hundred answers. The federal debt. The border. Property taxes and the cost of living. Federal overreach into Texas business and Texas life. The hundreds of billions of dollars that leave the state every year. Regulation written by people who have never set foot here. Each Texan walks in through the door that matters most to them, and every one of those doors is real. Every door opens into the same room Here is what they have in common. Not one of those problems is something Texas can fully fix while it is governed from Washington. The debt is not Texas's to control. The border policy is not Texas's to set. The share of decisions that route through the federal government is not Texas's to reroute. Behind every specific grievance is the same structural fact: the decisions that shape Texas are not made by Texans. That is the one issue. Everything else grows out of it. That is why independence, and not reform, is the answer If the problem were any single policy, you could chase a single fix. But you cannot reform your way out of a structure in which Texas is permanently outvoted, sending a handful of voices into a federal government designed to be run by majorities from everywhere else. Independence is not one more item on a list of demands. It is the thing that finally puts Texans in a position to address the whole list themselves. One issue to win, many to decide later This is also why the movement keeps the question narrow. The referendum is about one thing: should Texas govern itself. What an independent Texas then does about taxes, the border, or anything else is for Texans to decide afterward, through their own government. Folding every downstream polic…
main entity: What is the single best argument for Texas independence?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: That Texans, and only Texans, should decide the future of Texas. Every other argument, the money, the debt, the border, the overreach, is downstream of that one. Self-government is the case. The rest is evidence. The principle is the consent of the governed Strip the argument to its core and it is the oldest idea in free society: a government draws its just authority from the consent of the people it governs. Texas does not fully have that. The decisions that shape life here are made, in large part, by a federal government that Texans cannot hold to account and are permanently outvoted within. Independence corrects that. It puts the people of Texas in charge of the government of Texas. That is the whole case, and it is enough. Every other reason is proof of the same point The hundreds of billions that leave the state. The federal debt Texans never voted for. The border Texas cannot secure on its own terms. The flood of regulation written elsewhere. These are not separate arguments. They are demonstrations of what happens when a people do not govern themselves. They are the receipts. They show the cost of the missing principle, and they all point back to it. It is a positive case, not just a complaint This is not only about what is wrong. It is about what becomes possible. Self-government means Texas can build a government in its own image, sized to its own needs, answerable to its own people. It means the freedom to try, to fail, to fix, and to try again, on Texan terms. The best argument for independence is not anger at Washington. It is the opportunity of self-rule, the chance Texans have never actually had. Texas is uniquely able to make the principle real Self-government is the right of any people, but Texas is unusually equipped to exercise it. Texas already runs its own power grid, fields its own military department, and operates a state-level agency for nearly every function of a nation. Texas is structurally capable of doing what nations do. So the principle…
main entity: What is the strongest argument against it, and how do you answer it?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: The strongest honest argument against independence is uncertainty: that leaving is a hard, complicated undertaking with real risk, and that staying is the known quantity. We take that seriously, because it is the only objection made in good faith. And it has a good answer. State the objection at its strongest The fair version goes like this. Texas is deeply woven into the United States, in trade, in currency, in benefits, in defense. Untangling that is genuinely complex. Independence means transition, negotiation, and a period where some things are still being worked out. Change carries risk, and the status quo, whatever its faults, is familiar. That is a real argument, and we will not pretend it away with a slogan. Hard is not the same as impossible The honest response is that difficulty is not a reason to stay, it is a task to be managed. Since 1945, more than a hundred and forty new nations have made the transition to self-government. Britain did it. Scotland built a credible path to it. Fifteen nations emerged from the Soviet Union, out of a tighter and more centralized union than this one, and they made it. Texas is not less capable than those nations. It is more capable than most. The work is real, and it is work that has been done many times before. The tools to manage it already exist There is almost no part of the Texas relationship with the United States that cannot be handled with tools already on the shelf. Texas has a state-level agency for nearly every federal function. Trade can run on a free-trade agreement or existing World Trade Organization schedules. Currency can stay the dollar through the transition. Benefits people earned are protected through the same totalization agreements dozens of nations already use. Uncertainty is not the same as the unknown. The mechanisms are known, tested, and in use around the world. The status quo carries its own risk, and it is rising The objection assumes staying is the safe choice. It is not a free one. Staying …
main entity: If Texas were already independent today, would you vote to join the union?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: No. And that question is the fastest way to see the whole argument clearly. Flip the situation around, and the case for independence stops being abstract and becomes obvious. The question that cuts through everything Imagine Texas is already a free and independent nation. It runs its own affairs, keeps the money its people earn, makes its own laws, and answers only to Texans. Now someone proposes that Texas give all of that up: join a union of fifty, send hundreds of billions of dollars a year to a distant capital, take on a share of a multi-trillion-dollar debt it had no part in creating, surrender control of its border and much of its policy, and accept being permanently outvoted by majorities from everywhere else. Would you vote yes? Almost no one would. It exposes the status quo as a choice, not a default Most people treat the current arrangement as just the way things are, a fixed background nobody picked. The flipped question breaks that spell. It shows that staying in the union is a choice, the same as leaving is, and it forces an honest look at the terms of that choice on their own merits. When you have to actively argue for joining, rather than just accepting it as given, the deal looks very different. No one would sign up for this deal fresh Lay the terms out plainly and they sell themselves backward. Hand over a large slice of your tax revenue, much of which never returns. Inherit a debt you did not vote for. Accept rules written by people far away who do not answer to you. Trade direct control of your own future for a handful of votes in a body designed to be run by others. No independent nation in its right mind would volunteer for that. Yet that is the arrangement Texas is being told it must never question. It reframes independence as the normal choice This is why the flipped question matters so much. It reveals that independence is not the radical option. Self-government is the normal, default condition of a capable people. Staying in a union on these…
main entity: Why Texas and not some other state?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Because Texas is the one state that already does everything a nation does, at the scale of a nation, with the history of a nation. No other state comes close on all three at once. Texas is already the size of a country Most states could not stand alone, and they know it. Texas is not most states. If Texas were independent today, it would have the world's eighth-largest economy, about $2.77 trillion, ahead of Canada, Russia, and South Korea. Not eighth among the states. Eighth among the nations on Earth. Thirty-one million people live here, more than in most countries that hold seats at the United Nations. The question for almost any other state is whether it could survive on its own. For Texas, the size answers that before it is even asked. Texas already runs the machinery of a nation Texas does not have to build a government from scratch, because it already has one. It has its own power grid. It has its own military in the Texas Military Department. It has a state-level agency for nearly every function the federal government performs. It is the largest energy producer in the union and a net exporter to the world. The institutions a free Texas would need are not blueprints on a drawing board. They are open for business right now, staffed by Texans, paid for by Texans. Texas was a nation before it was a state This is the part no other state can claim. Texas stood as a free and independent republic for nine years before it joined the union in 1845, with its own president, its own congress, its own army, its own courts, and treaties with other nations. The Texas Constitution still opens by calling Texas "a free and independent State." Independence for Texas is not an invention. It is a restoration of something Texas already was and already exercised. Texas has the identity to carry it A nation is more than a balance sheet. It is a people who know who they are. Texans have a flag they salute, a pledge they recite, an anthem, a history taught to every seventh grader, and…
main entity: Could other states leave too if Texas did?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Possibly, and that is their right, not our problem to solve. Texas independence does not depend on any other state following, and it does not require any other state to stay. Each state's future is for its own people to decide. Self-government is a principle, not a Texas-only privilege The whole foundation of independence is that a people have the right to govern themselves. That principle does not stop at the Red River. If the people of another state look at Washington and decide they want the same direct vote on their own future, the same logic that supports Texas supports them. We are not claiming a special exemption from the rules of self-determination. We are exercising the rights everyone has, and we would not deny them to anyone else. Independence movements already exist in other places This is not hypothetical. There are active self-determination efforts in other states and in other countries on this continent and around the world. The number of self-governing nations has grown steadily for eighty years, with more than 140 new ones since 1945 alone. The idea that lines on a map are permanent is a modern superstition. People reconsider how they are governed all the time, peacefully, through the ballot. Texas would be part of that long story, not a strange exception to it. Texas does not wait for permission or company Some people argue Texas should lead a coalition of states out together, or hold back until others are ready. We reject the wait. Texas independence requires the agreement of exactly one group of people: Texans. It does not require California, or any other state, to come along. Tying Texas to the timeline of forty-nine other states would be handing our future to people who do not live here. The point of independence is the opposite of that. A free Texas makes the path visible for others Here is the likeliest effect. When Texas shows that a peaceful, lawful, democratic exit can be done, it stops being theoretical for everyone else. People learn mos…
main entity: What makes Texas uniquely able to stand on its own?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Scale and self-sufficiency. Texas is already the size of a country, it already pays the full cost of its own government, and it is lightly governed for its wealth, which means it has room to spare. Very few places on Earth can say all three. Texas is already the size of a country Ask whether an economy this size can run a national government, and the size answers for you. Texas GDP reached $2.77 trillion in 2024. If Texas were a country, that would rank eighth on the planet, ahead of Italy, Canada, Russia, South Korea, and Australia. Countries far smaller than Texas run complete, prosperous, sovereign governments right now, with full militaries and diplomatic corps, on a fraction of what Texas produces. This is not a marginal entity wondering whether it can afford a flag. It out-produces most of the nations it would join as a peer. Texas already pays its own way The numbers close, and they close with margin. Texans pay about $453 billion a year to the two governments that tax them, Washington and Austin. Governing Texas, the whole job, defense, every agency and the people who staff it, every grant and contract, plus the entire existing state budget, costs about $295 billion a year. That is roughly $14,500 paid against about $9,400 in cost for every Texan. The revenue Texans already generate covers the full cost of their government, without raising anyone's taxes by a cent. The honest, conservative finding is self-sufficiency: Texas funds the government it runs, and helps foot the bill for other states besides. Texas is lightly governed for its wealth Here is the number that settles the scale question. Developed democracies spend somewhere between 38 and 44 percent of their economy on all levels of government combined. The total government footprint inside Texas, federal and state together, runs closer to 19 percent. Texas is not stretched thin. It is lightly governed for how wealthy it is, which means enormous fiscal headroom to fund whatever a sovereign Texas chose…
main entity: What makes this different from other secession movements?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Almost everything. The word "secession" gets attached to a lot of different things, and most of them have nothing to do with what Texas is doing. Texas independence is peaceful, lawful, democratic, and built on the consent of the governed. That is the opposite of the movements people picture when they hear the word. This runs through the ballot box, not the battlefield The movements that fail, and the ones that earn the ugly reputation, are the ones built on force. Texas independence is built on a vote. The whole plan runs through the Texas Legislature and then through a free, fair, statewide referendum of every eligible Texan. There is no army, no insurrection, no seizure of anything. The closest real-world model is not a war. It is Britain leaving the European Union: a question put to the people, answered at the ballot box, and negotiated afterward like adults. As the saying goes, you have to have the vote to have the conversation. This is not 1861, and the difference is everything The secession people reach for in their minds is the Confederacy, and that comparison fails on every point. The events of 1861 were carried out by self-selected conventions and settled on the battlefield, not by a vote of the whole people. Texas independence today is the opposite. It is decided by a free and open referendum of every eligible Texan, of every race and background, and it stands on the consent of the governed. One was settled by war. The other is settled at the ballot box. Pointing at 1865 to answer a 2026 question is a category error. This is a coalition, not a faction Failed movements are usually narrow, the project of one party, one region, or one grievance. Texas independence is broad. Polling has shown roughly 60 percent of Texans supporting independence and about two-thirds wanting a vote on it. You do not reach those numbers with a fringe. That coalition crosses party lines, racial lines, and regional lines, from lifelong conservatives to disillusioned progressives t…
main entity: Why not just win elections instead?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Because Texans already win elections, and it changes the structure not at all. Texas sends one of the most reliably conservative delegations in the union to Washington, year after year, and Washington grows anyway. Winning elections inside a system built to outvote you does not give you the system. It gives you a seat at a table where you are permanently outnumbered. The math of the federal system does not close Texas sends 38 members to the U.S. House and 2 to the Senate. That is 38 of 435 and 2 of 100. Even when every Texan in Washington votes as one bloc, Texas is outnumbered roughly ten to one in a body designed to be run by majorities from everywhere else. You can win every Texas race in a landslide and still lose every vote that matters, because the other side simply has more chairs. Winning your own elections does not change how many chairs there are. The other side has no reason to vote power back to Texas Reform through elections means convincing the rest of the country to hand power back to Texas voluntarily. Two-thirds of the states benefit from the current arrangement. Over half the population benefits from the federal status quo. People do not vote to give away an advantage. Asking them to is not a strategy, it is a wish. The votes to undo the system are not there, and they are not coming, because the people who hold them like the system the way it is. We have run this experiment for decades This is not a guess about the future. It is a report on the past. Texans have voted, organized, donated, and sent principled people to Washington for generations. Through all of it the federal government got bigger, the debt climbed past anything anyone plans to repay, and the rules imposed on Texas multiplied. The strategy of "just win elections" has been running at full strength the entire time. The results are in, and they do not improve by doing the same thing harder. Independence is the one election that actually decides it Here is the irony. Independence is wo…
main entity: Isn't reforming Washington more realistic than independence?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: It sounds more realistic. It is not. Reforming Washington requires the agreement of almost everyone. Independence requires the agreement of only Texans. When you count who has to say yes, independence is the realistic option and reform is the long shot. Realistic means asking who has to agree Test any plan by counting the people who have to go along with it. To reform Washington, Texas needs the cooperation of California, New York, forty-six other states, both chambers of Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and the courts. To win independence, Texas needs a majority of Texans. One of those coalitions is within reach. The other has never once assembled to give power back. The plan that needs fewer people to agree is the plan with the better odds, and that is independence by a wide margin. The "realistic" plan has been failing in plain sight Reform is not the safe, proven option. It is the option that has been tried for decades and has not delivered. Texans have voted, sued, and legislated for a generation, and Washington has grown larger every year, the debt has climbed past forty trillion dollars, and the rules on Texas have multiplied. A strategy that has been run at full effort for fifty years without working is not the realistic one. It is the comfortable one, which is a very different thing. Even the cleanest reform tool does not work Some pin their hopes on a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution. Set aside the real risk of a runaway convention. Even a perfect amendment is only words on paper, and Washington has spent a century reading plain constitutional words to mean their opposite. The Tenth Amendment is already in the Constitution. It already says powers not given to Washington belong to the states and the people. It has not restrained Washington. Adding more text to a document Washington already ignores is not a realistic plan. It is the same plan with extra steps. You cannot fix the fire by feeding it more fuel Every reform offered inside the federal …
main entity: Why do you believe the system can't be fixed from the inside?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Because the problem is not a flaw in the system that the system would let you repair. The problem is the system working exactly as the people who benefit from it intend. You cannot fix something from the inside when the inside is the thing that is broken, and when it is designed to protect itself from the very fix you are proposing. The structure is built to outvote Texas, by design Start with the arithmetic, because it is not an accident. Texas holds 38 of 435 seats in the U.S. House and 2 of 100 in the Senate. The system runs on majorities assembled from everywhere else, which means Texas is structurally outnumbered no matter how it votes. Fixing that from the inside would require the majority to vote away its own majority. Systems do not do that. The people who hold the power are the people you would need permission from to take it back, and they have every reason to say no. The bureaucracy is built to survive reform Beneath the elected layer sits a permanent one that no election touches. Roughly 2.5 million unelected federal employees, more than 400 agencies, and over a million individual regulatory restrictions do not change when the voters do. This machinery outlasts every administration and absorbs every reform. You can change the people at the top and leave the structure that actually governs untouched, which is precisely what reform has done. Reform has been tried, hard, and it was beaten This is not theory, it is recent history. Reform movements have come to Washington from both the right and the left promising to shrink or remake the federal apparatus, and the apparatus has outlasted every one of them, absorbing the staff and the energy and carrying on. The system does not just resist reform passively. It has the permanence, the budget, and the legal inertia to wait any reformer out. An institution that durable is not one you fix by asking it nicely. Every fix runs through the thing being fixed The deeper trap is procedural. Every reform offered inside th…
main entity: Why now? What changed that makes this urgent?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Two things changed at once. Texas grew into the eighth-largest economy on Earth, and Washington ran its debt up toward forty trillion dollars. The case for independence got stronger and the cost of waiting got higher, at the same time. That is what makes now different from twenty years ago. The debt crossed into territory no one plans to repay The federal debt has climbed toward forty trillion dollars, and it is not slowing. Washington now spends about $1.37 for every dollar it collects, borrowing the difference. Texans carry a share of that, and the share is not abstract. Texans send roughly $72 billion a year just in interest on a debt they never voted for, plus about $150 billion a year in fresh borrowing piled on top. The interest alone has more than doubled since 2019 and now rivals every dollar of defense spending in the state. Every year inside the union, that bill gets bigger. Waiting is not free. Waiting is the expensive option. The dollar is losing value faster, and Texans pay the difference The same borrowing shows up a second time, as inflation. The dollar has lost about 22 percent of its purchasing power since 2020 alone. In a single bad year, the year ending in early 2022, the erosion of value on Texans' bank deposits alone ran somewhere around $130 to $145 billion. That is roughly the size of the entire annual dividend of independence, taken back invisibly, with no vote and no way to opt out. The longer Texas stays tied to a currency built to inflate, the more of that quiet tax Texans pay. Texas has never been more capable of standing alone While the cost of staying rose, the capacity to leave reached an all-time high. Texas is now the world's eighth-largest economy at $2.77 trillion. It pays the full cost of its own government with margin to spare. It leads the union in energy and in people moving in. Twenty years ago the "can Texas make it" question at least had to be argued. Today the size answers it. The window is not closing on Texas's ability. I…
main entity: Isn't this a fantasy that distracts from real political work?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: No. It is the most realistic political work there is, because it is the only work aimed at a problem Texans can actually solve. What people call "real political work" is too often the work of managing a decline you cannot vote your way out of. Independence is the one effort with a path to an actual win. There is a concrete plan, not a daydream A fantasy has no mechanism. This has a detailed one. The path runs in clear moves: build the capacity, get the referendum bill through the Texas Legislature, win the vote with a simple majority, then negotiate the transition. There is a model bill, the Texas Independence Referendum Act, already drafted and already filed in the Legislature. There is a known vote threshold, fifty percent plus one. There is a turnout math that has been worked out. None of that is a wish. It is a plan with steps you can name, and every step is something Texans can do themselves. The numbers describe a movement, not a fringe Fantasies do not poll at 60 percent. Roughly 60 percent of Texans have told pollsters they support independence, and among likely voters it is two-thirds. Hundreds of thousands of Texans are on record. The Republican Party of Texas has adopted planks affirming the right to leave and calling for a referendum. You can argue about timing, but you cannot call something a fantasy when a majority of the state already agrees with it. The fringe position, statistically, is the one that says the people should not get to vote. It does not distract from local work. It rescues it Here is what the "distraction" charge misses. Texans pour enormous energy into state and local fights, and then watch Washington override the results with a regulation, a mandate, or a court order. Independence is not a detour away from that work. It is the thing that finally makes it stick, by removing the outside power that keeps undoing it. Far from distracting from real political work, independence is what gives real political work a permanent home. Doing the …
main entity: What is TEXIT?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: TEXIT is the campaign to restore Texas independence. It is the effort to give Texans what they have never actually had: a direct vote on whether Texas should govern itself again as a free and independent nation, rather than be governed from Washington. Where the word comes from TEXIT is shorthand for "Texas Exit." It follows the same naming as Brexit, the word the world used when Britain voted to leave the European Union. The shorthand stuck because the idea is that simple. Britain left a political union it had outgrown. Texas can do the same. TEXIT is a process, not a single event The most common misunderstanding is that TEXIT is one dramatic moment, a signature on a document or a declaration on the Capitol steps. It is not. Independence is a state of being, and it is reached through a process. That process begins with a free, fair, statewide referendum, the formal expression of the will of the people of Texas. The vote is the starting gun, not the finish line. After it comes negotiation and transition, conducted the way every modern nation conducts its affairs. The legal path runs through the ballot box There are no secret clauses and no shortcuts. Where there is a legal path, it must be followed, and that path runs through the Texas Legislature and then through the people. A bill puts the question on the ballot. Texans answer it. Under Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution, all political power is inherent in the people, and they have at all times the inalienable right to alter or reform their government as they think expedient. TEXIT simply asks the Legislature to let the people exercise that right. Why it matters For generations, the decisions that shape life in Texas have drifted further from Texas. Texans send hundreds of billions of dollars to Washington every year and watch a shrinking share return with strings attached. The federal government grows, the debt grows, and the distance between the governed and those who govern grows with it. TEXIT is t…
main entity: Why do you say "independence" instead of "secession"?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Because "independence" is the accurate word, and "secession" is a word chosen by our opponents to make an ordinary act of self-government sound like a crime. The words describe different things Secession is a word weighted down by 1861. It conjures the Confederacy and a nineteenth-century war. Independence is the word the world uses when a people choose to govern themselves. Scotland held an independence referendum. Britain pursued independence from the European Union. The 140-plus nations that have become self-governing since 1945 declared independence. None of them called it secession, because secession is not what self-determination is. Texas is restoring something, not inventing it Texas was a free and independent nation before it joined the union in 1845. The language the Texas Nationalist Movement has always used is that Texas would "reassert its status as an independent nation." That is restoration, not rebellion. The Texas Constitution itself, in Article 1, Section 1, still describes Texas as "a free and independent State." We are talking about reclaiming sovereignty Texas already exercised, not creating something from nothing. The framing is a trap, and we decline it When opponents insist on the word "secession," they are not making a legal point. They are trying to attach the worst chapter of American history to a peaceful vote. Accepting their word means accepting their frame. So we use the precise term. Texas independence. It is honest, it is historically correct, and it refuses the smear built into the alternative. Why you will still see "secede" in some of our answers In a handful of places, including parts of this FAQ, you will see the words "secede" and "secession." That is deliberate and narrow. When someone types "can Texas legally secede" into a search engine, or throws "the Civil War settled secession" across a dinner table, we have to meet them in their own words before we reframe. Speaking the skeptic's language to win the skeptic is not the sa…
main entity: Why not just fix the federal government instead of leaving?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Because Texans have spent generations trying, and the results are in. The federal government is not broken in a way Texas can fix from the inside. It is working exactly as those who benefit from it intend. Texas has already tried everything else Texans have voted. Texans have sued. Texas has sent principled people to Washington, passed resolutions, filed lawsuits that reached the Supreme Court, and built one of the most reliably conservative congressional delegations in the union. And through all of it, the federal government grew larger, the debt climbed past levels no one can seriously plan to repay, and the rules imposed on Texas multiplied. The strategy of reform has been run for decades. It did not work. It cannot work, and the reason is structural. The math of reform does not close Texas sends 38 members to the U.S. House and 2 to the Senate. That is 38 of 435 and 2 of 100. Even when every Texan in Washington votes as one, Texas is outnumbered roughly ten to one in a body designed to be governed by majorities from everywhere else. Reform means convincing California, New York, and the federal bureaucracy to hand power back to Texas voluntarily. They have no reason to, and they never will. You cannot vote your way out of a system in which you are permanently outvoted. You cannot fix the fire by feeding it more fuel Every "fix" offered inside the federal system requires going through the federal system, which means more money to Washington, more dependence on Washington, and more power concentrated in Washington. Asking the federal government to limit itself is asking the fire to put itself out. It will take the fuel and grow. A convention will not save Texas either Some good people pin their hopes on a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution. Set aside the very real risk of a runaway convention. Even a perfect amendment is only words on paper, and the federal government has spent a century reading plain constitutional words to mean their opposite. The Tenth Am…
main entity: How do we get a vote on TEXIT?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: There is no existing statutory framework in Texas law specifically for conducting an independence referendum. There doesn't have to be. All the pieces are currently there. They just have to be assembled in the one place where it matters: the Texas Legislature. This comes in the form of a standard bill. The Texas Legislature is a true part-time legislative body. They meet for exactly 140 days every other year unless called into a special session by the governor. In that 140-day period, they file and debate legislation over nearly every conceivable issue that impacts Texans. The Legislature files way more bills than ever get passed and it takes considerable work ahead of a legislative session to get enough momentum behind a bill to even give it a shot at passage. The process begins by having the bill filed by a member of the House or Senate, plus a sponsor in the chamber opposite from the member who initially filed it. From there, it gets its first reading on the floor and is assigned to a committee. The committee chair schedules it for a hearing; sometimes they don't if they are opposed to the bill, and it dies when the session ends. But, if the committee hears the bill and it is voted out of committee, it gets scheduled to be heard on the floor, or it doesn't. The House and Senate each have their own rules for scheduling bills for the floor and, as has been the case in the Texas House, the chair of the Calendars Committee can use his or her power to kill a bill by refusing to move it along. However, if it moves along, it gets debated on the floor and is then voted on. If it passes in one chamber, it moves to the other chamber and the process repeats until the bill is passed by both houses. At the end of the day, what any bill needs to pass is the support of 76 members of the Texas House, 16 members of the Texas Senate, the lieutenant governor, and the governor. From there it moves to the governor's desk for his signature or a veto. While this may seem overly complic…
main entity: How do we start the TEXIT process?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: The entire issue will literally come down to a question, two choices, and the decision made by the people of Texas. In reality, the vote itself isn't the exciting part. What comes before and after it is. There is one fundamental and immutable truth about the Texit process. Where there is a legal path to Texit, it must be followed. There are no secret processes or hidden clauses in the old documents that can be used. There are no shortcuts. It boils down to what laws and processes are on the books right now and how they can be applied to resolving the issue of Texas independence. That means it absolutely, at a minimum, must culminate in a free and fair vote of the people of Texas, a referendum. The current Texas Constitution, while not explicitly establishing a framework for referenda, definitely reserves the right to make fundamental changes to how Texas is governed exclusively to the people. Article 1 Section 2 lays the right and responsibility squarely at the feet of the people of Texas to make fundamental changes in governance. In every example cited in this work where a Western-style democratic society has achieved independence, the people, in their capacity as a body politic, have had the final say on their political destiny. In every instance, the very act of a referendum has clarified the political realities, pitting the people who want their voices heard against a political class who believe that they are, in fact, the ruling class in a de facto oligarchy. The very process of even attempting to obtain a referendum makes clear those battle lines and, more specifically, the people and institutions on each side. Those who oppose even having a referendum are, in reality, opposing the foundational principles of Texas and the United States, the people, and the democratic cornerstone of Western civilization. In short, anyone opposed to having a referendum on the issue of self-government is un-Texan and un-American.
main entity: Can the Texas Legislature call a referendum on Texas independence?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: There has been some discussion over the issue of whether or not the Texas Legislature has the legal authority to call for a referendum on Texas leaving the Union. It is a worthwhile discussion and signals some progress in the debate over the issue of Texas independence. The short answer is 'absolutely'. Whether or not the Texas Legislature possesses this power is answered in a very similar way as the question of the legality of Texas independence in general. The very first words of the Texas Constitution lay the foundation. Art. 1, Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States It is in Article 1 Section 1 that we find the guidestones to the legality of a referendum. Because of this clause, we look first to the Constitution of the United States. In that document, we find nothing whatsoever forbidding a State Legislature for initiating a vote on their independence, forbidding the people of a State from participating in that vote, or preventing action based on that vote. In this matter the U.S. Constitution is silent. Therefore, we must look at the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. United States Constitution, 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Since the U.S. Constitution is silent on the matter, the issue is solely a State matter. This was reaffirmed in the US Supreme Court case of United States v. Darby Lumber, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), which states: "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationshi…
main entity: Do we have legislation ready to file for a TEXIT vote?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Yes, and it has already been filed. The legislation needed to put Texas independence on the ballot is remarkably simple for the size of the decision it carries. The Texas Independence Referendum Act was first filed as House Bill 1359 in 2021 by Representative Kyle Biedermann, with Representative James White as joint author, and it has been refiled since. The question the movement intends to put to the people of Texas is the one TNM has carried from the start: "Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?" That is the wording Representative Biedermann planned to restore through a committee substitute. If the people vote yes, the act directs the Legislature to act on that mandate. It establishes a Texas Independence Committee, a joint interim committee, charged with studying and recommending the most effective and expeditious method for Texas to return to its status as an independent republic, and with delivering that strategy within sixty months of the result being certified. The bill is written carefully to survive the procedural and constitutional challenges the opposition will throw at it, the kind of point of order or lawsuit that could otherwise stall the effort for years. But make no mistake about where the power sits: under Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution, all political power is inherent in the people, and a vote of the people of Texas is the decisive act. The full filed text is on the public record at Texas Legislature Online.
main entity: How much support is there for TEXIT?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: In 2009, Research 2000 conducted a poll of Texans and asked them this question: "Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America?" The results were trumpeted to the media and parroted by numerous media outlets. "Only 35% of the 600 Texans surveyed believed that Texas would be better off as an independent nation." However, the left-leaning Burnt Orange Report did something that most media outlets did not. They looked at the actual results and caught something that no other outlet bothered to check. "The Research 2000 Texas Poll was conducted from April 20 through April 22, 2009. A total of 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone. The poll was 39% Republican, 33% Democrat, and 28% independent." Looking at the breakdown by political affiliation changed the landscape. 48 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of independent voters, and 15 percent of Democrats believed that Texans would benefit from independence. The numerical breakdown matters, especially in a state where Republicans have a lock on every statewide office and where independents claim their electoral independence but typically vote for Republican candidates. The percentages broken down by political affiliation weren't the only earth-shattering information in the poll. Also buried in that statement was the real key to unlocking the real impact of the survey. The respondents were likely voters who also regularly vote. However, one poll does not make a trend. In 2014, a Reuters/IPSOS poll asked a slightly different question. Rather than asking a question about whether Texans felt they would be better off under the flag of independence, respondents were asked if they felt Texas should leave the Union. The difference between the two questions is very important. The Research 2000 poll was a question about perceived benefit. The Reuters/IPSOS question was a question of political will. The results, again…
main entity: What will it take to win a TEXIT vote?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: The current threshold to win any vote in Texas is a simple majority of those who vote. Some places have imposed higher thresholds for political separation, but there is no similar precedent in Texas for popular votes. Even Quebec, often cited as the exception, is no exception: Canada's Supreme Court declined to set any fixed number and asked only for a "clear majority." There is no question or debate about that aspect of the referendum. What's more interesting is predicting the number of votes it will take to win. Since the threshold to win a Texit vote is a simple majority, it will take 50 percent plus 1 of those who cast a vote in the referendum. In the modern-day independence referenda, voter turnout is exceptional. In some instances, over 90 percent of those who are eligible to vote do so. The Scottish referendum turnout of 84.6 percent was the highest recorded for an election or referendum in the United Kingdom since the introduction of universal suffrage. The voter turnout for the Brexit referendum was 72.2 percent. When people finally get a real choice on the ballot, they show up. By estimating a high-average turnout of 85 percent or more, we can ballpark the number of votes it will take for Texit to carry the day. With more than 15 million registered voters in Texas, the number required to win would fall somewhere between 6.5 and 8 million. To put that figure in perspective, that is on the order of the total votes cast for all presidential candidates in a Texas general election. Like all elections, it will all come down to retail politics, excelling in the fundamentals of getting the message out and getting voters to the polls. Whichever side does it most effectively will win the day. Nigel Farage, former leader of the U.K. Independence Party, on the eve of the Brexit referendum, summarized what it would take to win. "The Leave side can only win if we have an effective ground campaign comprising of activists from across the political spectrum working togethe…
main entity: How do we avoid losing our independence vote like Scotland did in 2014?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Leading up to the passage of the referendum bill and through to the actual vote, the debate will be vigorous. However, until there is a vote, there will be no honest debate on the issue of Texit. To quote Weston Martinez, "You have to have the vote to have the conversation." Ultimately, the success or failure of Texit at the polls will be determined by the scope of the debate and the strategy used by each side to convince Texans to choose to leave or remain. In any debate on Texit, the side advocating for maintaining the status quo has a near insurmountable task. They essentially have to argue that all of the reasons that created enough political momentum to actually have a vote to leave still aren't bad enough to leave. This puts them in the unenviable position of having to dismiss the legitimate concerns of virtually every Texan. At a minimum, if they acknowledge that legitimate concerns exist, they have to show that there is a reasonable and viable path to addressing these concerns within the federal system. Again, given the attitude that Texas voters have about the feasibility of reforming the federal system, this puts them at a severe disadvantage. This is why, so often, you see the advocates of the status quo attempting to redirect the debate to focus voters on the uncertainty posed by abandoning the status quo. By shifting the debate in this way, it baits those who are seeking self-determination into explicitly declaring post-independence policies that are then tied to the referendum. For those advocating for Texit, it is important to avoid this pitfall that became a major factor in the rejection of independence by Scottish voters. One of the biggest mistakes made by the Scottish National Party in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum came in the form of a white paper produced by the SNP-dominated government, called Scotland's Future. The purpose of the 670-page tome was to create, in the words of First Minister Alex Salmond, the "most comprehensive bluep…
main entity: What will happen immediately after a TEXIT vote?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Parties and celebrating. Lots of celebrating. Beyond that, we have to begin the process of operating as an independent, self-governing nation. Contrary to the doomsday predictions of those who oppose Texit, in the immediate aftermath of an affirmative Texas independence vote, things continue as they have until they don't. The mail gets delivered. The trash gets picked up. Goods flow. Money is earned and spent. Literally, nothing changes until it does. While this may be a surprise to some, their surprise stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the independence process. Independence is not a single act embodied in a referendum. Independence is a state of being. The referendum is the first step in the process, an expression of political will that kicks off the process of becoming independent. It is, however, an important step. Such an expression of political will must be respected. It demands action. However, that action must be balanced with care and caution as Texas enters the next phase: negotiation and transition. There should be one single aim for relations with the United States in the immediate aftermath of Texit: minimizing disruption. While those opposed to Texit would love to think that disruption cannot be avoided or even mitigated as Texas leaves the Union, they are dead wrong. In fact, the tools necessary to effect a speedy, efficient, and minimally disruptive Texit are already at our disposal.
main entity: Do we have to vote on a President before we TEXIT?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: No. Texas already has its own government, and it will continue to be our government until the Texas Constitution is amended. After TEXIT, an independent Texas will absolutely have a president and a congress and supreme court, among other offices and agencies that are common to all independent, self-governing nations. Texas independence will give the power of government back to the people to vote for who they want to lead their country, as it should be. During the 9 years before Texas joined the Union, the independent Texan Nation had all of these government bodies and multiple presidents but had full control over their laws and values.
main entity: Will Federal Pension Recipients Still Get Their Benefits After Texit?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: One of the most common questions we get from Texans considering independence is whether they'll lose their federal pension benefits if Texas leaves the union. It's an understandable concern. After all, we're talking about Social Security, military retirement pay, federal civilian pensions, and VA benefits that hardworking Texans have earned through decades of service and contributions. The short answer is this: yes, you'll still get your benefits. Here is why. The Reality of Federal Policy People already live outside the United States and collect their federal pension benefits every single month. The federal government has well-established policies for paying benefits to recipients living abroad. This is happening right now. Federal civilian retirees under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) can live anywhere in the world and continue receiving their retirement annuity. There are no residency-based disqualifications. The Office of Personnel Management doesn't care if you're living in Paris, France or Paris, Texas. Your pension check keeps coming. Social Security works the same way for U.S. citizens. You can receive your benefits while living outside the United States as long as you remain eligible and reside in a country where payments can be sent. Military retirees face no residency restrictions either. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service will send your retirement pay wherever you call home. VA pensions? Same story. They're payable regardless of your place of residence. Why This Matters for Texas Independence When Texas becomes an independent nation, Texans don't stop being Texans. More importantly, the federal government doesn't stop owing them the benefits they've earned. These aren't gifts from Washington. They're earned benefits that represent decades of service, contributions, and sacrifice. Consider a retired federal employee who moves to Germany. Their pension doesn't stop. If a Social Security reci…
main entity: What is required for Texas to leave the union?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: One thing, above everything else: a vote of the people of Texas. Independence is decided by Texans at the ballot box, through a referendum the Texas Legislature puts on it. That is the requirement. Everything else is detail. The single decisive act is the referendum Texas does not leave the union by lawsuit, by declaration, or by the stroke of any one official's pen. It leaves because the people vote to leave. Under Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution, all political power is inherent in the people, and they have at all times the inalienable right to alter or reform their government as they think expedient. A statewide referendum is how that right gets exercised on a question this big. A decision that reshapes the future of every Texan cannot be made by some Texans. It has to be all of them. What it does not require It does not require permission from the other forty-nine states. It does not require an act of the United States Congress. It does not require three-quarters of the states to agree, and it does not require a supermajority of Texas voters. Those bars get thrown around to make independence sound impossible. None of them is real. The threshold is a simple majority, fifty percent plus one of the Texans who cast a ballot. The vehicle already exists The bill that puts the question on the ballot has a name and a history. It is the Texas Independence Referendum Act, first filed as House Bill 1359 in 2021 by Representative Kyle Biedermann, with Representative James White as coauthor, and refiled since. The question it carries is the one the movement has always carried: "Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?" Texans answer yes or no. The work splits into three stages Getting out is a process, not a single moment. First, the Legislature passes the Act and the people vote. Second, on a yes, Texas and the United States negotiate the terms and Texas stands up the functions of a nation. Third, Texas takes its place as a self-…
main entity: Would a referendum be binding or non-binding?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: The Texas Independence Referendum Act is written to be binding in effect. A yes vote does not just register an opinion. It triggers action by the Texas Legislature. That is by design, and it is the difference between this effort and the symbolic gestures that came before it. What a binding referendum actually means A non-binding referendum asks the people what they think and then leaves politicians free to ignore the answer. A binding referendum attaches a consequence to the result. Under the Texas Independence Referendum Act, a yes vote directs the Legislature to act on the mandate. It stands up a Texas Independence Committee, a joint interim committee charged with studying and recommending the most effective and expeditious method for Texas to return to its status as an independent republic, and with delivering that strategy within sixty months of the result being certified. The vote does not end the conversation. It starts a clock. Why this is not just another resolution Texas has seen the toothless version before. In 2013, an effort that began as a referendum push was watered down into a resolution with the binding language stripped out, advisory only, no consequence attached. That is exactly the trap the Referendum Act is built to avoid. It is drafted as operative law, not as a suggestion, and written carefully to survive the points of order and lawsuits the opposition will throw at it. The people's will has to mean something There is a deeper principle here. An expression of political will by the people of Texas, delivered through a free and fair vote, demands action. It would be its own kind of betrayal to ask Texans whether they want to govern themselves, hear them say yes, and then file the answer in a drawer. A binding referendum honors the vote. It says the people decide, and the government carries it out. Where the real power sits Even with the mechanism written into statute, the ultimate authority is not the committee or the calendar. It is Article 1, S…
main entity: Why hasn't the legislature passed a referendum bill yet?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Because the Texas Legislature does not pass bills on the merits alone. It passes them on pressure. The referendum has not crossed the finish line yet for the same reason most good bills do not: not enough weight has been put behind it, in the right place, at the right time. That is changing. How the Legislature actually works The Texas Legislature is a part-time body that meets for just 140 days every other year. In that window it files far more bills than it ever passes, and most die quietly. A committee chair can refuse to schedule a hearing. The Calendars Committee can decline to send a bill to the floor. Any bill that survives needs the support of 76 members of the House, 16 in the Senate, the lieutenant governor, and the governor. The system is built with choke points, and at every choke point a single person can stall a bill that lacks momentum. This is true of the referendum and true of nearly everything else. The obstacle is political will, not law There is no legal barrier here. The Legislature has the clear authority to call a vote on independence, and the Texas Constitution places that power with the people. What has been missing is the political will inside the building, and that is a function of pressure from outside it. Politicians move when they believe the cost of not moving is losing their seat. Until enough of them feel that, a bill can have every argument on its side and still sit in a drawer. Some of them are looking at Washington, not at you Part of the inertia is that too many Texas officials still treat Austin as a waiting room for a federal career. They calculate how a vote will play on cable, or with a party leadership that answers to interests far outside Texas, instead of how it serves the Texans who elected them. A representative angling for the next rung up does not want a hard vote on his record. That is not a reason the bill cannot pass. It is a reason Texans have to make the politics of blocking it more painful than the politics of pa…
main entity: Could the governor call a referendum?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Not on his own. No Texas governor can single-handedly put independence on the ballot. The referendum is created by a law passed through the Legislature, and the governor is one part of that process, not a shortcut around it. But the governor's role is real, and his support matters. A referendum is created by law, not by decree Texas is not an initiative-and-referendum state, and the governor is not a king. There is no executive order that conjures a statewide independence vote into existence. A referendum exists only when the Legislature passes a bill creating it. That bill follows the ordinary path: filed, heard in committee, debated, and passed by both chambers. The governor cannot skip those steps and cannot manufacture the vote by himself. Where the governor does fit in There are two routes through the Legislature, and the governor figures differently in each. The cleaner route for the referendum is an ordinary bill, which needs majorities in both chambers plus the lieutenant governor and the governor, ending with the governor's signature. On that path the governor is a decisive yes-or-no. The other route is a constitutional amendment, which the voters ratify directly and which does not require the governor's signature at all. Either way, the governor is a player in the process. He is not the whole process. The governor can also use the bully pulpit What a governor can do, short of any signature, is lead. He can throw the weight of the office behind the bill, call a special session that puts it on the agenda, and tell the people of Texas plainly that they deserve the right to decide their own future. A governor who championed the referendum would move it faster than almost anything else could. That is influence worth pursuing, and it is exactly why the movement works to put independence in front of every officeholder in the state. Why it still comes back to the people Notice that every road runs back to the same place. Whether the vehicle is a bill or an amendme…
main entity: Could Texans force a referendum through a petition?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Not directly, and it is important to be honest about why. Texas has no statewide citizen-initiative process. There is no number of signatures that, by itself, places a question on the statewide ballot. The path to a referendum runs through the Legislature, period. A petition is a tool of pressure on that path, not a substitute for it. Texas is not an initiative-and-referendum state Some states let citizens gather signatures and put a measure on the ballot over the heads of their legislators. Texas is not one of them. At the statewide level there is no ballot-initiative mechanism in Texas law. So no petition drive, however large, automatically triggers an independence referendum. Anyone who tells you a million signatures forces the vote is describing a system Texas does not have. We will not pretend otherwise. The honest answer is that the route is legislative. Why we say this plainly It would be easy, and dishonest, to promise a petition shortcut that does not exist. We do not do that. Where there is a legal path, it must be followed, and the legal path here is a bill passed by the Texas Legislature and signed into law, or a constitutional amendment ratified by the voters. There are no secret clauses and no back doors. Telling Texans the truth about the process is part of earning the result. What a petition actually does This does not make petitions worthless. Far from it. A petition is one of the clearest ways to show a legislator exactly how many of his constituents want the vote, and politicians answer to the fear of losing their seats. Names on a list, supporters on record, pledge signers, voters who will not be moved: that is the pressure that gets a bill heard, voted out of committee, and onto the floor. More than 667,890 Texans are already on record demanding the vote. That weight is real. It just works by moving the Legislature, not by bypassing it. The power is still the people's, by a different mechanism The thing a petition tries to capture, the will of t…
main entity: How long would the transition take?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: There is a concrete marker to anchor on: the Texas Independence Referendum Act gives the interim committee up to sixty months, five years, to deliver its strategy for becoming independent after a yes vote. That is the outer planning window the law sets. The practical transition can move faster on the pieces that are simple, and it is built to keep daily life running the entire time. What the law actually sets The Referendum Act does not leave the timeline to guesswork. On a yes, it stands up a Texas Independence Committee and charges it with recommending the most effective and expeditious method for Texas to return to independence, and with delivering that strategy within sixty months of the result being certified. Sixty months is a ceiling for the planning, not a countdown of paralysis. It is there so the work is thorough, lawful, and done right. Day-to-day life does not wait for the paperwork Here is the part the scare stories leave out. In the immediate aftermath of a yes vote, things continue as they have until they don't. The mail gets delivered. The trash gets picked up. Goods flow. Money is earned and spent. Independence is not a single act embodied in a referendum. It is a state of being, reached step by step, and the single aim in the early going is to minimize disruption. Texans do not wake up the morning after the vote in a different world. They wake up in the same Texas, now headed somewhere new. Some things move fast, some take longer The transition is not one task with one deadline. It is many. The pieces that already have a Texas analog, the agencies, the courts, the existing state government, switch over quickly because they are largely in place today. The pieces that require negotiation with Washington or new agreements abroad take longer, and they should. Real precedent says this is doable on a sane timeline. The Velvet Divorce that split Czechoslovakia into two countries was negotiated in about six months. Brexit shows the other end of the range, …
main entity: Who would negotiate the terms of separation with Washington?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: The government of Texas would, on behalf of the people who just voted for independence. Once the result is certified, Texas and the United States deal with each other as two governments across a table, the same way sovereign nations settle their affairs every day. The Referendum Act sets up the body that drives the work, and the existing Texas government carries it out. The committee maps it, the state executes it A yes vote triggers a Texas Independence Committee, a joint interim committee of the Legislature, charged with recommending the most effective and expeditious method for Texas to return to independence within sixty months of certification. That committee is the planning engine. The executing is done through the government Texas already has: the governor leads, the Legislature legislates, and the office handling foreign relations, expanded for the new role, carries the diplomacy. Texas does not have to invent a state to negotiate. It already runs a constitutional republic, structured much like an independent nation. The mindset shift that makes it work From the moment the vote is certified, Texas and the United States become, for all intents and purposes, foreign to one another. Negotiating with Washington becomes like negotiating with Mexico or any other government. That is not hostility. It is just the new footing. Both sides send representatives, both sides have interests, and both sides have every reason to get to a deal that keeps trade flowing and the relationship calm. One missing tool gets restored first There is a practical first step at home. As a state, Texas is barred by Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution from making treaties. To sit across the table as an equal and sign binding international agreements, Texas restores its own treaty-making power. That is handled through a focused update to the Texas Constitution early in the process, the same kind of streamlined amendment Texas has used before, not a years-long rewrite of t…
main entity: Why a referendum instead of just declaring independence?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Because a declaration is words, and a referendum is a mandate. Independence has to be legitimate to last, and legitimacy in the modern world comes from the consent of the governed, expressed in a free and fair vote. A vote is what turns a wish into a nation the world will recognize. Consent is what makes it real Self-government means the people govern themselves. You cannot claim that and then hand a small group the power to declare a new country in everyone else's name. Every Western-style democracy that has won its independence in the modern era has let the people have the final say. Texas independence is built on the consent of the governed, full stop, and consent is something you demonstrate at the ballot box, not something a leader announces from a podium. Recognition runs on legitimacy A new nation lives or dies on whether other governments deal with it as a nation. The single most important thing a process can produce is recognition, and recognition follows legitimacy. A peaceful, lawful referendum, conducted under the laws of Texas with millions of Texans voting, is about as legitimate as a founding act gets. It makes it far harder for Washington or anyone else to dismiss the result, and far easier for trading partners to formalize relations. A bare declaration, with no vote behind it, hands opponents the easiest possible argument: that it does not speak for the people. It keeps the path peaceful and legal The referendum is also what keeps this lawful and bloodless. A vote is plainly not an act of force. It is not levying war and it is not a rebellion. It is the most ordinary instrument of democracy there is. Routing independence through a vote keeps it squarely inside the law, which is exactly why the movement insists on it. The legal path must be followed, and the legal path is the ballot. It is the difference between 1861 and now History makes the point. The 1861 secession was carried out by conventions, not by a free vote of the whole people, and it is r…
main entity: What happens if the vote fails?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Then Texas stays in the union for now, the movement keeps building, and the question can be asked again. A single referendum is not the last word. It is one round in a long fight for self-government, and history is full of movements that lost a vote and won the country later. Nothing catastrophic happens A no vote changes nothing overnight. Texas remains a state, life goes on, and no one is punished for having asked the question. A referendum is an ordinary democratic exercise. One side wins and one side loses, the same as any election, and the next morning everyone is still a Texan with every right they had before. The doom scenarios some opponents float depend on pretending a vote is something other than a vote. A loss is not the end of the question Self-determination is not a one-time offer that expires. Quebec voted on independence, lost narrowly, and the question stayed alive for a generation. Scotland voted no in 2014 and the debate did not vanish. The right of a people to decide their own future does not get used up by a single ballot. If Texans vote no, the right to ask again remains exactly where the Texas Constitution puts it, with the people, at all times. The fight does not stop, it informs the next push A campaign that falls short still moves the ball. It proves the question is real, surfaces every argument the other side has, and shows precisely where the support is and where the work remains. The movement keeps organizing, keeps signing up Texans, keeps electing officials who back the right to vote, and comes back stronger. The same pressure that put the question on the ballot the first time does not evaporate because of one result. Why we expect to win it This is not a long shot to begin with. Polling has put support for independence around 60 percent, with about two-thirds of Texans wanting the chance to vote. Independence referendums draw turnout that ordinary races never see. The job is to win decisively and to verify the win so it cannot be quest…
main entity: Could Texas hold more than one referendum over time?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Yes. Nothing limits Texas to a single vote. The right of the people to decide their own government is held, in the words of the Texas Constitution, at all times. If a first referendum does not carry, the question can return, the same way it has in other places that voted on independence. The right does not expire Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution says the people have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their government as they think expedient. At all times. That is not a one-time coupon. The power to put self-government to a vote does not get spent on a single use. It stays with the people, available whenever they choose to exercise it through the Legislature. The precedents had more than one vote This is how it has worked elsewhere. Quebec held independence referendums in 1980 and again in 1995, the second one decided by less than one percent. Movements that fall short regroup and come back. A first vote, win or lose, sharpens the case, exposes the opposition's arguments, and shows where the support sits. There is nothing unusual or improper about a people returning to a question this fundamental. The goal is still to win it the first time Saying a second vote is possible is not the same as planning to need one. The strategy is to win decisively on the first attempt, because a clear, verified result is the cleanest path to recognition and the hardest for opponents to contest. Support already polls well above the line, and the work is to convert that support into turnout and a margin no one can dispute. We aim to settle it once. What would not happen What the people would not tolerate is the reverse trick, a defeated establishment forcing endless re-votes to wear down a yes, or refusing to honor a yes by demanding Texans keep voting until they get a no. The Referendum Act is built to make a yes binding and to act on it. The right to ask again belongs to the people seeking self-government, not to a government trying to overtur…
main entity: What role does the old Republic of Texas Constitution play, if any?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Mostly a historical one. The path to independence runs on the Constitution Texas operates under right now, the one ratified in 1876, not the 1836 Republic of Texas Constitution. The old document is a powerful reminder that Texas already governed itself as a nation once. It is not the legal instrument the process relies on. The working document is the current Texas Constitution The legal engine of Texas independence is Article 1, Section 2 of the present Texas Constitution, which places the inalienable right to alter or reform the government with the people. That clause is live, governing text and has been for about 150 years. Everything in the process, the referendum, the committee, the transition, builds on the constitution Texas has today, because that is the one with legal force. There is no need to reach back to 1836 to find the authority. It is right here. No secret authority hides in the old documents It is worth saying clearly, because the myth comes up: there are no hidden clauses in the old Republic documents that quietly authorize a return to independence or supply a shortcut. The movement has always been straight about this. Where there is a legal path, it must be followed, and that path is the present-day Texas Constitution and Texas law, not a buried provision from the Republic era. We do not rely on legal trapdoors, because we do not need them. Texas does not have to draft a brand-new constitution first A related misconception is that Texas must write a whole new constitution, perhaps revive the old one, before it can become independent. That is not so. Texas can become independent on its existing constitution, then make the targeted changes that nationhood requires through a streamlined amendment, the same kind of single, cleanup-style amendment Texas has passed before. That means renaming the State of Texas as the Republic of Texas, removing references to the federal government, and, most importantly, restoring treaty-making power. A future Texas may…
main entity: What stops the federal government from simply ignoring the vote?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: Self-interest, mostly, backed by international pressure and the plain illegitimacy of stonewalling a peaceful, democratic vote. Washington could try to ignore a yes. It would gain nothing and lose a great deal, and that is exactly why the practical course for Washington is to come to the table. Ignoring it is the worst option for Washington, not the easiest Economies hate disruption, and a refusal to recognize a clear vote creates nothing but disruption. The settled, profitable move is a negotiated separation that keeps trade flowing and the border calm. Pretending the result did not happen freezes investment, rattles markets, and solves no problem for the federal government. When Washington has faced this kind of choice before, with Brexit, it threatened consequences, the British voted to leave anyway, and Washington promptly sat down to negotiate a trade deal. Faced with the practical path or the spiteful one, governments take the practical path. The world is watching, and recognition is leverage Independence does not depend on Washington alone. A peaceful, lawful referendum carries weight with the entire community of nations, and recognition by key governments and major institutions is what makes a new state real. The United States has spent decades championing self-determination and signing agreements that affirm it. Refusing to honor a free vote in Texas would isolate Washington internationally and brand it a hypocrite on the very principle it preaches. That reputational cost is real, and it pushes hard toward recognition. Texas keeps functioning regardless A nation exists when it governs, trades, and conducts its own affairs, and the world deals with it accordingly. Texas already runs a full government, the world's eighth-largest economy, its own power grid, and a state-level counterpart to nearly every federal department. A Texas that is up and operating is a Texas other countries do business with, whether or not Washington has sent a formal letter. Recogniti…
main entity: Is there a realistic timeline for when this could happen?
  type: Question
  accepted answer: Answer
    text: The honest answer is that the timeline depends on the work, not on a fixed date, and we will not pretend to know a day certain. What we can say is concrete: the vote can only be created in a legislative session, the law sets a five-year planning window after a yes, and the pace is set by how fast Texans build the pressure to pass the bill. We will not fabricate a countdown. The schedule is gated by the legislative calendar The Texas Legislature meets in regular session for 140 days every other year, with special sessions in between only if the governor calls one. A referendum bill can realistically advance during one of those windows. So the timeline is not continuous. It moves in legislative sessions. The question is not "what day," it is "which session," and that depends on having the votes lined up before the session opens, because momentum has to be built ahead of time. The one hard number the law gives After a yes vote, the Referendum Act gives the Texas Independence Committee up to sixty months, five years, to deliver its strategy for becoming independent. That is the firmest planning marker in the whole process. It is an outer bound for getting the full transition right, not a prediction that everything takes five years. Many pieces move faster. What the real precedents suggest History offers a sane range rather than a single number. The Velvet Divorce split Czechoslovakia into two recognized countries in about six months. A trade settlement of the kind Texas would negotiate ran around eighteen months in that case. Brexit shows the slow end, dragged out for years by opponents who stayed in power. The spread tells you the timeline is real and achievable, and that the deciding factor is political will and discipline, not some law of physics. The pace is in Texans' hands This is the part worth sitting with. The single biggest variable is not Washington and not the calendar. It is how fast Texans organize. The bill passes when the pressure peaks. More than 667,89…
main entity: What is the actual path from where we are now to independence?
main entity: What is the very first step that has to happen?
main entity: Is TEXIT unconstitutional?
main entity: Didn't the Supreme Court rule that Texas can't leave the Union?
main entity: Is supporting TEXIT treason?
main entity: Is TEXIT the same as overthrowing the government?
main entity: Is Texas too integrated with the United States to TEXIT?
main entity: Does the Constitution actually prohibit a state from leaving?
main entity: What does the Tenth Amendment have to do with this?
main entity: Could Texas leave through a constitutional amendment?
main entity: Could Texas and the United States simply negotiate a separation agreement?
main entity: What does international law say about a people's right to self-determination?
main entity: Does Texas have any special legal claim because of how it was annexed?
main entity: What was actually in the 1845 annexation agreement?
main entity: Is it true Texas can divide into five states, and does that matter for independence?
main entity: Has any U.S. state or territory ever left peacefully and legally?
main entity: Is it legal for Texas to leave the union?
main entity: What happens to U.S. federal law inside Texas?
main entity: Would Texas keep its current laws?
main entity: What happens to the federal courts located in Texas?
main entity: Would the Texas Supreme Court become the highest court in the land?
main entity: What happens to people in federal prison in Texas?
main entity: What happens to pending federal court cases?
main entity: Would the U.S. Constitution still apply in Texas?
main entity: Would Texans keep Bill of Rights protections?
main entity: How would extradition between Texas and the U.S. work?
main entity: How would Texas handle drug policy?
main entity: What about civil rights protections after independence?
main entity: How would Texas handle federal crimes that happened before independence?

What is the actual path from where we are now to independence?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Four moves, in order: build the capacity, get the vote, win the vote, secure independence. That is the whole plan, and it is deliberately sequenced. Each move sets up the next, and skipping ahead is how movements lose. Here is the path, start to finish. Move one: build capacity Independence is built, not declared. Before anything reaches a ballot, the movement grows the organized base that makes the rest possible: Texans signed up and on record, leaders and institutions brought on board, pressure assembled where it counts. Sam Houston won at San Jacinto in about eighteen minutes because he built the army first. The early work is unglamorous and it is everything. You do not need a majority on day one. You need a committed, organized core, and the research says that core can be a fraction of the whole. Move two: get the vote This is the legislative fight. Texas is not an initiative-and-referendum state, so the referendum exists only if the Legislature passes a law creating it. The vehicle is the Texas Independence Referendum Act, filed as House Bill 1359 by Representative Kyle Biedermann in 2021 with Representative James White as coauthor, and refiled since. The job in this move is pressure: single-issue voters, pledge signers, and party planks aimed at the Capitol until the bill passes. One sentence describes the goal of this stage. Pass the bill. Move three: win the vote Once the question is on the ballot, the work becomes winning it and proving the win. The threshold is a simple majority, fifty percent plus one. With roughly 15.8 million reliable voters and turnout that independence referendums push toward 85 percent, the winning number lands around 6.7 million votes, and support already polling near 60 to 66 percent projects well past it. Then you verify the result so it cannot be stolen, the way the movement that toppled Milosevic in Serbia did: organize, turn out, verify. Move four: secure independence Winning the vote opens the door. Securing independence is th…

What is the very first step that has to happen?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Before any bill, any vote, any negotiation: organized Texans. The very first step is building the committed base that makes everything else possible. Capacity comes first, and the single most useful thing any one Texan can do right now is get counted and get plugged in. Capacity before everything Independence is built, not declared, and it is built in a specific order. The first move is not the referendum. It is assembling the people. A movement that tries to win a vote it has not built the base for loses that vote. So the foundational work is signing Texans up, putting them on record, and organizing them into a force the Legislature cannot ignore. Sam Houston did not declare victory at San Jacinto. He built the army, and then the eighteen minutes took care of themselves. It does not take everyone, it takes a committed core The encouraging part is that the first step does not require a majority. The research on how movements actually win is clear: a committed, organized core, a fraction of the whole population, can move the entire structure when it is focused and sequenced well. Texas has roughly 15.8 million reliable voters, and support already polls around 60 percent. The first step is not persuading the last skeptic. It is converting existing support into organized, committed numbers. What that looks like for one person In practical terms, the first step has a face. Become a Texian and get on the record. Add your name to the more than 667,890 Texans already counted. Then do the thing that multiplies it: bring others, plug into the organized effort, and turn quiet support into visible, countable weight. Pressure on the Legislature is built one Texan at a time, and it starts with you deciding to be one of them. Why this is the step that unlocks the rest Everything downstream depends on this. The bill passes when the pressure peaks, and the pressure is just organized Texans made visible. Win the vote, and the margin comes from the base built now. Secure independence…

Is TEXIT unconstitutional?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The U.S. Constitution contains no explicit prohibition against state secession. Article 1, Section 10 enumerates specific acts forbidden to states, but neither that section nor any other part of the Constitution explicitly forbids a state from leaving the union or grants the federal government power to prevent it. This constitutional silence is significant when considered alongside the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment provides: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This absence of delegated federal authority combined with explicit state power reservations means the decision regarding union membership rests with the people of each state. The Texas Constitution further addresses this matter. Article 1, Section 1 establishes that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States." Article 1, Section 2 declares that "All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Didn't the Supreme Court rule that Texas can't leave the Union?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The entire legal argument for the unconstitutionality of States leaving the Union rests on the Supreme Court's decision in the 1869 case of Texas v. White. However, when it comes to Texas v. White, more and more academics are adopting the stance of historian Dr. Brion McClanahan. When asked that very question at an academic conference in Florida, his response was an indignant, "So what?" Dr. McClanahan's attitude toward Texas v. White is not based on a denial of facts. In fact, contrary to the concrete pronouncements by Texit detractors, the decision in Texas v. White has been debated and debunked extensively starting from the moment Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase issued the majority opinion. The dissenting opinion, issued by Justice Robert C. Grier, highlighted many of the deficiencies of the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that he disagreed "on all points raised and decided." The assertions made by Chase were so offensive to his contemporaries that Union and Confederate sympathizers, both fresh from the battlefields and still harboring deep divisions, were united in their contempt for his ruling. Bristling at the usurpation by the judiciary of the power to determine political questions, Lyman Trumbull, a United States senator from Illinois, introduced legislation that, in part, stated, "Under the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power, or give to judicial tribunals any authority to question the political departments of the Government on political questions." There is no doubt that Chief Justice Chase, an appointee of Abraham Lincoln, used the opportunity presented by Texas v. White to stamp a retroactive "seal of approval" on the federal government's policies and actions during the Civil War. To do so, Chase had to rewrite history and virtually all established law on the subject. To reinforce his belief that the United States was a "perpetual union," he had to assert the ludicrous argument that the United States Const…

Is supporting TEXIT treason?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The term treason has become an increasingly popular charge in this divisive political climate. While Texit advocates are the recipients of it at a higher than average rate, it has become far more common in federal partisan wrangling. Obama was accused of treason over the Iran nuclear deal and Trump has been accused of treason for his alleged ties to the Russian government. However, those who seem to be quickest to use the term seem to be most clueless as to its meaning. Drawing from an English statute from 1351 that was created to limit the scope of treason, the framers of the United States Constitution included a specific definition in Article 3, Section 3, which stated that, "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Recognizing that accusations of treason were often the tool of tyrants, James Madison explained the necessity to clearly define it in Federalist 43. "As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime." Treason is a criminal act committed by an individual, not a political body and, therefore, cannot be committed by a State. To continue to level the charge of treason, one must believe that the entirety of the population of Texas who would vote in support of Texit would be individually guilty of treason. This, however, completely ignores the constitutional definition of treason. Such a vote is not levying war against the United States unless one considers casting a ballot as an act of war. Nor is it adhering to or giving aid and comfort to an enemy o…

Is TEXIT the same as overthrowing the government?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: There is a federal statute in Title 18 of the U.S. Code that outlaws attempts to do that very thing. In its entirety, it reads: "Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction." The operative words in the statute are "force or violence" and, given that a Texit, initiated by a legal process, ratified by a vote of the people of Texas, and secured by a declaration of the reclamation of the right of self-determination, is neither force nor violence, Texit is not the same as overthrowing the government. It is this reason that TEXIT must follow a legal, peaceful, political process.

Is Texas too integrated with the United States to TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It is true that Texas is highly integrated with the United States. However, these political and economic ties are not so tight or intricately interwoven that it would be impossible to untangle them. In many instances, it would not be necessary to untangle them at all. There is no part of the relationship between Texas and the rest of the United States that could not be accomplished by utilizing existing State-level institutions and agencies, executing bilateral agreements between Texas and the United States, or by Texas signing onto multilateral international agreements that are already in place. Is the issue trade? Countries, including the United States, trade with one another every hour of every day and have done so for all of recorded human history. The free trade agreements that the United States already has in place for 20 other countries around the world treat trade with them as though they were one of the States of the Union. Yet no one would argue that any of those countries are inseparable members of the federal Union. Texas could execute a free trade agreement with the United States and adopt the United States tariff schedule with the World Trade Organization for external trade, and no one would even notice the difference. Is the issue currency? If Texas needed or wanted to, it could adopt the U.S. dollar as its official currency in an informal currency union like many other countries have done. We don't need permission to do it. However, if Texas were so inclined and the United States were amenable, we could enter into an official currency union with the United States. Scotland proposed a similar move for itself and the United Kingdom ahead of its independence vote. This would be similar to the formal currency union that exists throughout the European Union. Is the issue banking? Foreign banks are allowed to operate in the United States at this very moment with no trouble. That includes large retail banks like TD, owned in Canada, and Santander, owned in …

Does the Constitution actually prohibit a state from leaving?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. There is no clause in the United States Constitution that forbids a state from leaving the union. Read the document from the Preamble to the Twenty-seventh Amendment and you will not find the prohibition, because it is not there. The Constitution is a list of powers, and this one is not on the list The federal Constitution works by enumeration. Article I, Section 8 lists what the federal Congress is allowed to do: coin money, raise armies, regulate commerce, establish post offices, and so on down a finite list. If a power is not granted, the federal government does not have it. There is no "power to prohibit a state from leaving" anywhere in that list, and there is no "power to hold the union together by force." The thing opponents insist the federal government possesses was never handed to it. Article I, Section 10 is the actual list of what states cannot do, and leaving is not on it either The Framers knew exactly how to restrict the states when they wanted to. Article I, Section 10 is a precise catalog of the things states are forbidden to do: enter treaties, coin money, pass bills of attainder, lay tariffs without the consent of Congress, keep troops in peacetime, make compacts with foreign powers, or engage in war unless actually invaded. The Framers sat down and wrote out the limits on state power line by line. Leaving the union is absent from that list. When the people drafting a document specify what is prohibited and leave something out, the omission is not an accident. It is a decision. Silence, in a system of enumerated powers, is not a gap. It is an answer. This is the heart of it. In a government of enumerated powers, what the document does not grant is not delegated, and what is not delegated is not a federal power at all. The lawyers have a Latin phrase for the interpretive rule, expressio unius est exclusio alterius: to express one thing is to exclude the others. Francis Bacon put the same idea plainly centuries ago. As he wrote, "As exception st…

What does the Tenth Amendment have to do with this?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Everything. The Tenth Amendment is the rule that turns the Constitution's silence on a state leaving into a reserved right of the states and the people. What it says The Tenth Amendment reads in full: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is one sentence. It is the closing argument of the Bill of Rights, and it sets the default rule for the entire system. Anything not handed to Washington stays with the states, or with the people themselves. Connect it to the silence and the answer writes itself Walk the logic one step at a time. The Constitution is a list of delegated powers. The power to prevent a state from leaving is not on that list. The Tenth Amendment says every power not on the list is reserved to the states or the people. Therefore the decision about whether to remain in the union is a reserved power. It belongs to Texas and to Texans, not to the federal government. There is no clever step hidden in that chain. It is just the Tenth Amendment applied to a power Washington was never given. The Supreme Court itself has described the amendment exactly this way In United States v. Darby (1941), the Court explained that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." That is not a movement slogan. That is the Supreme Court describing the amendment as a rule of retained sovereignty: the states kept everything they did not give up. The power to hold a state in the union by force was never surrendered, because it was never granted, so it was retained. Madison drew the same map James Madison, in Federalist No. 45, told the ratifying public precisely how the balance would work. As he wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Few and defined on one side, …

Could Texas leave through a constitutional amendment?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, that path exists, and tracing it exposes how weak the "Texas can never leave" claim really is. The same Article V that lets the states rewrite the Constitution can be used to provide for a state's departure, and the logic of that power reaches further than most people realize. Article V puts the states in charge of the Constitution itself Article V gives the states the power to amend the Constitution, and there is almost no limit on what an amendment can do. Three-quarters of the states, thirty-eight of them, can change any provision they choose. They can add powers, strip powers, or rewrite the structure of the federal government from top to bottom. The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, including the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth and ended Prohibition outright. Amendments can undo amendments. The states hold that pen. The greater power includes the lesser Here is the argument that the "perpetual union" theory cannot survive. If thirty-eight states can lawfully abolish the entire federal government tomorrow morning by amendment, dissolve it, replace it, or restructure it beyond recognition, then it is absurd to claim that the far smaller act of one state departing is somehow constitutionally impossible. The law has a maxim for this: he who can do the greater can do the lesser. A power large enough to erase the whole federal government is obviously large enough to release one state from it. You cannot hold that the states are powerful enough to destroy the union entirely but powerless to let a single member leave. Madison described the states as the masters of the bargain This is not a modern invention. In Federalist No. 39, Madison explained that in ratifying the Constitution each state acted "as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act." The states were the parties to the agreement and the authors of it. They built the federal government, and through Article V they retain…

Could Texas and the United States simply negotiate a separation agreement?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. A negotiated separation is not only legal, it is the most likely path, and it is the one the modern world uses. Even the Supreme Court case opponents cite against Texas concedes that the union can be dissolved through the consent of the states. The case they quote against us admits the exit exists In Texas v. White, the 1869 opinion that is the entire legal foundation for the "Texas can't leave" claim, Chief Justice Chase wrote that once a state was in the union "there was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." Read that clause again. Except through consent of the states. The very opinion held up as the iron door has a key sitting in the lock. Chase conceded that a lawful, peaceful exit by consent exists. Opponents quote the first half of his sentence and skip the part that gives the game away. Consent is how grown nations part ways A negotiated separation is a constitutional transition, not a war and not a collapse. It is the path Scotland was offered in 2014, the path Quebec voted on in 1995, and the path the Czech Republic and Slovakia actually walked in 1993 when they divided peacefully into two countries in about six months. These are orderly, lawful processes governed by agreement and recognized by the world. The Confederacy is not the template. Brexit is, and an amicable divorce between two governments that decide to go their own way is older than that. A clear vote creates an obligation to come to the table The legal architecture for this already exists in the democratic world, and the leading example is Canada. When Canada's Supreme Court considered Quebec in 1998, it held that a clear majority on a clear question would create a binding duty on the rest of the country to negotiate the terms of separation in good faith. The court was direct: the other partners "would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession" after such a vote. Canada then wrote that …

What does international law say about a people's right to self-determination?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: International law has moved steadily toward the right of a people to determine their own political status, and it contains no prohibition on a people declaring independence. The two clearest modern statements, from the world's highest court and from Canada's Supreme Court, both point the same direction. The highest court in the world found no prohibition on declaring independence In 2010 the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, was asked directly whether Kosovo's declaration of independence violated international law. The court examined centuries of practice and answered, by a vote of ten to four, that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence." There is no rule of international law that forbids a people from declaring themselves independent. The court looked for the prohibition everyone assumes exists, and it was not there. Territorial integrity is a rule between countries, not a cage for peoples The Kosovo opinion settled a second point that opponents lean on. The principle of territorial integrity, the court held, "is confined to the sphere of relations between States." In plain terms, territorial integrity governs how countries treat each other's borders. It is not a rule that locks a people inside the state they happen to live in. It restrains foreign invasion. It does not bind a population to a government it no longer consents to. The United States argued for this very result This is the part that should end the debate. When the Kosovo question was before the International Court of Justice, the United States argued in favor of the position the court adopted, and the United States recognized Kosovo as an independent country the day after it declared. So the federal government's own stated position in front of the world's highest court is that international law contains no prohibition on declaring independence. Washington cannot argue one rule abroad and the opposi…

Does Texas have any special legal claim because of how it was annexed?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas has a strong claim, and it rests on two pillars: the right several states reserved when they ratified the Constitution, and the doctrine that carries that right to every state admitted afterward, Texas included. Three states reserved the right to take their powers back, and Congress accepted it When the Constitution was being ratified, three states did not simply sign on. They ratified while putting on the record that the people retained the right to resume the powers they were delegating. Virginia, on June 26, 1788, declared that the powers granted "may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." New York, on July 26, 1788, declared "that the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness." Rhode Island used nearly identical reassumption language on May 29, 1790. These were not side letters. They were part of the formal instruments of ratification. And Congress seated all three states without objection. The reservation became part of the constitutional bargain. Equal footing carries that right to Texas Here is the bridge to Texas. Under the Equal Footing Doctrine, every state enters the union on completely equal terms with the original states. The Supreme Court has been emphatic about this. In Coyle v. Smith (1911), the Court described the union as one "of States equal in power, dignity and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States," and struck down a condition Congress had tried to attach to a new state's admission. The Court in Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan (1845), the year Texas joined, held that new states enter with the same full sovereignty as the originals. So whatever rights Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island reserved, Texas holds too. You cannot have an original thirteen states with a reserved right to resume their powers and thirty-seven later states locked in without it. That would be a u…

What was actually in the 1845 annexation agreement?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The terms by which Texas joined the United States are a matter of public record, set out in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas, approved March 1, 1845, and accepted by a Texas convention on July 4, 1845. Texas did not enter as ordinary territory. It entered as an independent republic negotiating its own terms. Texas came in as a nation, not a territory Most states were carved out of federal territory and admitted once they met conditions Washington set. Texas was different. Texas had been an independent, internationally recognized republic for nearly a decade, and it joined by agreement, not by petition. That distinction matters. The act of joining was an act between two governments, which is the same posture Texas would occupy again in negotiating a departure. Texas kept its own public lands Under the 1845 resolution, Texas retained ownership of its public lands. The agreement provided that Texas would "retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits," to be applied first to its debts and then disposed of as the state directed. This is unusual. In most states the federal government held vast public lands. In Texas, the land stayed with Texas. That is why Texas controls its own public lands to this day, and it is a concrete marker of the sovereignty Texas carried into the union. Texas kept its own debt, and Washington refused to assume it The flip side was the debt. The resolution specified that Texas would retain its public debts and liabilities, and it was explicit that "in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States." Read that in light of today's debate over the federal debt. The founding agreement between Texas and the United States established the principle that each side keeps its own books. Texas did not pool its debt into the union in 1845. The terms of entry treated the two as separate fiscal entities. The agreement included the right to divide into as many as five states T…

Is it true Texas can divide into five states, and does that matter for independence?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The provision is real, it is often misunderstood, and its true value is not what people think. It is not a backdoor to independence. It is evidence that the United States itself treated Texas as exceptional from the moment it joined. Where the idea comes from The source is the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas, approved March 1, 1845. Its third article provided that "new States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas," might later be formed from Texas territory and admitted to the union. Four additional states alongside the original one comes to five. The text is genuine. It has been part of the public record of Texas statehood since the year Texas joined. What it does not do We will not oversell this, because the legal answer has to be honest to be useful. The divide-into-five provision is not a self-executing trigger, and it is certainly not a hidden mechanism for leaving the union. A division would require the Texas Legislature to act and, on the strongest reading, the consent of Congress, and respected scholars argue that the act admitting Texas as a single state complicates the original resolution. Anyone who tells you Texas can split into five states tomorrow by simple fiat is overstating it. We decline to make that claim. What it actually proves Now the part that matters. The relevance of the clause to independence is not procedural. It is evidentiary. The very government that opponents say would never permit Texas any special status wrote, into the founding agreement, that Texas retained an extraordinary say over its own political shape. No other state negotiated anything like it. That tells you how Texas entered the union: not as ordinary territory to be administered from Washington, but as a recognized republic that kept unusual sovereignty over its own future. The clause is one more piece of documentary proof that Texas was always different. It fits a pattern, and the pattern is the point Set the divisionism…

Has any U.S. state or territory ever left peacefully and legally?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: We will answer this one straight, because an honest answer is more persuasive than a dodge. No U.S. state has peacefully and lawfully left the union itself, for the simple reason that no state has tried it the modern way: through a clear democratic referendum and a negotiated separation. The question has never been put to the test by the method that actually works. That is not the same as saying it cannot be done. The one time borders were redrawn peacefully, the union allowed it There is a domestic precedent for a peaceful, lawful change of this kind, and it cuts in our favor. In 1863, West Virginia separated from Virginia and became its own state. It did so through constitutional procedures, with the consent of a Virginia legislature and the approval of Congress, exactly as Article IV of the Constitution requires for forming a new state. West Virginia did not leave the union; it left one state to become another within the union. But the lesson stands: when the consent procedures are followed, a peaceful, lawful redrawing of American political boundaries is not only possible, it has already happened. The machinery of consent exists. The only state to attempt to leave the union did it the wrong way The Confederacy is the example everyone reaches for, and it is the wrong template in every respect. That attempt was carried out by conventions rather than a vote of the whole people, and it was pursued through war rather than negotiation. It tells us nothing about whether a peaceful, democratic, negotiated departure is lawful, because it was none of those things. Pointing at 1865 to answer a 2026 question is a category error. The Confederacy is not the precedent. It is the cautionary tale of how not to do it. The peaceful, lawful model is happening all over the modern world Step outside the United States and the picture is completely different. The democratic world has built a working, lawful model for exactly this, and it has used it repeatedly. Britain left the Europea…

Is it legal for Texas to leave the union?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. On the law, the case is strong, and the objection is political dressed as legal. The Constitution does not forbid it, the only case cited against it concedes a lawful exit, Texas already meets the international definition of a nation, and the foundational text of Texas's own constitution affirms the people's right to decide. Here is the whole picture in one place. The federal Constitution does not prohibit it There is no clause in the United States Constitution forbidding a state from leaving the union. None. The Constitution is a list of powers granted to the federal government, and the power to prevent a state's departure is not on the list. Article I, Section 10 spells out exactly what states cannot do, and leaving is not among the prohibitions. Under the Tenth Amendment, every power not delegated to Washington is reserved to the states and the people. The power to stop Texas from leaving was never granted, so it was never Washington's to exercise. The one case against us admits the door is open The entire legal argument against Texas independence rests on a single 1869 opinion, Texas v. White. We treat that case in full elsewhere, but two points settle it here. First, its sweeping language about an "indestructible Union" was not the holding of the case, which was about who owned a batch of bonds; it was dictum, and the actual bond rule it delivered was overruled sixteen years later in Morgan v. United States (1885). Second, and decisively, the opinion itself concedes a lawful exit. Chief Justice Chase wrote that the union could be dissolved "through consent of the States." The case waved against us contains the answer inside it. Texas already meets the international definition of a nation Step out to international law and Texas more than qualifies. The Montevideo Convention of 1933, the foundational treaty defining statehood and now treated as customary international law, sets four criteria for a nation: a permanent population, a defined territory, a functi…

What happens to U.S. federal law inside Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Federal law stops being the supreme law in Texas and Texas law takes its place. The change is real, but it is far less disruptive than it sounds, because Texas already has its own full body of law governing nearly everything Texans do day to day. Most of the law you live under is already Texas law The rules that shape ordinary life in Texas are overwhelmingly state law already. Your criminal code, your traffic laws, your property and contract law, your family law, your business law, your professional licenses, your schools, your courts: all of it is Texas law, made in Austin, enforced by Texas authorities. Federal law sits on top of that as a separate layer covering a defined set of subjects. When independence comes, the Texas layer does not change at all. It simply becomes the whole structure instead of the bottom of a two-story building. What actually changes is which layer is supreme Today the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes valid federal law override conflicting state law. Independence removes that ceiling. Texas law becomes the highest law in Texas, answerable to the Texas Constitution and to no government outside Texas. That is the entire point of self-government: the decisions that bind Texans are made by Texans, and there is no higher authority in Washington that can countermand them. The federal rulebook does not vanish, it gets sorted This is the honest part, and it is also the reassuring part. An independent Texas does not wake up with empty law books in every area Washington used to regulate. The orderly approach, the one every separating nation uses, is to carry existing federal rules forward as Texas law on day one and then revise them deliberately over time. The United Kingdom did exactly this when it left the European Union, converting the entire body of EU law into domestic law with a single act so that nothing fell through the cracks, then amending it at leisure. Texas can do the same: keep what works, change what does not, repeal w…

Would Texas keep its current laws?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Every law Texas has already passed for itself stays exactly as it is. Independence does not erase the Texas statute books. It removes the federal ceiling that has sat on top of them. Texas law passed by Texas does not change The thousands of laws the Texas Legislature has enacted, the entire criminal code, the property and contract law, the traffic laws, the licensing rules, the school code, the tax code, remain fully in force the day after independence. They were made by Texas, for Texas, and they need no permission from anyone to continue. A Texan goes to bed under Texas law and wakes up under the same Texas law. This is the part of the legal system that simply carries on. The carry company already established this This is not a theory. The live answer on whether Texas needs a new constitution makes the same point about the structure itself: Texas does not have to rewrite everything before independence, because the existing framework continues and is amended where the new national status requires it. The same logic runs all the way down to ordinary statutes. Continuity is the default. Change is deliberate and limited. The only laws that need attention are the ones that reference Washington A narrow band of Texas law is written to track or defer to federal law. The live answer on carry laws gives the clean example: Texas rules on certain restricted firearms currently reference federal registration requirements, so after independence those specific provisions have to be updated by the Legislature because the federal reference no longer fits. That is the pattern across the statute books. The laws that need editing are not the ones Texas wrote for its own purposes; they are the handful that point at a federal agency or a federal statute that Texas no longer answers to. Updating a cross-reference is housekeeping, not upheaval. Gaps get filled, not ignored In a few areas, Texas has historically leaned on a federal rule rather than writing its own, simply because th…

What happens to the federal courts located in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The federal courthouses sit on Texas soil, staffed largely by Texans, and an independent Texas already has a complete, fully functioning court system of its own. The federal courts in Texas would be wound down or converted in the transition, and the Texas judiciary would carry the full load, the way it already carries the overwhelming majority of it. Texas already runs a complete court system This is the fact that defuses the whole question. Texas has its own judiciary from top to bottom: municipal and justice courts, county courts, district courts, fourteen courts of appeals, and two high courts, the Supreme Court of Texas for civil matters and the Court of Criminal Appeals for criminal matters. These courts already handle the vast majority of all cases in Texas. The federal courts here handle a defined slice, federal crimes, federal civil questions, disputes between citizens of different states, and the like. Independence does not create a courthouse vacuum, because the Texas court system is already there, already staffed, and already doing most of the work. What the federal courts here actually are The federal judiciary in Texas consists of four U.S. district courts, the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts, plus the federal appeals layer above them. Their authority comes from the U.S. Constitution and acts of the U.S. Congress. When Texas is no longer part of the union, that authority no longer extends to Texas. The buildings, the records, the staff, and the pending matters do not disappear. They are addressed in the transition. The transition handles the buildings, the records, and the people A negotiated separation deals with federal facilities and personnel as a matter of course. The most likely outcomes for the courthouses are the same menu Texas applies to any federal property on its soil: transfer to Texas, often for conversion to Texas judicial use, or another arrangement settled between the two governments. Court records get transferred or …

Would the Texas Supreme Court become the highest court in the land?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. In an independent Texas, no court outside Texas has any authority over Texas law, so the top of the Texas judiciary becomes the final word. Texas is unusual in having two high courts, and both would sit at the summit of an independent Texas legal system. No appeal would run to Washington Today a narrow set of Texas cases can be appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court on federal questions. Independence ends that. Once Texas is its own nation, there is no higher court in Washington and no federal review of Texas decisions, because Texas no longer answers to the U.S. Constitution. The Texas judiciary becomes self-contained, with its final appellate courts as the last stop. That is what judicial sovereignty means: Texas cases are decided in Texas, all the way to the end. Texas has two high courts, not one Here is a detail many people do not know. Unlike most jurisdictions, Texas splits its highest judicial authority between two courts. The Supreme Court of Texas is the court of last resort for civil and juvenile matters. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of last resort for criminal matters. This two-court structure already exists and already functions as the top of the Texas system for everything except the slice of federal questions that currently goes to Washington. Remove that slice at independence and these two courts simply become the final word on everything, with nothing above them. This is a promotion of authority, not a new institution An independent Texas does not have to build a supreme court. It already has the courts, the justices, the procedures, and the body of Texas law they apply. What changes is the ceiling. The Supreme Court of Texas and the Court of Criminal Appeals stop being subordinate on federal questions and become fully sovereign. The institutions are the same the day after independence as the day before. Their authority is simply complete. The law they apply is already Texas law These courts already interpret the Texas Consti…

What happens to people in federal prison in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: This is handled in the transition, deliberately and humanely, the same way every other federal asset and obligation in Texas is handled. People held in federal facilities in Texas do not get released into the streets, and they do not get forgotten. Their custody is sorted out by agreement between Texas and the United States. First, the scale, stated honestly Texas hosts a significant federal prison footprint. The federal Bureau of Prisons operates roughly a dozen facilities in the state housing on the order of fifteen thousand inmates. We say that plainly because pretending the federal corrections system in Texas is trivial would be dishonest, and because the honest number is still entirely manageable next to a Texas corrections system that already houses far more people than that. Texas already runs one of the largest prison systems anywhere The reassuring fact is that Texas is not a novice at incarceration. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice operates one of the largest state prison systems in the United States, with a capacity and a workforce that dwarf the federal footprint inside the state. The expertise, the facilities, and the institutional capacity to hold and manage inmates already exist in Texas at a scale that makes absorbing or coordinating a federal population a logistical task, not a crisis. Custody is divided by agreement, the way separations always do it When a separation is negotiated, the people in custody are part of the agreement. The questions are practical and have practical answers. Inmates who are Texans, convicted of conduct that is also a crime under Texas law, can be transferred to Texas custody to serve out their sentences. Inmates whose cases are purely federal, or who are nationals of the United States, can be transferred to remaining U.S. facilities. There is well-established international machinery for exactly this. Countries transfer sentenced prisoners between their systems routinely under prisoner-transfer agreements, matching…

What happens to pending federal court cases?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They are wound down or transferred under rules set in the separation agreement. Pending cases are one of the most ordinary items on the transition agenda, and the answer is the same one every negotiated separation reaches: nothing is dropped, and the rules are agreed in advance so no one is caught by surprise. This is routine transition work, not a legal cliff The image of every federal case in Texas vanishing overnight is a scare, not a scenario. Real separations do not work that way. When governments separate, they negotiate exactly how in-progress matters are handled, who finishes them, in which forum, and under which law. The Quebec framework that Canada's own Supreme Court endorsed lists this kind of question, the rights and interests of affected parties, among the standard subjects a separation negotiation settles. It is expected, it is planned for, and it is resolved by agreement rather than left to chance. Cases sort by what they actually are The cleanest way to think about pending cases is to ask what each one is really about. A criminal prosecution for conduct that is also a crime under Texas law has a natural home in the Texas criminal courts and can be continued there. A civil dispute between private parties can move to the Texas civil courts, which already hear the full range of civil matters. A matter that is purely an artifact of federal law, or one in which the United States itself is a party, may be wound up in the remaining U.S. system or resolved as part of the separation terms. The sorting is logical, and Texas has a court for every category. Texas courts can hear all of it The reason this works is that Texas courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Unlike federal courts, which are limited to the specific kinds of cases the U.S. Constitution allows, Texas trial courts can hear essentially any controversy. That general competence is exactly what a national judiciary needs, and Texas already has it. There is no type of pending dispute that an ind…

Would the U.S. Constitution still apply in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. Once Texas is an independent nation, the U.S. Constitution no longer governs Texas, and the Texas Constitution becomes the supreme charter of the land. That is not a loss of protection. The Texas Constitution carries its own Bill of Rights, and in several respects it protects Texans more strongly than the federal document does. A constitution governs its own nation The U.S. Constitution is the founding charter of the United States. It binds the states that are part of the union. When Texas restores its independence, it leaves that union, and the U.S. Constitution stops applying to Texas the same way the constitution of any country stops at its border. This is simply what independence is. Texas would be governed by its own supreme law, made and ratified by Texans, answerable to Texans alone. Texas already has its own constitution, and it is older than you might think Texas is not improvising a charter. The Texas Constitution has been the governing law of this state since 1876, nearly 150 years, and Texas has operated under its own constitutions since the Republic of 1836. It opens, like the federal one, with a Bill of Rights. Article 1, Section 2 declares that all political power is inherent in the people and that they have at all times the inalienable right to alter or reform their government. Article 1, Section 1 still describes Texas as "a free and independent State." This is a mature, tested charter, not a blank page. In several places it protects Texans more, not less Here is the part the scare stories never mention. The Texas Bill of Rights is longer and more detailed than the federal one, and in a number of areas it goes further. Texas courts have repeatedly held that the Texas Constitution can grant broader protection than its federal counterpart, and that it can never grant less. Texas protections in areas like search and seizure and due course of law are applied independently of the federal versions, which means a Texan can be protected by the Texas Con…

Would Texans keep Bill of Rights protections?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Texans keep their fundamental rights, because those rights are written into the Texas Constitution, not borrowed from Washington. The Texas Bill of Rights already guarantees the freedoms Texans care about, and in several respects it guarantees them more strongly than the federal Bill of Rights does. Your rights are Texas rights, and they already exist The most common worry is that Bill of Rights protections somehow come only from the federal Constitution, so leaving the union would strip them away. That is not how it works. Texas has its own Bill of Rights, the very first article of the Texas Constitution, and it has been in force for 150 years. Free speech, free exercise of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, due process, trial by jury, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, protection of property: all of it is written into Texas law independently of the federal document. Independence does not remove these protections, because they were never dependent on Washington to begin with. In several areas Texas protects more, not less The Texas Bill of Rights is longer and more detailed than the federal one, and Texas courts have repeatedly held it can provide broader protection than its federal counterpart, and never less. In practice that means a Texan can win protection under the Texas Constitution in situations where the federal Constitution would not reach. Texas courts apply key Texas guarantees, like the protection against unreasonable searches and the guarantee of due course of law, on their own terms rather than as an echo of federal doctrine. The floor on Texans' rights does not drop at independence. In a number of places it is already higher. The Texas Constitution makes these rights inviolate The Framers of the Texas Constitution did not leave the Bill of Rights as a suggestion. Article 1, Section 29 declares that everything in the Texas Bill of Rights "is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inv…

How would extradition between Texas and the U.S. work?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same way it works between the United States and every other friendly neighbor: through an extradition treaty negotiated between the two governments. Extradition between sovereign nations is one of the most well-worn paths in international law, and an independent Texas would simply join the dozens of countries that already have such an agreement with the United States. Extradition between countries is routine and well-established Countries that border or trade with each other almost always have an extradition treaty, and the United States has them with a long list of nations. These agreements set out which offenses are extraditable, what evidence the requesting country must show, and what protections the person sought is entitled to. There is nothing exotic about it. An independent Texas and the United States, as close neighbors with deep ties and a shared interest in not becoming havens for each other's fugitives, would have every reason to conclude exactly this kind of treaty, and the template for it already exists many times over. The core rule protects people on both sides The foundation of modern extradition is a principle called dual criminality: a person can be extradited only for conduct that is a crime in both countries. A country does not hand someone over to be punished for something that is perfectly legal at home. Treaties also typically require that the offense be serious, usually punishable by at least a year in prison, and that the requesting side actually show a real case. These are protections, not loopholes. They mean a Texas-U.S. extradition treaty would surrender genuine fugitives from serious crimes while shielding people from being shipped across the border over conduct that is lawful where they live. Texas already does this inside the union, and it scales up cleanly Texas is no stranger to handing fugitives across a line. Right now, when someone commits a crime in another state and flees to Texas, Texas returns them through interstate rend…

How would Texas handle drug policy?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas would set its own drug policy, under its own law, decided by Texans through the Texas Legislature. The Texas Nationalist Movement does not write that policy and does not take a side on what it should be. What independence changes is who holds the pen: Texas, not Washington. This is a decision for Texas, not for this movement The job of the movement is to win independence and secure the result, not to pre-decide the policy questions that belong to the government Texans elect. Drug policy is exactly that kind of question. After independence it would be debated and set by the Texas Legislature, accountable to Texas voters, the same way Texas already sets its own criminal law. Whatever Texans decide, they decide it for themselves. We make no claim here about what the answer should be, because that is not ours to make. Today, federal law sits on top of Texas law At present, drug policy in Texas operates under two layers. Texas has its own controlled-substances law, and federal law sits above it through the Supremacy Clause, setting nationwide rules that Texas cannot override. That federal layer is why some questions in this area are effectively decided in Washington rather than Austin, regardless of what Texans might prefer. Independence removes the federal ceiling and leaves the decision with Texas. Independence means one lawmaker on this, not two The concrete change is straightforward. After independence, there is no federal drug law layered over Texas. There is Texas law, made by the Texas Legislature, interpreted by Texas courts, enforced by Texas authorities. Whatever direction Texans choose, stricter, the same, or different, it would be a Texas decision, reached through Texas's own democratic process and answerable to no government outside Texas. That is the whole of what independence does here: it consolidates the decision in Texas. Texas already has the institutions to administer it Whatever policy Texas lands on, the machinery to run it already exists at t…

What about civil rights protections after independence?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Civil rights are protected, fully and equally, for every Texan. The Texas Bill of Rights already guarantees them in plain, explicit language, and in this area the Texas Constitution speaks more directly than the federal one does. The Texas Bill of Rights protects all Texans equally, and independence does not weaken that by a single word. Equal protection is written into the Texas Constitution by name This is the heart of the matter, so it should be stated without hedging. The Texas Constitution does not leave equality to inference. Article 1, Section 3 guarantees that all free people have equal rights. Article 1, Section 3a, the Texas equal rights provision, states in so many words that "Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin." That is direct, self-operative text in the very first article of the Texas Constitution. It protects every Texan, and it has no exact counterpart in the federal Bill of Rights. The guarantee of equal treatment under Texas law is not something Texas would have to create after independence. It is already there, in writing. These protections do not come from Washington, so leaving does not remove them The fear behind this question is that civil rights protections flow only from the federal government, so independence would put them at risk. The Texas Constitution answers that directly. Equal protection, due process, free speech, free exercise of religion, and the other core guarantees are written into Texas law independently of the federal document, and have been for generations. Texas courts enforce them as Texas rights. Independence changes who has the final say in protecting these rights, moving it to Texas courts, but it does not remove the rights, because Texas never depended on Washington to hold them. The Texas Bill of Rights is broad, and it is inviolate The Texas Bill of Rights is longer and more detailed than the federal one, and Texas courts have repeatedly held th…

How would Texas handle federal crimes that happened before independence?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: These are handled in the transition, under rules set in the separation agreement, and sorted by what the offense actually is. The honest, simple answer is that pre-independence federal cases do not disappear and do not get dumped. They are wound down or transferred, the same orderly way every other in-progress federal matter is handled. Most "federal crimes" are also crimes under Texas law Start with a fact that shrinks the problem. The serious conduct people picture, violence, fraud, trafficking, theft, is already criminal under Texas law as well as federal law. So for the large majority of cases, there is a natural Texas home. Conduct that violated both federal and Texas law can be prosecuted in Texas courts under Texas law, where the offense was a Texas offense all along. The category of conduct that is somehow only a federal crime and has no Texas analog is much narrower than the phrase "federal crime" makes it sound. Cases already in the federal system get sorted in the transition For prosecutions and investigations that are in progress when independence takes effect, the separation agreement sets the rules, just as it does for pending civil cases and for people already in custody. A matter rooted in conduct that is also a Texas crime can be continued in Texas courts. A matter that is purely federal, or one in which the United States is the injured party, can be completed in the remaining U.S. system or resolved as part of the separation terms. The principle is continuity: nothing is dropped, and the handling of each case is agreed in advance rather than left to chance. The line nobody crosses: independence is not a get-out-of-jail-free card Let us be plain, because this is where the real worry lives. Restoring Texas independence is not an amnesty for criminals. A person who committed a serious crime does not escape accountability because the flag changed. The transition is designed precisely to prevent that, by ensuring every genuine offense has a forum, wheth…

Who replaces federal regulatory enforcement?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas does, through agencies it already runs. This is one of the most reassuring facts about independence and one of the least known: for nearly every federal regulator, Texas already has a state-level counterpart doing the same kind of work. Independence shifts authority from the federal version to the Texas version. It does not create a vacuum. Texas already has a counterpart for almost every federal agency The single most important point here is that Texas is not starting from zero. For nearly every cabinet-level federal department there is already a Texas analog performing the equivalent function inside the state. Banking has the Texas Department of Banking. The environment has the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Transportation has the Texas Department of Transportation. Agriculture, health, insurance, public safety, utilities, professional licensing, all of it already has a Texas agency with Texas staff and Texas authority. The administrative state that actually touches Texans is, to a remarkable degree, already a Texas administrative state. So enforcement moves over, it does not switch off Because the Texas agencies already exist, the handoff is a transfer of authority, not the construction of a new bureaucracy from scratch. Where a federal regulator currently has jurisdiction in Texas, the corresponding Texas agency takes it up. Banks keep being examined, water and air keep being monitored, roads and bridges keep being overseen, licenses keep being issued. The nameplate on the regulator changes from federal to Texas; the function continues. This is the same point the live site makes about the broader transition: there is no part of the relationship that cannot be handled by existing Texas institutions, bilateral agreements, or international agreements Texas joins. Where a gap exists, Texas fills it deliberately In a few areas Texas has leaned on a federal rule rather than writing its own, simply because duplicating it was unnecessary while Texas wa…

When was Texas an independent country, and how did that end?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas was a free and independent nation for almost a decade, from 1836 to 1845, recognized by the world, with its own president, congress, army, navy, currency, and foreign embassies. It did not lose that independence on a battlefield. It voted to set it aside and join the United States, and it can vote to resume it. The Republic was real, and it was recognized After winning independence at San Jacinto in 1836, Texas governed itself as the Republic of Texas for nine years. This was not a paper claim. The Republic elected four presidents, David G. Burnet, Sam Houston, Mirabeau B. Lamar, and Anson Jones. It raised an army and a navy, issued its own money, ran its own post office, and was formally recognized as a sovereign nation by the United States, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Texas kept a legation in Washington and an embassy in London. By every measure the world uses to define a country, Texas was one. Independence ended by a vote, not a defeat Here is the part the standard story leaves out. Texas did not stop being independent because it was conquered or because it failed. It chose to join the United States. A republic carrying debt from its war of independence and facing a hostile Mexico weighed the offer of annexation and accepted it. A convention drafted a state constitution, Texans ratified it by popular vote in October 1845, and the United States Congress completed annexation on December 29, 1845. Part of the bargain was that the federal government would assume up to ten million dollars of the Republic's bonded debt. Texas walked into the union deliberately, through its own institutions. Anson Jones said it plainly When the last president of the Republic, Anson Jones, lowered the flag of an independent Texas and handed power to the first state governor, he did not describe a country that had been beaten. He described one that had finished a chapter. "The final act in this great drama is now performed," he said. "The Republic of Texas …

Did Texas reserve a right to leave when it joined the union?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, in the way that actually matters under the law, though not in the cartoon version you may have heard. The popular legend that Texas signed a one-of-a-kind deal letting it leave anytime is not accurate, and we will not lean on a claim that does not hold up. The real foundation is stronger than the legend: the right to resume self-government was reserved at the founding, it carries to every state equally, and Texans wrote it into their own constitution and never took it out. First, the honest part about the "special deal" You have probably heard that Texas, alone among the states, kept a written right to leave when it joined in 1845. That specific claim does not survive scrutiny, so we set it aside. What Texas actually kept, in the annexation agreement, was the right to divide into as many as four additional states, up to five total. That clause is real and on the record. But an exit clause is not. The annexation terms are simply silent on a right to leave. The good news is that the right to resume self-government never depended on a Texas-only clause in the first place. It rests on ground that belongs to Texas and every other state alike. The Constitution does not forbid it, and silence is the answer Start with the federal document. If a state leaving were prohibited, the Constitution would say so. Article I, Section 10 lists, in detail, what states may not do. Leaving the union is not on the list. Under the Tenth Amendment, every power not handed to Washington stays with the states and the people. No power to stop a state from leaving was ever delegated, so that decision was left exactly where it began, with the people of the state. In a system of enumerated powers, silence does not create a federal power out of thin air. It confirms the power stayed home. Three states reserved the right to resume their powers, and Congress accepted it When the Constitution was ratified, three states said in writing that they kept the right to take back the powers they were del…

Has any modern country gained independence peacefully?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, many times, and that is the rule of the modern era, not the exception. The idea that independence must mean war is a relic. Since the Second World War, the world has watched a steady stream of peaceful, negotiated separations, several of them between settled democracies that simply decided to go their own ways. Texas would be joining a well-worn path, not blazing a dangerous new one. The modern record is a wave, not a war The scale of it is easy to miss. Since 1945, more than 130 new countries have taken their place among the nations of the world, and the overwhelming majority did so without anything resembling the American Civil War. The United Nations had 51 member states at its founding. It has 193 today. That growth is the story of peoples around the globe taking up self-government, most of them peacefully, through negotiation, treaty, and the ballot box. Independence is one of the most common political events of the last eighty years. Two free countries split with a handshake: Norway and Sweden, 1905 For a case that looks remarkably like Texas, go back to 1905. Norway had been in a union with Sweden, and it decided to leave. The Norwegian parliament moved first, the Norwegian people then confirmed it in a plebiscite that passed with nearly unanimous support, and the two governments negotiated the terms at Karlstad. Sweden recognized Norway as an independent nation that same year. Two stable, democratic, European neighbors dissolved a union by vote and negotiation, with no war. More than a century ago, free people were already doing peacefully exactly what Texas proposes. A textbook clean break: the Velvet Divorce, 1993 Closer in time, Czechoslovakia separated into the Czech Republic and Slovakia on January 1, 1993. The split was negotiated by the leadership of both sides and settled in law by their parliament over a matter of months. It was so calm and so free of conflict that history named it the Velvet Divorce. International recognition followed within w…

What can we learn from Brexit?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Brexit is the precedent in our very name, and its central lesson is simple and encouraging: an ordinary people can vote to leave a large political union, and the union holds the vote, respects the result, and negotiates the exit. TEXIT is named for Brexit because Brexit proved the thing the establishment says is impossible is not only possible, it happened in our lifetime. The biggest lesson is that it can be done at all For decades, the answer to "can a member just leave a union like this?" was a confident no. Then Britain did it. In a 2016 referendum, voters in the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union, the most consequential democratic separation of the modern era. The union did not collapse into war. It did not refuse to let Britain go. It held the vote, accepted the outcome, and sat down to work out the terms. That single fact reframes the entire Texas debate. The question is no longer whether leaving a union is conceivable. The world already watched it happen. It was decided by ordinary voters, not by elites Brexit was not handed down by a court or arranged by diplomats behind closed doors. It was put to the people, and the people decided. The political class, the major institutions, and most of the press opposed leaving, and the voters chose it anyway. That is the same instrument Texas independence rests on: a direct vote of the people, not the permission of the powerful. Brexit is proof that on a question this big, the establishment does not get the last word. The voters do. Fear was the losing strategy, and it is the same one Texas will face The campaign against Brexit ran on warnings of economic ruin and isolation, the same playbook Texans will hear. Voters weighed the fear, decided self-government was worth it, and voted to leave anyway. This is the lesson the Texas Nationalist Movement has marked well. The opposition's chief weapon is not an argument. It is fear. Brexit showed that a confident people can hear every dire prediction and still ch…

How is TEXIT different from Brexit?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The shared lesson is real: a people can vote to leave a large union, and the union negotiates the exit. But the two situations are not identical, and most of the differences favor Texas. Texas starts from a stronger legal position, a stronger economic position, and a deeper shared history with the country it would separate from. The European Union had a written exit door. Texas relies on something deeper The most-cited difference is legal, and it cuts in Texas's favor more than people assume. The EU treaties contained an explicit exit clause, Article 50, added in 2009, and Brexit was the first time any member used it. The U.S. Constitution has no such clause, which opponents treat as a trap. It is not. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers, and what it does not hand to Washington stays with the states under the Tenth Amendment. Britain needed a written door because EU membership was a treaty among governments. Texas's right rests on something older and firmer: popular sovereignty, written into the Texas Constitution itself, and a federal Constitution that never granted Washington the power to hold a state by force. The EU was a partnership of governments. The American union rests on the people Brexit unwound a relationship built between the governments of separate countries through treaties. The American union is framed differently and more favorably for our argument. Its own foundational language locates power in the people, and the Texas Constitution makes that explicit: all political power is inherent in the people, who have at all times the inalienable right to alter or reform their government. Britain's exit was a matter of withdrawing a government from a treaty organization. Texas independence is the people of Texas exercising a right their own constitution guarantees. That is a sturdier foundation, not a weaker one. Texas is more integrated, which is an argument for care, not against independence It is fair to note Texas is more deeply woven int…

How did Brexit actually work, step by step?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Brexit unfolded as an orderly sequence: a vote, a formal notice, a negotiation, a transition, and a new trade deal. It was not a single dramatic moment, and the lights never went out. Walking through the actual steps is reassuring, because it shows exactly what a real, lawful exit from a large union looks like, and it maps closely onto how Texas independence would proceed. Step one: the people voted It began with a referendum. On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom held a countrywide vote on whether to remain in or leave the European Union. Leave won, with just under 52 percent of more than 33 million votes cast. That vote was the decision. Everything after it was the work of carrying out what the people had chosen. The same is true for Texas: the referendum is the starting gun, not the finish line. Step two: the formal notice that started the clock A vote sets the direction, but a country still has to give official notice to begin leaving. Britain did that on March 29, 2017, when it formally triggered Article 50, the European Union's exit procedure. That notice opened a defined negotiating window. The lesson for Texas is that there is a clear, formal step between deciding to leave and actually leaving, and it is a normal part of the process, not a crisis. Step three: the negotiation over the terms of departure Britain and the EU then negotiated a withdrawal agreement covering the hard questions: financial obligations, the rights of citizens living on each side, and the border arrangements. This took time and several rounds, which is exactly what serious separations require. Texas independence anticipates the same kind of negotiation with Washington over assets, obligations, and the shape of the future relationship. The existence of hard questions is not a reason to avoid independence. It is the reason to negotiate it properly. Step four: a transition period so nothing snapped overnight When Britain formally left the EU on January 31, 2020, it did not fall off a cliff…

What about the peaceful split of Czechoslovakia?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The breakup of Czechoslovakia, known as the Velvet Divorce, is the cleanest modern proof that a country can separate into two with no violence, no chaos, and no economic collapse. On January 1, 1993, one nation became two, the leadership negotiated the terms, and the world recognized both within weeks. It is the textbook calm separation, and it puts the lie to the claim that splitting a country must be traumatic. One country, two nations, zero violence Czechoslovakia had existed for most of the twentieth century. By the early 1990s, after the fall of communism, its Czech and Slovak halves concluded they would be better governed apart. So they parted. On January 1, 1993, the Czech Republic and Slovakia became separate, independent countries. There was no war, no insurgency, not even serious unrest. The split was so smooth and so free of conflict that it earned the name the Velvet Divorce, after the peaceful Velvet Revolution that had ended communism there. A nation came apart, and the streets stayed calm. It was negotiated and settled in law, not seized in a crisis This was an orderly act of statecraft. The leaders of the two sides negotiated the separation, and their parliament settled the hard parts in law, including how to divide the assets of the old federation, over a matter of months. Institutions, the military, the currency arrangements, all of it was handled by agreement rather than by force. The Velvet Divorce shows that the practical machinery of separating a country is real, it is well understood, and it can be run on a calm, businesslike footing. The questions have answers, and reasonable parties can negotiate them. Recognition was immediate, and both nations thrived The doubters who warn that new nations will be isolated should study what happened next. International recognition of the two new countries followed within weeks. Both went on to become stable democracies, and both later joined the European Union as members in their own right. Far from being …

What about Catalonia's bid for independence?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Catalonia is the example opponents file under "failure," and they have it backwards. The real lesson of Catalonia 2017 is what happens when a central government answers a peaceful vote with threats and force: it does not crush the movement, it grows it. Catalonia is not a warning against independence. It is a warning against Project Fear, and a demonstration of why fear backfires on a proud people. What actually happened in 2017 In 2017, the Catalan regional government scheduled an independence referendum. The Spanish central government declared it illegal and tried to stop it, and on the day of the vote sent state police who seized ballot boxes and used force against voters at the polls. The world watched footage of people being dragged from polling stations. The Catalans voted anyway, and afterward Madrid imposed direct rule on the region. That is the episode opponents point to when they say independence movements fail. The fear campaign converted people instead of crushing them Here is the part Madrid never saw coming, and the part that matters most for Texas. The heavy-handed response did not break the movement. It widened it. After the crackdown, support for independence was higher than before, because watching the state club its own citizens for the crime of voting changed minds. One Catalan, Spanish by birth and raised in Catalonia, put it this way: they do not realize how many people they converted. Coercion did not extinguish the desire for self-government. It manufactured more of it. Fear, aimed at a proud people, is a weak weapon that tends to backfire. Catalonia differs from the Texas plan in the ways that matter It is worth being precise about what made Catalonia hard, because Texas is built to avoid it. The Catalan vote went forward without an agreed legal framework with Madrid, which gave the central government the opening to call it illegitimate and refuse to negotiate. The Texas path is deliberately the opposite. It runs through the people's own leg…

How did the former Soviet republics become independent?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The Soviet Union, the largest country on Earth and a nuclear superpower, dissolved into fifteen independent nations in 1991 without a civil war. If a state that size, that heavily armed, and that authoritarian could come apart peacefully, the claim that the United States could never let Texas go peacefully does not survive contact with history. This is the single most powerful answer to the fear that separation must mean war. Fifteen nations emerged from one, in under two years The scale is staggering and worth stating plainly. The Soviet Union was a union of fifteen republics. In the space of less than two years, all fifteen became independent, sovereign countries: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and the republics of the Caucasus and Central Asia. The Baltic states moved first, reestablishing the independence they had lost decades earlier. Then, in late 1991, the rest followed in quick succession. One of the defining states of the twentieth century became fifteen, and it happened fast. It was done by agreement, not by battle The mechanism was negotiation and declaration, not war. In December 1991 the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus signed an accord recognizing one another's independence and declaring that the Soviet Union, as they put it, was ceasing to exist. Most of the remaining republics joined a follow-on agreement within weeks. The central Soviet government then formally wound itself up, and the Soviet president handed over power, including control of the nuclear arsenal, in an orderly transfer. A superpower dissolved through signatures and declarations. A nuclear superpower, and still no civil war This is the fact that demolishes the "they will never let you go" argument. The Soviet Union held the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet and a vast military, and it still came apart without the great war everyone feared. Its own leaders chose a negotiated breakup precisely to avoid the bloodshed unfold…

How did U.S. territories like Palau and the Marshall Islands become independent nations?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia were all administered by the United States, and all three became sovereign, independent nations that now hold their own seats at the United Nations, while keeping a close, friendly partnership with Washington through agreements called Compacts of Free Association. They are living proof that a place tied to the United States can become its own country and remain on excellent terms with America. That is the relationship Texas would aim for. From U.S. administration to full sovereignty After the Second World War, the United States administered a large group of Pacific islands. Over time, the people of those islands moved toward self-government, and three new nations emerged from that process: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. The first two saw their compacts take effect in 1986; Palau's came into force in 1994. Each became a sovereign state, and each took its seat as a full member of the United Nations, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands in 1991, Palau in 1994. Places once governed by the United States are now independent countries recognized by the world. Independence with a close, negotiated partnership, not a clean break What makes these nations so instructive is the kind of independence they chose. They did not slam the door on the United States. They negotiated a continuing partnership through the Compacts of Free Association. The islands are fully sovereign, they run their own governments and set their own laws, and at the same time they maintain deep ties with America: economic support, the free movement of their citizens to live and work in the United States, and a defense relationship in which the United States handles certain security responsibilities by agreement. Sovereignty and a close American partnership are not opposites. These nations prove the two can coexist by design. This is the template for Texas's future relation…

What does history actually say about whether this can stay peaceful?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: History says peaceful separation is the modern norm, and violent separation is the exception that happens when one side refuses to negotiate. The fear that Texas independence must mean conflict rests almost entirely on a single nineteenth-century example, the American Civil War, while the actual record of the last hundred-plus years points overwhelmingly the other way. Peace is not the hope here. It is the pattern. The fear rests on one example, and it is the wrong one When people assume independence means war, they are picturing one event: the Civil War of 1861 to 1865. We have to be clear-eyed about it. That conflict was carried out by conventions and armies, not by a vote of the people, and it was settled on the battlefield rather than at the ballot box. It is the very thing Texas independence is not. Resting a prediction about a peaceful, lawful, twenty-first-century referendum on a nineteenth-century war is a category error. It reaches past every relevant modern example to grab the one that frightens. We do not accept the Confederacy as the template for what we propose. The modern record runs the other way, repeatedly Set the Civil War aside and look at what has actually happened since. Norway and Sweden dissolved their union by vote and negotiation in 1905, with no war. Czechoslovakia split into two prosperous democracies in 1993, so calmly it was called the Velvet Divorce. The Soviet Union, a nuclear superpower, came apart into fifteen nations in 1991 without a civil war. Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016 and negotiated its exit. Scotland and Quebec held independence votes that their parent countries agreed in advance to honor. Over and over, in the modern era, peoples have separated peacefully. The violent exception is rare, and it has a cause. War comes from refusing to negotiate, not from separating This is the heart of what history teaches. Separation itself does not cause war. Refusing to let people go causes war. Where one side meets a c…

What happened the last time Americans voted on a question like this?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The last time Americans voted directly on whether their state should leave the union, it was Texans, in 1861. There is real American precedent for putting this question to a popular vote, and the lesson it leaves is about method: a decision this large belongs to the people at the ballot box, conducted through a lawful, transparent process. Modern Texas independence takes that lesson and builds the whole plan around it. The honest answer to "the last time" There is no recent, clean American example of a statewide vote on leaving the union, and we are not going to invent one. The most direct instance is 1861, when Texas put the question to a popular referendum on February 23 of that year. We address it head-on rather than reaching for a tidier comparison, because honesty is the only credible footing, and because that vote carries a lesson worth having about how such a decision should be made. Even then, the instinct was that the people must decide Here is the thread worth keeping. When the secession convention met, Governor Sam Houston, who opposed leaving, insisted that a question this momentous be put to the people rather than settled by the convention alone. A statewide referendum followed. That instinct, that a decision of this magnitude belongs to the voters, was the right one, and the principle outlived the moment: the people, not a self-selected body, should decide the future of their state. But the 1861 process failed the test it gestured at The trouble is that 1861 honored that instinct only halfway. The convention did not wait on the lawful, deliberate machinery of self-government. It pressed forward to join the Confederacy, and when Sam Houston refused to swear loyalty to that government, it removed him from office. The process was criticized in its own time as irregular, and it ended in war. So the real lesson of the last time Americans voted on this is about method: the people should decide, and the process by which they decide must be lawful, transparent…

What examples give the best roadmap for Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The best roadmap is not a single country but a set of modern examples that each prove a different piece of the path. Brexit proves a people can vote to leave a large union. Scotland and Quebec prove the parent country will agree in advance to hold the vote. The Velvet Divorce proves the split can be calm and the assets divided by agreement. The breakup of the Soviet Union proves even a superpower can let go peacefully. The Compacts of Free Association prove independence can come with a friendly, ongoing partnership. Put them together and you have the Texas plan, already tested in the real world, piece by piece. Brexit: a people can vote to leave a large union, and it can be carried out Start with the one in our name. Brexit established that an ordinary electorate can vote to leave a large political union, that the union will hold the vote and honor it, and that the exit is carried out through an orderly process of notice, negotiation, and transition. That is the spine of the whole plan: the vote decides, and a negotiated transition implements it. Brexit is the proof of concept for the headline question, can it even be done, and the answer is yes. Scotland and Quebec: the parent country agrees in advance to hold the vote The biggest practical hurdle is getting a legitimate vote at all, and Scotland and Quebec show it can be cleared. In both cases, the central government accepted beforehand that the region had the standing to put independence to its people and that a yes would lead to a negotiated separation. Both votes went the other way, but that is not the point. The point is that the mechanism for a lawful, recognized independence referendum exists and is well understood in the democratic world. Texas's task is to win the vote those campaigns merely held, and the path to holding it is established. The Velvet Divorce: the split can be calm and the assets divided by agreement Once a vote carries, the next fear is chaos, and Czechoslovakia answers it. The Velvet Divo…

People say Texas can't legally secede. Is that true?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. The people who say it cannot be done are repeating a talking point, not citing a law. There is no clause in the U.S. Constitution that forbids a state from leaving, and the single court case everyone falls back on does not say what they think it says. Start with the document itself If leaving were illegal, there would be a line in the Constitution that says so. There is not. Article I, Section 10 is the place the Framers listed what states cannot do. They were thorough. States cannot make treaties, coin money, keep troops in peacetime, or tax imports without the consent of Congress. That list is precise, and a state leaving the union is nowhere on it. The Framers knew how to forbid a thing. They forbade many things. They did not forbid this. Silence is not a loophole. In this system, silence is the answer The Constitution is a list of powers the states handed to the federal government. Whatever was not handed over stays with the states and the people. The Tenth Amendment says it plainly: the powers not delegated to Washington "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There is no delegated power to stop a state from leaving, and no delegated power to hold a state by force. So the power was never given away. It stayed home. Reaching for a power the Constitution never granted is not constitutional law. It is just power. The whole case against you rests on one 1869 opinion Press a skeptic and you always arrive at the same place: *Texas v. White*, decided in 1869. Take that one case away and the opposition has no law left. So it is worth knowing what that case actually was. It was a lawsuit about bonds. Texas had received $5 million in U.S. bonds under the Compromise of 1850, some were sold during the war, and the Reconstruction government sued to get them back. The only question the Court needed to answer was whether Texas could bring the suit at all. Bonds and standing. That was the case. The famous line was a flourish, not a holding To decide a …

What about Texas v. White? Didn't the Supreme Court rule secession illegal?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: This is the case the whole argument hangs on, so it deserves a full answer. *Texas v. White* (1869) is the one ruling every opponent of Texas independence eventually cites. It is also a single 5 to 3 opinion, written about a bond dispute, by a judge who should never have heard it, resting on a part of the Constitution that grants no power, and conceding in its own text that a state can in fact leave. Take it apart piece by piece and there is nothing left holding the door shut. The case was about bonds, not secession Almost no one who cites *Texas v. White* will tell you what it was actually about. In 1851 Texas received $5 million in U.S. bonds under the Compromise of 1850. During the war the Confederate state government sold some of them. After the war, the Reconstruction government of Texas sued to recover them. The only question the Court had to decide was whether Texas had standing to sue, which turned on whether Texas still counted as a "state" for the Court's jurisdiction. Bonds, standing, jurisdiction. To resolve that, Chief Justice Chase wrote an entire theory of the union into a fight over who owned $135,000 in bearer bonds. The "indestructible Union" line was never the holding A court's holding is the narrowest reasoning it needs to settle the dispute in front of it, and only the holding binds future courts. Everything past that is dictum. It can be eloquent and it can be quoted for a century and a half, and it is still not binding law. Chase's "indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States" was not necessary to decide who owned the bonds. It was dictum. And the one piece of the case that was a true holding, the bond rule, was overruled sixteen years later in *Morgan v. United States* (1885). The rule the opinion existed to deliver did not survive. The slogan everyone repeats did, only because the question has never been squarely put to the Court again since 1869. It has been quoted in passing. It has never been held. The judge who wrote it had a…

Doesn't "one nation, indivisible" prove states can't leave?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. "One nation, indivisible" is a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, not the Constitution, and a patriotic recitation is not law. The phrase is moving. It is also entirely beside the point, because it appears in no binding legal document and creates no legal obligation. Where the words actually come from The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a magazine writer, for a children's celebration marking the 400th anniversary of Columbus reaching the New World. It is not in the Constitution. It is not a statute. It was a composition for a school program. The phrase "under God" was not even part of it at the start. Congress added that in 1954. A line that Congress was freely editing in the middle of the twentieth century is not a binding rule about whether a state can govern itself. It is a pledge schoolchildren recite, and it carries exactly the legal weight of one. Slogans do not create law, and the Supreme Court has said so Set aside the Pledge for a moment, because supporters of forced union try the same move with the Constitution's own language, pointing to "a more perfect Union" in the Preamble. That argument fails for a reason the Supreme Court spelled out. In *Jacobson v. Massachusetts* (1905), the Court held that the Preamble "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments." If the most formal opening line of the Constitution itself grants no power and imposes no obligation, then a line from a children's pledge certainly cannot. A stirring phrase can inspire. It cannot bind. "A more perfect Union" describes quality, not eternity Even taken seriously, the language does not say what people assume. "More perfect" in 1787 meant more complete, more functional, better built. It does not mean permanent. The Framers were describing a union designed better than the one under the Articles of Confederation, not a union that could never end. You cannot make…

Isn't this just sour grapes whenever a Democrat is in the White House?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. Texas independence is not a mood, and it is not tied to which party holds Washington. The movement was here before the current administration, it will be here after the next one, and the case for it does not change color with the party in power. The problem is the size and distance of the federal government itself, and that does not improve when your team wins. The case is structural, not partisan The argument for independence has nothing to do with who sits in the Oval Office. Texans send hundreds of billions of dollars to Washington every year and watch a shrinking share come back with strings attached. The federal debt climbs past anything that can be seriously repaid. The decisions that shape life in Texas are made farther and farther from Texas. None of that is fixed by a change of administration. A new president does not shrink the debt, return the money, or move the decisions closer to home. The machine runs the same regardless of who is nominally driving. "Your side wins sometimes" is exactly the trap The whole promise of the federal system is that you get your turn. Win the right elections and Washington will work for you. Texans have run that experiment for generations, under presidents of both parties, and the federal government grew under all of them. When your party holds Washington, the spending and the centralizing do not stop. They just get aimed at different targets. The lesson is not "wait for the next election." The lesson is that the structure produces the same result no matter who is in charge. You cannot vote your way out of a system in which Texas is permanently outnumbered. Independence is not about escaping one president. It is about self-government The point of Texas independence is not to dodge a particular administration for four years. It is to put the decisions that affect Texans in the hands of Texans, permanently, so the answer to "who governs Texas" stops depending on a coin flip every four years in another part of the country. T…

Can Texas secede from the United States?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. The honest, precise answer is that Texas can lawfully pursue independence, and nothing in the Constitution stops it. We say "independence" rather than "secession" because that is the accurate word for what this is, but the question people type is "can Texas secede," so let us answer it head-on. There is no law that forbids it If a state leaving were illegal, the Constitution would say so. It does not. Article I, Section 10 carefully lists the things states are not allowed to do, and leaving the union is not among them. The Framers knew how to forbid a thing when they wanted to. They did not forbid this. That silence is not a gap. In a system where the federal government has only the powers the states handed it, anything not handed over stays with the states. The Tenth Amendment seals it The Tenth Amendment says the powers "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Nowhere did the states delegate to Washington a power to stop one of them from leaving, and nowhere did they accept a prohibition on doing so. So the decision rests where it always did, with the people of the state. The Supreme Court itself, in *United States v. Darby* (1941), described the Tenth Amendment as confirming "that all is retained which has not been surrendered." The power to keep Texas was never surrendered. The one case against you concedes the point Skeptics fall back on *Texas v. White* (1869). But that case was about bonds, the "indestructible Union" line in it was a comment rather than a binding holding, and the real holding it produced was overruled in *Morgan v. United States* (1885). More telling still, the opinion's own author wrote that the union could be dissolved "through consent of the States." The case used to prove it cannot be done admits that it can. Texas's own constitution says the people decide The most direct authority on this point was written by Texans, ratif…

Is it legal for Texas to secede?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. There is no federal law that makes it illegal, no statute that forbids it, and no Supreme Court ruling that closes the door on the law alone. What you are really being told when someone says "it's illegal" is a political opinion dressed up to sound like a legal fact. Look for the law, and you will not find one The simplest test is to ask the person who says it is illegal to point to the law. There is no clause in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits a state from leaving the union. There is no act of Congress that does it. Article I, Section 10 lists what states cannot do, in detail, and a state leaving is not on the list. When a thing is genuinely forbidden, there is a text that forbids it. Here there is none. Silence plus the Tenth Amendment equals reserved power The federal government has only the powers the Constitution grants it. The Tenth Amendment makes the rest explicit: whatever is "not delegated to the United States" and not "prohibited by it to the States" is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." No power to stop a state from leaving was ever delegated. So the question of staying or going was left exactly where it started, with the people of the state. A power Washington was never given is not a power it can use. "Texas v. White made it illegal" does not survive contact The one case people reach for is *Texas v. White* (1869), and it does not do the work they need. It was a lawsuit over bonds. Its sweeping language about a permanent union was dictum, not a binding holding, and the actual rule the case decided was overruled in *Morgan v. United States* (1885). On top of that, the opinion itself says the union can end "through consent of the States." A ruling that concedes a lawful exit is a strange thing to cite as proof there is none. A war did not change the text The final fallback is "the Civil War settled it." A war settles who had the stronger army. It does not rewrite the Constitution, and no clause was added after 1865 forbidd…

Did the Civil War make secession illegal?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. A war can decide who has the stronger army. It cannot make a law, change the Constitution, or settle what a free people are entitled to decide for themselves. And what is being proposed today has nothing in common with 1861. A battlefield is not a legislature The claim that the Civil War "made secession illegal" confuses winning with lawmaking. Laws are made by writing them down and enacting them, not by winning a battle. Ask the simple question that takes the argument apart: which clause of the Constitution did the war amend? There is no answer, because the war amended nothing. The Constitution after 1865 says exactly what it said before, and it contains no prohibition on a state leaving. The federal government had the power to hold the union together by force. That tells you about its power. It tells you nothing about the right of a people to govern themselves. Conquest cannot settle a question of right If military victory could permanently settle a question of right, then every question of right is decided by whoever wins the fight, and might makes right. We reject that everywhere else. When Germany invaded Poland, the world did not say "well, that settles that." Conquest has never been a substitute for consent. The idea that a nineteenth-century war permanently answered a question of self-government is a principle no free people would accept in any other context. 1861 and today are not the same thing, and the difference is everything This matters too much to blur. The events of 1861 were carried out by self-selected conventions and settled by war, not by a vote of the whole people. Texas independence today is the opposite. It rests on the consent of the governed, decided by a free, fair, open referendum of every eligible Texan, of every race and background. One was settled by force. The other is settled by a ballot. Anyone who collapses the two is either confused or trying to smear a lawful movement by tying it to the worst chapter of the past. Even the cour…

Is secession treason?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. Voting on Texas independence is not treason, and the people who throw the word around almost never know what it means. Treason is one of the few crimes the Constitution defines precisely, and a peaceful vote does not come close. The Constitution defines treason narrowly, on purpose The Framers had watched tyrants use "treason" as a catch-all charge against anyone who crossed them, so they fenced the crime in. Article III, Section 3 says treason "shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." That word "only" is doing deliberate work. James Madison explained in Federalist 43 that a tight constitutional definition was the barrier against "new tangled and artificial treasons" used by factions to wreck their rivals. Treason is not a synonym for "a political position I dislike." A ballot is not "levying war" Casting a vote is not waging war unless you are prepared to argue that marking a ballot is an act of war, which is absurd. A peaceful, lawful referendum, initiated by legislation and decided by the people, involves no force and no violence. There is no army, no insurrection, no attack. There is a question on a ballot and Texans answering it. None of that is levying war against anyone. There is no enemy here to adhere to The other half of the definition is adhering to "their enemies," giving them "aid and comfort." In constitutional terms an enemy is a nation or force the United States is at war with. Voting for Texas independence does not aid a hostile foreign power, because no hostile foreign power is involved. Texas is not a foreign enemy. Texans deciding their own future are not giving aid and comfort to anyone's enemy. The element simply is not there. Treason is an individual crime, which makes the charge collapse Treason is something an individual can commit. A state cannot commit it, and neither can an electorate. To call an independence vote treason, you would have to say that millions of ordi…

Did Texas reserve the right to secede when it joined the United States?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, in the way that actually matters under the law. The popular legend that Texas signed a special deal letting it leave anytime is not quite right, and we will be honest about that. But the deeper truth is stronger than the legend: the right to resume self-government was reserved at the founding, it carries to every state equally, and Texas's own constitution states it outright. First, the honest part about the "special deal" You have probably heard that Texas, alone among the states, kept a written right to leave when it joined in 1845. That specific claim does not hold up, and we will not lean on it. What Texas did keep, in the annexation agreement, was the right to divide into as many as four additional states. That is real, and Chase had to ignore it to write *Texas v. White*. But the right to resume self-government does not depend on a Texas-only clause. It rests on something that applies to Texas and every other state alike. Three states reserved the right to resume their powers, and Congress accepted it When the Constitution was ratified, three states put in writing that they kept the right to take back the powers they were delegating. Virginia, ratifying on June 26, 1788, declared that the granted powers "may be resumed" by the people "whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." New York, on July 26, 1788, reserved that the powers of government "may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." Rhode Island said the same when it ratified in 1790. Congress seated all three without objection. That silence was acceptance. The reservation became part of the constitutional bargain the whole country joined. The Equal Footing Doctrine carries that reservation to Texas Here is why a reservation made by Virginia in 1788 belongs to Texas in 1845. Every state enters the union on an equal footing with the original states, with the same rights and powers, no more and no less. The Supreme Court stated it…

Isn't Texas independence really a Confederate or white-nationalist project in disguise?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. It is the opposite, and anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to avoid the actual argument for independence by smearing the people who make it. Independence is about the future, not the past TEXIT is a forward-looking movement about self-government in the twenty-first century. It is about who decides the laws Texans live under, who spends the money Texans earn, and whether the people of Texas get a say in their own future. It has nothing to do with restoring anything from 1861, and everything to do with the question every free people eventually asks: should we govern ourselves? The Confederacy was a government that denied that the people it ruled were people at all. A movement built on the consent of the governed is its moral opposite. The coalition tells the real story Support for Texas independence does not fit the smear, and the numbers prove it. Polling has shown roughly 60 percent of Texans supporting independence and about two-thirds wanting a vote on it. You cannot reach those numbers with a fringe. That coalition crosses every line the smear depends on. It includes Texans of every race, every background, and every corner of the political map, from lifelong conservatives to disillusioned progressives to people who have never been political at all. A cause that draws a majority of a state as diverse as Texas is by definition not the property of a fringe. We reject the haters, and we say so plainly Any movement that grows attracts people who want to attach their own agenda to it. The Texas Nationalist Movement has been consistent and unflinching: the case for independence is the consent of the governed, full stop. Racism and the politics of hatred have no place in it and contradict its founding premise. Independence is for all Texans, or it is not what we say it is. We have never wavered on that, and we never will. The smear is a tactic, not an argument Notice what the accusation is designed to do. It changes the subject. Rather than answer whether Texas…

Isn't Texas a "welfare state" that takes more from Washington than it sends?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No, and this is the claim our opponents lean on hardest, so it gets a full and honest answer. By one method of counting it is true, and we will not dodge that. But it answers a question almost nobody is actually asking, and once you separate the two questions hiding inside it, it argues for independence, not against it. Two different questions are being jammed into one The whole debate gets muddied because two separate questions are treated as the same. The first is balance of payments: in a given year, did more federal money flow into Texas than Texans paid in federal taxes? The second is fiscal capacity: taxed the way they are now, could Texans pay for the government an independent Texas would actually run? A household can send more to the IRS than it gets back and still easily afford its own groceries. A state can be a net recipient on paper and still be perfectly able to fund its own government. Only the second question decides whether Texas can make it, and the answer is yes. Meeting the claim head-on Start by conceding what is true. By the Rockefeller Institute's balance-of-payments measure, Texas took in roughly $80 billion more than it paid in 2023, and fact-checkers have rated claims like it "mostly true." We cite that number ourselves. Now set it beside another reputable source. USAFacts, measuring taxes paid against spending received, found Texas a net contributor, in its own words sending "$68.1 billion more to the federal government than it received." Two credible studies, tens of billions apart, on opposite sides of zero. When that happens, "Texas is a taker" is not a fact. It is a choice about what to count. The gap is borrowed money and Texans' own checks coming home The entire difference comes down to two things. First, borrowed money. Washington spends about $1.37 for every $1 it collects, and that 37-cent gap is deficit it borrowed, not revenue it raised. That is the only reason most states look subsidized. Texas's own ratio is $1.21 received for …

Didn't the Civil War settle this once and for all?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. A war settles who had the stronger army. It does not settle what is legal, what is moral, or what a free people are entitled to decide for themselves. And what is being proposed today has nothing in common with 1861. Force is not law The idea that the Civil War "settled" the question confuses victory with legitimacy. By that logic, might makes right, and any question can be closed permanently by whoever wins the fight. We do not accept that anywhere else. The fact that the federal government had the power to hold the union together by force in 1865 tells us about its power. It tells us nothing about whether the people of a state have the right to govern themselves, which is a question of principle, not of arms. 1861 and today are not the same thing, and the difference is everything The events of 1861 were carried out by self-selected conventions and settled by war, not by a vote of the whole people. Texas independence today is the opposite. It is built on the consent of the governed, decided by a free, fair, and open referendum of every eligible Texan, of every race and background. One was settled by force. The other is settled by a ballot. Treating them as the same thing is either a mistake or a smear. The world moved on, even if the talking point did not Since 1865, the principle of self-determination has become a cornerstone of international law, written into the United Nations Charter and into treaties the United States itself has signed. Free peoples have voted on independence in Scotland, in Quebec, across the former Soviet Union, and in Britain's exit from the European Union. The notion that the question of self-government was frozen forever by a nineteenth-century war is a notion the rest of the world abandoned a long time ago. The law does not say what the talking point claims If leaving were truly settled and forbidden, there would be a clear constitutional prohibition to point to. There is not. The U.S. Constitution is silent on a state leaving the un…

Didn't Justice Scalia say there is no right to secede?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Justice Scalia offered that opinion in a personal letter, not in a court ruling, and an offhand opinion in private correspondence is not law. Even taken at face value, it does not say what people think it says. It was a letter, not a decision The quote comes from a private letter Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 2006 to Dan Turkewitz, a screenwriter working on a political farce about Maine seceding from the Union. Turkewitz had written to the justices asking whether such a case might ever play out at the Supreme Court. Scalia, the only one who replied, wrote: "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." That sentence, in a note about a movie script, is the entire basis of the claim. It was never briefed, never argued, never the subject of a case, and never joined by another justice. It carries exactly as much legal weight as any other piece of private correspondence, which is to say none. A personal opinion is not a precedent Courts are bound by holdings in actual cases, not by what a justice writes in his mail. If a stray sentence in private correspondence could settle a constitutional question, the law would be whatever any judge happened to tell a pen pal. Scalia, of all people, built his career on the principle that the text of the Constitution governs, and the text contains no prohibition on a state leaving the union. His reasoning rests on the Civil War, which does not settle it Look at what Scalia actually leaned on. Not a constitutional clause, because there isn't one, but "the Civil War." A war settles who prevailed by force. It does not settle a question of right, and it did not amend the Constitution to forbid independence. We take that argument apart in full in the question on the Civil War. The point here is that even the substance behind the famous quote is the same "the war settled it" assertion, and it fails for the same reasons. Scalia himself said the courts would never decide this Here i…

If you don't like America, why don't you just move?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Because this is our home. Texans are not the ones who should have to leave. The whole point is to stay in Texas and make Texas free. Wanting better government is the most American thing there is The "love it or leave it" line assumes that anyone who wants to change how they are governed must not belong. The founders of this country thought the opposite. They did not move. They stayed, and they changed their government. Wanting a say in the laws you live under is not a reason to pack a bag. It is the founding idea of self-government, and it is the idea Texas independence is built on. You don't abandon your home, you fix it Texans have built families, businesses, communities, and generations of history in this state. Telling a Texan to move is telling them to surrender the place their grandparents are buried and their children are growing up. Independence is the refusal to do that. It says we are not leaving Texas. We are taking responsibility for it. There is nowhere to move to, and that is the point The deeper answer is that the things driving people toward independence, a federal government too big to reform, too far away to listen, and too indebted to fix itself, are not problems you can outrun by crossing a state line. Every state is under the same federal government. Moving to another state changes your weather, not your sovereignty. The only way to actually live under a government accountable to Texans is to make Texas independent. The question reveals the weakness of the other side Notice that "why don't you just leave" is not an argument that Texas cannot govern itself, or that Texans are not overtaxed, or that the people should not get a vote. It is a way to avoid all of those questions by suggesting the people asking them should disappear. When the response to "let the people vote" is "then get out," the person saying it has run out of reasons. The bottom line We are not leaving Texas. We are freeing it. This is our home, and we intend to govern it ourselve…

Wouldn't Austin, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio vote it down?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: That assumption is built on a stereotype, not on the numbers. Support for Texas independence is broad enough that it does not live or die by the big cities, and the cities are nowhere near as one-sided as the caricature suggests. The polling crosses the whole state Surveys have put support for independence around 60 percent statewide, with about two-thirds of Texans wanting the chance to vote on it. You do not reach a number like that by running up the score in rural counties alone. Support on that scale necessarily includes millions of people in and around the major metros. The picture of a rural Texas straining against four solidly opposed cities is a cartoon, not a measurement. Cities are not monoliths Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin contain millions of conservatives, independents, small-business owners, working families, and first-generation Texans who are exhausted by Washington. A city that leans one way in a partisan election is not a city that votes as a single block on the question of whether Texans should govern themselves. Independence scrambles the usual lines. It is not a normal left-right vote, and it will not break down along normal left-right maps. Independence is not a partisan transaction The case for self-government is not "your team wins." It is that decisions about Texas should be made in Texas, by Texans, close to the people they affect. That argument lands in a Houston suburb as well as it lands in the Panhandle, because property taxes, the border, the cost of living, and a distant unaccountable federal government are not rural concerns. They are Texan concerns, felt hardest in the metros where most Texans actually live. A statewide vote is won statewide A referendum is decided by a simple majority of everyone who votes, everywhere. The job is not to win a region. It is to make the case to every Texan, in every county and every city, the same way any winning statewide campaign does. With support already polling well above the line, th…

Will the economy in an independent Texas be better?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: On average, Texas ranks as having the 8th largest economy in the world. There is no doubt that an independent Texas will do better. To quote the conservative firebrand and Texit advocate, Claver Kamau-Imani, "After Texit, we're gonna be rich!" He's not exaggerating. Texas already collectively possesses a fair amount of wealth as one of the largest economies in the world. However, Texit promises to bring that wealth to every citizen of Texas. In exploring the negative effect of excessive federal regulation, the Mercatus Center's Federal Regulation and State Enterprise (FRASE) Index found that Texas is hit harder than most, with the impact of federal regulation on Texas industries running about 29 percent higher than on the United States overall. The personal cost is starker still: a 2013 study in the Journal of Economic Growth found that six decades of accumulated federal regulation have cut US economic growth by about two percentage points a year, leaving the average household roughly $277,000 a year poorer than it would otherwise be. Absent that regulatory drag, median household income in 2013 would have been on the order of $330,000 rather than the actual $53,000. Flip the script and look at it from the standpoint of a Texas no longer carrying that federal regulatory weight: over time, the average Texan keeps far more of what they earn, and take-home pay climbs well above where it sits now. The retention of this type of wealth by Texans translates into an explosion of new business startups and corporate expansions, reducing unemployment to near zero. Texas can experience double-digit economic growth as the lack of an income tax turns Texas into an international haven for wealth and foreign investment. All of this economic activity results in an increase in government revenue, leading to better schools, improved infrastructure, and additional tax breaks. The best data available shows a correlation between increased consumer spending and an increase in household inc…

Will Texas have to pay back a portion of the federal debt?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: When it comes to the federal debt, there is no softening the blow. When Texas leaves, it will have to take its share of the federal debt with it. If the negotiations regarding the military win the prize for taking the most, the negotiations over the federal debt will win the prize for being the most contentious. After all, in any divorce, outside of custody battles over children, money is the most heated issue. This will be no different. In Dismantling Confederation: The Divisive Question of the National Debt, Paul Boothe looked at this issue in the event of Quebec exiting Canada. In it, he stated that division of public federal debt "is considered one of the toughest and longest negotiation subjects during state secessions." The contention will come in calculating Texas' share of the debt. It is highly unlikely that there will be any easy agreement on the issue. For example, the United States will likely demand that we take the federal debt and divide that figure by the total population of the United States to get the per person share of the debt. Right now, the gross federal debt works out to around $117,604 per person. Multiply that by the population of Texas and you arrive at about $3.6 trillion. I'm fairly certain they'll send us an invoice. Texas will likely counter that we have paid substantially more into the federal system than we have gotten out of it for decades. Using the most conservative figure of $103 billion annually in overpayment, about 35 years of overpayment should pretty much wipe the slate clean. Throw that on top of the fact that, while the federal government was busy exploding the federal debt and spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave, Texas has been one of the prime drivers of economic growth for the entire United States. That doesn't even take into account that a large portion of the debt came from funding programs Texans didn't want or need or was wasted by federal mismanagement and inefficiency. Professor Matt Qvortrup discusses h…

How will trade work with the United States?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Trade is the major issue that has the clearest path to resolution with the United States and it is one of the most important. International trade is a major driver of the Texas economy. In fact, Texas exports products to virtually every country in the world with total value of exports to just the top 25 totaling between $225 and $285 billion every single year. These are just the figures for products that originate in Texas and doesn't include imports that flow through our ports and travel across our roads every day. Taking into account all exports flowing through Texas, goods exported to our top ten trading partners exceeded $300 billion in 2024. Texas exports in 2024 are greater than those of California and New York combined, with $455 billion worth of exported products around the world. Trade is major. It is important to examine how trade works between Texas and the rest of the States and then see if there is a fair path to approximate that relationship now that gives Texas some control over the situation. Currently, Texas is restricted in external trade by the prohibitions on States in Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, fully vesting that authority in the U.S. Congress. Consequently, States have little to no control over the flow of goods and services across their borders and there are certainly no trade tariffs between the States. Within the United States, member States have tariff-free trade and a singular external trade policy. Not accounting for the common currency, this economic relationship between the States is the textbook definition of a customs union. Some would argue that the United States is a fully integrated economic union, but the States retain a large degree of control over their individual fiscal policies, meaning that the United States is not a true economic union. Other than the United States, there are 13 other customs unions around the world comprising virtually all of Central America, South America, nearly all of Europe, and port…

Will Texas have its own currency?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: One of the most common questions about life after Texit is what Texas would use for money. Texas has more than one workable path here, not a single locked plan. What currency an independent Texas uses is a sovereign decision for the government Texans elect, and it is one of the questions a transition treaty with the United States would settle after a vote. The movement's job is to show that the building blocks are already here, not to pre-commit the future Republic's monetary policy. The U.S. Dollar Can Simply Keep Circulating Nothing forces Texas to replace the dollar on the day it becomes independent, or ever, if Texans don't want to. A number of sovereign nations use the U.S. Dollar as their everyday currency, including Panama, Ecuador, and El Salvador, with no central bank of their own and no exchange-rate risk. An independent Texas could do exactly the same through the transition and for as long as it served Texans. Currency continuity is the default, not a problem to be solved. Gold and Silver Are Already Legal Tender in Texas Texas has already taken a concrete step toward sound money with the passage and signing of HB 1056 in the 89th legislative session in 2025. HB 1056 goes far beyond the symbolic precious-metals legislation passed by other states. It directs the Texas Comptroller to establish the electronic systems that make gold and silver "functional money" for everyday use: Texans will be able to hold gold and silver in the state-run Texas Bullion Depository and spend those holdings through debit cards and mobile applications, for everything from groceries to a tank of gas. That is real, working infrastructure that exists today, before independence. The Texas Bullion Depository The Texas Bullion Depository (TxBD), a state-run facility in Leander, stores precious metals and gives Texas the ability to back money with tangible assets, something few modern fiat currencies offer. In the words of then-Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar, "The Texas Bullion Deposito…

Will Texas incentivize or encourage small business and entrepreneurship?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well today in Texas and will continue to be so in an independent Texas. In 2019, multiple business analysts ranked Texas as the "Best State to Start a Business". Home to more than 3.3 million small businesses in 2024, our state is focused on developing an environment where entrepreneurs have the freedom to aspire, grow and prosper. Even more so, small businesses do much better with less overbearing regulatory restraints that come primarily from our membership in the union. It is reasonable to believe that this spirit of entrepreneurialism will continue and thrive in an independent Texas.

How will small businesses be protected from multi-national corporations after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas will be able to protect small businesses much better than the US. This will be done by putting an end to the current system of federalized corporate welfare. Currently, the US government deals out favorable treatment to corporations through subsidies, grants, and tax breaks for large multi-national corporations thereby creating unfair competition for small businesses. By exiting the union and implementing and expanding current Texas business-friendly practices and executing our own trade deals, Texas small businesses will be better protected than ever before.

How will TEXIT affect anti-monopoly laws?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Anti-monopoly laws are already in place and have been since the Anti-Trust Act of 1889. The Texas State Constitution even specifically outlines its stance on monopolies: "Monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed."

Will an independent Texas place tariffs on imported agricultural products?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: As it stands now, Texas has no authority to negotiate tariff rates while within the union. In fact, the vast majority of current trade agreements negotiated by the federal government are beneficial to a handful of economic sectors within Texas and detrimental to the rest. Texas will negotiate both bilateral and multilateral trade deals with other countries. Those trade agreements will govern the terms with cross border transactions. At a minimum Texas can engage in trade under existing World Trade Organization tariff schedules. Both WTO tariff schedules and negotiated trade agreements set the terms under which tariffs are laid for all goods and services as well as the amount of those tariffs. In short, unlike our present situation within the union, Texas will be able to negotiate trade terms that are exclusively beneficial to Texas.

How will an independent Texas address farm subsidies?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Simple economic sense suggests regulations reduce productivity and slow economic growth. It only makes perfect sense that when federal regulations and taxes are removed, there will be more financial stability and lower prices for farmers and ranchers. These savings will be passed down to the consumer. When a country like China retaliates by refusing to purchase US farmers' crops because of tariffs, the USDA simply writes checks to the affected farmers. This is done outside of Congressional approval. If a U.S. trade war does not include Texas, there would be no need for farm subsidies. Farm subsidies for 2025 includes $31 billion in natural and economic disaster aid for farmers and ranchers, a second extension of the 2018 farm bill and $2.5 billion in additional aid to be distributed through USDA. Ultimately, the benefits of a low-regulation and trade deals that are exclusively beneficial to Texas agriculture will far outweigh any benefits from farm subsidies.

Will farmers and ranchers continue to enjoy agricultural tax exemptions after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Agricultural exemptions that currently exist under state law will continue to be law unless they are changed by legislative action. Any federal agricultural exemptions will likely be adopted by the legislative branch of the Texas government.

How big is the Texas economy?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It is one of the largest economies on Earth. Texas produced $2.77 trillion in goods and services in 2024, which is not the output of a province or a region. It is the output of a major nation. The headline number Texas GDP reached $2.77 trillion in 2024, measured by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. That is the value of everything Texas makes, grows, ships, drills, builds, and sells in a year. It is real, it is current, and it is measured inside the borders Texas already has. Independence does not change that figure. It changes who controls it. What that size actually means A $2.77 trillion economy is bigger than the entire national economies of Italy, Canada, Russia, South Korea, and Australia. These are not small countries. They are members of the G20, hosts of Olympic Games, holders of permanent seats and serious militaries. Texas out-produces all of them. The question is not whether an economy this size can stand on its own. Economies a fraction of this size do it every day. It is diversified, not a one-trick economy Critics like to imagine Texas as nothing but oil, so that a bad year for crude would sink everything. The numbers say otherwise. Texas leads the United States in energy, yes, but it is also the second-largest manufacturing economy in the country, a global technology and semiconductor hub, the leading agricultural producer of cattle and cotton, and the operator of eight of the nation's top 25 deepwater ports. When one sector cools, the others carry the load. That breadth is exactly what makes a national economy durable. It is lightly governed for its wealth Here is a number that settles the question of scale. Developed democracies spend somewhere between 38 and 44 percent of their GDP on all levels of government combined. Canada runs about 40.6 percent, Australia about 38 percent, per the IMF and OECD. The total government footprint inside Texas, federal and state together, runs closer to 19 percent of GDP. Texas is not stretched thin. It is ligh…

Where would an independent Texas rank among the world's economies?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Eighth. Not eighth among the fifty states. Eighth among all the nations on Earth. Eighth in the world, and the company it keeps At $2.77 trillion in 2024 (Bureau of Economic Analysis), an independent Texas would slot in as the world's eighth-largest economy, ahead of Italy, Canada, Russia, South Korea, and Australia. Texas would join the world stage not as a small new arrival hoping to be noticed, but as a top-ten economic power on the day it became independent. It out-produces the countries it would sit beside Look at what a national government actually costs in the countries Texas would outrank. Canada runs its entire federal government, military, central bank, full diplomatic corps, customs, and social insurance included, for roughly $381 billion. Australia runs everything, Medicare and pensions included, for about $484 billion all in. Texas, with $453 billion a year in tax revenue already coming in, takes in more than it costs to run Canada's federal government, and it keeps its existing state government in Austin on top of that. This is not a marginal entity wondering whether it can afford a flag. Smaller countries run complete governments comfortably Israel runs a complete sovereign state, including a top-tier military fighting an active war, for about $155 billion. Switzerland runs its central bank, diplomacy, customs, and regulators for about $96 billion federal, with the cantons carrying the rest. Both economies are far smaller than Texas. If they can fund full national governments and prosper, the idea that the eighth-largest economy on the planet cannot is not a serious argument. Rank is not just a bragging point Economic rank is leverage. The world does not ignore its eighth-largest economy. Trading partners formalize relations with the country that supplies their energy, buys their goods, and anchors their supply chains, because the alternative is being cut out. A top-ten economy negotiates recognition, trade, and treaties from strength, not from the ba…

Does Texas send more money to Washington than it gets back?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It depends entirely on what you count, which is why this question is the most abused number in the whole debate. Measured one way, Texas looks like a net recipient. Measured another, it is a clear net contributor. Both come from reputable sources. The honest answer is to show you both and explain the gap. Two reputable studies, opposite signs Set them side by side. The Rockefeller Institute, measuring balance of payments, shows Texas as a net recipient of about $80 billion in 2023. USAFacts, measuring taxes paid against spending received, shows Texas as a net contributor, in its own words sending "$68.1 billion more to the federal government than it received." Two credible measures, on opposite sides of zero, tens of billions apart. When that happens, "does Texas send more than it gets back" stops being a fact and becomes a choice about what to count. The whole gap is two things The difference comes down to borrowed money and Texans' own benefits coming home. Both belong on this question, and once you see them, the picture clears up. Borrowed money first Washington spends about $1.37 for every $1 it collects. That 37-cent gap is not revenue Washington raised. It is money it borrowed, and the recipients' children will repay it with interest. That borrowing is the only reason most states look like they get back more than they pay in. And here is the number that matters: Texas's own ratio is $1.21 received for every $1 paid, below the U.S. average of $1.37. In a system rigged by borrowing to make every state look subsidized, Texas comes in under the line. Measured against the other states, that makes it a net contributor. Texans' own benefits second Strip the borrowing out, and most of what is left of the "money back" is Social Security and Medicare, benefits Texans pre-paid through a lifetime of payroll taxes. Counting a retiree's own Social Security check as proof that Texas cannot survive without Washington is the real sleight of hand. It is her money, on its way ho…

What happens to federal funding for Texas programs?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Most of what people picture as "federal funding" is Texans' own money taking a round trip to Washington and back, minus a cut and a set of strings. Independence keeps the programs and ends the round trip. Texas already administers nearly all of it. Federal grants are Texans' money, returned with strings The grants that flow to Texas for things like Medicaid, highways, and education run on the order of $60 to $70 billion a year, and the report counts every dollar of them as a real cost an independent Texas would carry. But understand what they are. That money came out of Texans' pockets first, went to Washington, and came back with conditions attached. An independent Texas does not lose that funding. It keeps the revenue at home and writes its own conditions. Texas already runs the machinery The programs do not live in Washington. They live in Austin. Medicaid is roughly a $51 billion program in Texas, and the state funds about $20 billion of it from its own treasury while the Texas Health and Human Services Commission administers the entire thing. Texas educates special-needs children through the Texas Education Agency and some 1,200 school districts. It runs its own environmental regulator, the TCEQ, mostly on state money. It builds its highways through TxDOT. The agencies, the workforce, and most of the funding are already Texan. Independence does not conjure these programs out of nothing. It puts the slice Washington still controls under the same roof as the government Texans already run. The current deal short-changes Texas anyway On most of these programs, Washington writes the rules and pays only part of the bill, and Texas covers the difference whether it agrees or not. Congress promised to fund 40 percent of the added cost of special education and delivers closer to an eighth, leaving Texas to find more than a billion and a half dollars a year. Federal law orders every hospital to treat anyone who arrives at an emergency room and sends nothing to pay for it,…

Would taxes go up or down in an independent Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They would not have to go up at all. The whole point of the numbers is that Texans already pay enough, to two governments, to fund one government with room to spare. Independence is a chance to pay less, not more, because the most expensive layer is the one Texas would be leaving. Texans already pay enough, twice over Texans pay two governments today, Washington and Austin, for a combined bill of about $453 billion a year. Governing Texas, counting the entire federal footprint folded into a single Texas government, costs about $295 billion a year. Per Texan, that is roughly $14,500 paid against about $9,400 in cost. The revenue Texans already generate covers the full cost of their government, with a wide margin, without raising anyone's taxes by a cent. Be precise about the margin Here is where we are more careful than our opponents. If you take Social Security and Medicare off the cost side, fairness says you take the payroll taxes that fund them off the revenue side too. Net the whole social-insurance system out of both columns and the margin narrows toward break-even. So the honest finding is not a giant annual surplus. It is self-sufficiency. Texas funds 100 percent of its own government on its current tax base. That is the floor of the case, and it holds no matter how you account for it. The biggest bill Texans pay is the one they would shed Texans currently ship about $72 billion a year to Washington just in interest on a federal debt they never voted for, plus about $150 billion a year in fresh federal borrowing. None of that buys Texas a road, a base, or a benefit. It services Washington's past spending. An independent Texas stops co-signing that, which is the single biggest reason the math runs in Texans' favor, not against it. Texas keeps its tax structure Texas funds itself today with no personal income tax. The sales tax does most of the work, with the rest from the franchise tax, motor-vehicle and motor-fuels taxes, severance taxes on oil and gas, and a…

Would Texas need a federal-style income tax to replace lost services?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. The arithmetic is the whole answer. Texas already raises enough, without a personal income tax, to cover the full cost of an independent Texas government. There is no funding hole that a new tax would have to fill. Start with the gap that is supposed to require it The fear behind this question is that independence opens a hole in the budget, and only a federal-style income tax could close it. So look at whether the hole exists. Texans pay about $453 billion a year to Washington and Austin combined. Governing Texas, with the entire federal footprint folded in, costs about $295 billion a year. The revenue already exceeds the cost. There is no gap to close, so there is nothing for an income tax to fill. The fair, conservative version still holds Be rigorous about it. Take Social Security and Medicare off the cost side and, to be fair, take the payroll taxes that fund them off the revenue side. The margin narrows toward break-even. Even then, Texas funds 100 percent of its own government on the taxes it already collects. That is self-sufficiency, not a claim of some giant surplus, and it is true with no income tax anywhere in the picture. Texas already proves the model works Texas runs the 8th-largest economy on Earth today without a personal income tax. The sales tax carries most of the load, with the franchise tax, severance taxes on oil and gas, motor-fuels and motor-vehicle taxes, and fees doing the rest. This is not a theory about whether a no-income-tax economy can fund a modern government. It is the everyday reality of the second-most-populous state in America. Independence keeps that model, it does not abandon it. The new costs are small and largely self-funding An independent Texas would take on a handful of functions Washington runs from outside the state: a central bank, a foreign ministry, a customs and tax service, and aviation, drug, financial, and communications regulators. The genuinely new recurring bill for all of it runs about $5 to $15 billion a …

What would the Texas national budget look like?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It would look like the budget of a wealthy, lightly governed mid-sized country. Most of it already exists in Austin. The new layer is thin, and the revenue to cover all of it is already coming in. Two ledgers, side by side A national budget is just income against outgo. On the income side, Texans already generate about $453 billion a year in taxes between Washington and Austin. On the outgo side, governing Texas, defense, every federal agency and the people who staff it, every grant and contract, the courts, the parks, the border stations, plus the entire existing state budget, costs about $295 billion a year. Income comfortably exceeds the cost of running the country. Most of the budget is already built Independence does not start from a blank page. Texas already runs a state budget that funds schools, highways, Medicaid, environmental regulation, public safety, and a state military department. There is a Texas-level agency that mirrors nearly every federal cabinet department. The bulk of a Texas national budget is the Texas budget that already exists, plus the federal functions that already happen on Texas soil and that the report already counts as a cost. The genuinely new layer is small What independence adds is the slice Washington runs from outside the state: a central bank, a foreign ministry and embassies, a customs and tax service, and aviation, drug, financial, and communications regulators. The genuinely new recurring bill for all of it is about $5 to $15 billion a year, one to three percent of Texas revenue. A good share of it pays for itself, because a central bank runs on seigniorage and the regulators run mostly on fees. This is a rounding line in a $453 billion budget, not a budget-buster. Defense fits inside what Texas already spends Defense is not a gap either. The federal government already runs about $60 billion of defense activity inside Texas, and the report already counts that as a Texas cost. A Texas defending Texas benchmarks to capable midd…

How would Texas handle a recession without the federal backstop?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: With reserves it already holds, a tax base that already covers the bills with margin, and a diversified economy that does not rise and fall on any single sector. Texas weathers downturns now. Independence adds tools, it does not remove the ground under Texas's feet. Texas already runs a rainy day fund built for exactly this The "federal backstop" is less of a backstop than the question assumes, and Texas already keeps its own. The Economic Stabilization Fund, the state's rainy day fund, is projected to hold a record balance of about $28.5 billion and has reached its constitutional cap entering fiscal 2026 (Texas Comptroller). That is real money, set aside in advance, for downturns and emergencies. Texas built that cushion under the current arrangement, and independence does not touch it. A country starts with a serious reserve already in the bank. The margin is the first line of defense The fiscal case does not depend on calm weather. Run a hard shock through the numbers. If independence knocked a full 10 percent off Texas's economy in one blow, more than Britain's official long-run Brexit estimate, the cost of governing Texas would still run more than $100 billion below what Texans pay. Revenue would have to fall by about a third before Texas merely broke even on its own government, a drop no peaceful separation on record has come close to. The gap between what Texans pay and what their government costs is itself a recession buffer. A diversified economy does not crash on one sector Texas is not a one-industry economy that lives or dies on a single price. It leads the country in energy, but it is also the second-largest manufacturing economy in the nation, a global technology and semiconductor hub, the top agricultural producer of cattle and cotton, and the operator of eight of the top 25 U.S. ports. When one sector slumps, the others keep producing and keep generating revenue. Breadth is what carries an economy through a downturn, and Texas has it. A central bank …

What share of the federal debt would Texas have to take on?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: That figure is a negotiation, not a bill, and Texas would negotiate it from real strength. By the methods international law actually recognizes, a good-faith reckoning can land at zero, because what Washington owes Texans is larger than any share it could assign. This is about the federal debt, not a "national debt," because the United States is not the nation here. The opening demand, and why it is only an opening Washington would open by demanding that Texas take a per-person slice of the federal debt, which on the tax-weighted measure is about $3.2 trillion. That number is not a settled liability. It is a starting position. No law sets Texas's share. The only international instrument on the subject, the 1983 Vienna Convention on succession of state debts, is barely ratified, never entered into force, and contradicts itself: one article says no debt passes at all unless both parties agree, another asks only for an unspecified "equitable proportion." There is no formula to hand down. Even the starting percentage is a fight The scholars who tried to build a formula could not agree on one. Texas is 8.2 percent of federal taxes paid, about 9.3 percent of the population, and about 9.5 percent of GDP, so the "share" swings by hundreds of billions before anyone argues method. Daniel Blum's standard survey in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law lays out four recognized methods, each called "just" by someone, each landing in a completely different place, from a per-capita demand of trillions down to as low as zero for a net contributor under the historical-benefits method. We do not rest the case on the zero result. We rest it on the methods and arguments that hold regardless. The decisive fact: net what each side owes the other Here is what turns the debt question over. In any separation, what each side owes the other gets netted out, and Washington owes Texans far more than it could ever invoice. The Treasury's own FY2025 financial report puts the feder…

Would Texas have to buy out federal assets inside its borders?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The federal property inside Texas is one item on a negotiating table where Texas holds strong cards, not a check Texas writes blind. Some assets transfer, some get leased, some are paid for, and all of it gets weighed against the much larger claims Texas brings to the same table. This is a settlement, not a shopping bill When a country becomes independent, the predecessor's property inside its borders is settled by negotiation, the way every modern separation has handled it. The outcomes are a familiar menu: transfer to Texas, a long-term lease, joint operation under an agreement, or a payment in some cases. The honest answer is that the federal property transition, military bases, federal buildings, federal land, is negotiated under a treaty and will involve some Texas payment, some lease, and some transfer. It is a line in a negotiation, not a number anyone hands Texas in advance. Texas brings far bigger claims to the same table A buyout is never a one-way invoice, because both sides owe each other. On one side, the federal property inside Texas. On the other, what Washington owes Texans: an accrued Social Security and Medicare claim on the order of $7.7 trillion, plus Texas's standing in any debt settlement. Federal assets get netted against those claims, not paid for in isolation. A balance-sheet reckoning weighs federal land, bases, and reserves against the debt and the benefits, and the assets Texas receives offset the obligations it is asked to assume. The functioning assets stay functioning Nobody benefits from shuttering a working facility. The bases keep operating, most likely under a mutual-defense arrangement or status-of-forces agreement, the same way the United States already operates hundreds of bases on the soil of allied nations. A VA hospital keeps treating veterans. A research center keeps doing its work. The value of these assets is that they run, and the negotiation is built to keep them running, not to scatter them. Texas already paid for much …

What happens to federal contracts held by Texas companies?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They keep working, because the work is what both sides want, and the United States buys from foreign suppliers every single day. A Texas company holding a federal contract is in a strong position, not a precarious one. Washington already buys from other countries The premise that a contract must end the moment the supplier sits in another country is simply false. The United States procures goods and services from companies all over the world, defense allies included. Independence does not put Texas companies outside the reach of federal contracting any more than it puts British, Australian, or Canadian firms outside it. It makes Texas one more place Washington buys from, which is an ordinary commercial arrangement, not a barrier. The biggest contracts exist because Texas does the work better Look at the largest single line. Lockheed Martin's F-35 program in Fort Worth accounts for roughly $38 billion of the defense activity in Texas. That work is in Texas because the plant, the supply chain, and the skilled workforce are in Texas. None of that moves when the flag changes. Washington does not relocate an aircraft production line over a treaty. It keeps buying the aircraft, because the alternative is to disrupt its own defense supply chain for no gain. Continuity is the negotiated default After a vote, the relationship between Texas and the United States gets settled through a transition in which existing arrangements continue while the details are worked out. Existing contracts run through that transition. Both governments have every incentive to keep commerce flowing, and a free-trade arrangement between Texas and the United States, which is in Washington's interest too, keeps Texas firms competing for federal work on level terms. A defense pact keeps the door open The most likely security arrangement between Texas and the United States is a mutual-defense partnership, given the deep shared interests and the enormous defense base already in Texas. That kind of partn…

Would businesses leave or come to an independent Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Businesses move toward what Texas offers, not away from it. They are already moving to Texas in record numbers under the current arrangement, and the things that draw them, low taxes, light regulation, and a deep market, get stronger with independence, not weaker. Capital is already voting for Texas This is not a prediction, it is a trend in progress. Texas pulls in more people from other states than any state in the country, a net gain of roughly 130,000 a year. It has led the nation in corporate headquarters relocations for years, more than 200 between 2018 and 2023. It has won Site Selection magazine's Governor's Cup for the most new and expanded business facilities thirteen years running. Businesses are choosing Texas right now, while it is still inside the union. Independence does not start that migration. It removes a brake on it. Businesses relocate for cost and stability, not flags Companies do not pick a location based on which flag flies over the capitol. They pick it based on regulatory cost, tax cost, labor cost, and political stability. Independence does not destabilize any of those. It improves most of them. It removes a federal regulatory layer that, by TNM's analysis, has cost Texas manufacturers an estimated $30 to $50 billion a year in compliance overhead. Lower compliance cost and a preserved no-income-tax structure are exactly the conditions that pull businesses in. The market and the infrastructure do not move A business in Texas has the world's eighth-largest economy on its doorstep, eight of the top 25 U.S. deepwater ports, the Port of Houston, deep energy supply, and a skilled workforce. None of that relocates at independence. The ports stay open, the energy keeps flowing, the talent stays home. A company would be walking away from one of the most productive markets on the planet to chase a flag, which is not how businesses make decisions. Trade stays open, so supply chains stay intact The one thing that could genuinely unsettle business is t…

How would independence affect the cost of living?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The single biggest threat to the cost of living, the steady erosion of the dollar, is made in Washington, and independence is a step away from it. Texas keeps its low-tax structure, holds open the path to stop the inflation tax, and is built to keep prices stable, not to spike them. The inflation tax is the hidden bill on every Texan The largest force pushing up the cost of living is not on any tax form. The dollar has lost about 97 percent of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve opened in 1913, about 88 percent since the last tie to gold was cut in 1971, and about 22 percent since 2020 alone (BLS Consumer Price Index). That is policy, not bad luck. When Washington spends past what it collects, it prints the difference. The money supply jumped about 40 percent between February 2020 and March 2022, and inflation peaked at 9.1 percent. Every Texan paid for that at the grocery store and the gas pump. Put a number on what it took from Texans The Federal Reserve's own St. Louis bank found that inflation erased $1.8 trillion of purchasing power from Americans' bank deposits in the single year ending March 2022. Texans held about $1.45 trillion in deposits in mid-2024, roughly 7.8 percent of the national base (FDIC Summary of Deposits, all 6,213 branches in the state). Apply that share and Texans lost somewhere between $130 and $145 billion of purchasing power on their bank balances alone, in one year, and that counts only deposits. That is a cost-of-living hit the size of the whole annual dividend of independence, taken back invisibly, with no vote. Sound money is the way out, and Texas is already building it Small, disciplined countries hold stable currencies. Switzerland runs inflation near 0.6 percent, Singapore near 0.5 percent, a fraction of the dollar's recent record. Texas is already building the infrastructure to join them. The Texas Bullion Depository, the only state-run bullion vault in the country, opened in 2018. HB 1056, signed in 2025, makes gold a…

How would independence affect jobs and wages?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The federal government is a tiny share of Texas employment, the private economy that does the hiring stays exactly where it is, and the conditions that drive job and wage growth get stronger with independence. The jobs are anchored to Texas, not to Washington. Federal jobs are a sliver of the Texas workforce Start with the fear that independence wipes out federal jobs. The federal civilian workforce in Texas is about 155,000 people, which is roughly 1 percent of all jobs in the state. Over the last decade that workforce grew, but the Texas economy grew faster, so the federal share of all Texas jobs actually fell, from 1.25 percent to about 1 percent. Texas is not a company town for the federal government. The other 99 percent of Texas jobs are in the private economy and at the state and local level, and they do not depend on which flag flies over the federal buildings. The federal functions, and their jobs, stay in Texas Even the federal jobs largely stay. The work happens on Texas soil because the bases, the VA hospitals, the courts, the border stations, and the contractors are physically in Texas. An independent Texas takes over the functions delivered here and keeps the people who deliver them, the report counts that payroll as a Texas cost the whole way through. The two biggest federal employers in the state are the VA and Homeland Security, veterans and the border, exactly the functions a sovereign Texas keeps running. The private economy that hires is going nowhere The jobs Texans actually hold are in energy, manufacturing, technology, agriculture, construction, healthcare, and trade. That economy is anchored to Texas ports, Texas energy, Texas plants, and Texas workers, none of which relocate at independence. The F-35 line in Fort Worth, the semiconductor fabs around Austin and Dallas, the refineries on the Gulf Coast, the ranches and farms, all of it stays. The employers stay, so the jobs stay. Wages rise when the regulatory drag comes off Wages follow produ…

Would Texas keep its low-tax, light-regulation model?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Independence is how Texas protects that model and extends it. The low-tax part is already Texas's own choice, and the heaviest regulation Texans carry is imposed from Washington. Leaving keeps the first and ends the second. The low-tax model is already Texas-made The thing people most want to protect is already entirely in Texas's hands. Texas funds itself with no personal income tax, leaning on the sales tax, the franchise tax, severance taxes on oil and gas, and fees. None of that comes from Washington, and none of it disappears at independence. The constitutional ban on a personal income tax stays exactly where Texans put it. Independence is built on the tax model Texas already runs, not a replacement for it. The heaviest regulation is federal, and that is what ends The regulation that weighs hardest on Texas is not made in Austin. It is made in Washington and applied to Texas whether Texas agrees or not. By TNM's analysis, the federal regulatory layer has cost Texas manufacturers an estimated $30 to $50 billion a year in compliance overhead. Independence removes that layer. What is left is the lighter, Texas-made regulatory environment, which Texans can then shape to fit Texas rather than to satisfy fifty-state mandates. Texas is lightly governed to begin with The scale of government in Texas is already small for its wealth. Developed democracies spend between 38 and 44 percent of GDP on all levels of government. The total government footprint inside Texas, federal and state combined, runs closer to 19 percent of GDP. Even before independence trims the federal layer, Texas is one of the lightest-governed wealthy places on the planet, with enormous room to stay that way. The model is the competitive advantage, so it stays There is a hard-headed reason this model survives independence. Low taxes and light regulation are exactly why Texas pulls in more people and more corporate relocations than any state in the country. Throwing that away would be throwing away Tex…

What happens to the state's rainy day fund and reserves?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They belong to Texas, and they stay with Texas. The state's reserves are state assets, built with Texas money, and an independent Texas walks in the door with a serious cushion already in the bank, near a record high. The reserve is real, and it is large Texas keeps a rainy day fund, formally the Economic Stabilization Fund, and it is not a token amount. It is projected to hold a record balance of about $28.5 billion and has reached its constitutional cap entering fiscal 2026 (Texas Comptroller). The cap is set at up to 10 percent of the general revenue collected in the prior two-year budget, so the fund grows with the state. That is real money, set aside in advance for downturns and emergencies, and it was built entirely under the current arrangement. These are Texas assets, not Washington's The Economic Stabilization Fund is a Texas fund, filled mostly by Texas severance taxes on oil and gas production and managed by the Texas Comptroller. Washington has no claim on it. A change in which government Texas answers to does not transfer ownership of money Texas already holds. The reserve is Texas's property before independence and Texas's property after, untouched by the transition. Texas manages large public funds already Running serious reserves is not a skill Texas would have to import. The Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company already manages over $125 billion in public funds, and the state runs some of the largest public pension systems in the country. The institutional muscle to hold and invest a national reserve is already in Austin, and has been for years. A reserve is exactly what a new country wants Most aspiring nations would love to start with tens of billions already banked. Texas would. That cushion is a head start on the one big one-time financial task of independence, building foreign-exchange reserves to back a credible currency, on the order of 10 to 30 percent of GDP. That reserve is not a yearly expense. It is an owned asset that earns a return,…

What happens to my bank accounts?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Your bank accounts stay open, stay yours, and keep working the same way the day after a vote as the day before. The money in them is your property, the bank holding it is overwhelmingly a Texas-regulated institution already, and independence changes the flag, not your balance. Your account is a contract, and independence does not void it The dollars in your checking and savings accounts are a contract between you and your bank. That contract does not dissolve because the government Texas answers to changes. Your balance is still your balance. Your direct deposit still lands, your debit card still pulls from the same account, and your statements still add up to the same number. A change in sovereignty is not a bank failure and not an account reset. It is a change in who Texas governs itself through, and that happens above the level of your account, not inside it. Most Texas banks are already Texas-chartered and Texas-regulated This is the part most people do not realize. More banks in Texas are chartered and regulated by the State of Texas than by Washington, overseen by the Texas Department of Banking, which already supervises more than half the banks operating in the state. The machinery that licenses and examines your bank is, for most Texans, already an Austin machine. Texas has spent decades making its bank charter one of the most attractive in the country. The regulatory floor under your account is largely Texan today, and independence puts the rest of it under the same roof. The big national and online banks do not pack up and leave If your money is at a large bank or an online bank rather than a Texas-chartered one, nothing forces it out either. Banks follow customers and profit, not borders. Foreign-owned banks run full retail operations inside the United States right now through insured U.S. subsidiaries, and U.S. banks run retail operations in dozens of countries. An independent Texas with 30 million customers and the world's eighth-largest economy is a ma…

What happens to my savings and investments?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They are your property, and they stay your property. Savings accounts, CDs, brokerage holdings, retirement accounts: independence does not seize them, freeze them, or reset them. People hold these exact assets from outside the United States today, and Texas already manages some of the largest investment funds in the country. Private assets do not change owner when the flag changes Your savings and investments are private property held in your name at private institutions. A change in which government Texas answers to does not transfer ownership of them any more than it transfers ownership of your home or your truck. The cash in savings, the shares in a brokerage account, the balances in an IRA or 401(k): all of it remains yours, in your name, throughout. Sovereignty changes above your accounts. Ownership inside them does not move. Holding investments across a border is ordinary, not exotic Americans live in dozens of countries and keep their savings, brokerage accounts, and retirement accounts running the whole time. Foreign nationals likewise hold U.S. accounts. The big custodians, the Fidelitys, Schwabs, and Vanguards of the world, serve account holders across borders every day. An independent Texas would simply be one more place where account holders live, which these institutions handle as routine business. The value of your portfolio tracks the markets it is invested in, not the flag over your house. Texas already runs investment funds at national scale The skill to steward large pools of money is not something Texas would have to import. The Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company already manages over $125 billion in public funds. The Teacher Retirement System of Texas alone holds about $225 billion, the sixth-largest public pension fund in the United States, and the Employees Retirement System manages tens of billions more. Texas has overseen serious investment portfolios for generations, at a scale most countries never reach. The transition is built to keep…

Would Texas have its own central bank?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It could, and a serious plan budgets for one. Whether and how to run a central bank is a sovereign decision for the government Texans elect, but the institution is well understood, it pays for itself, and Texas already holds the financial muscle to stand one up. A central bank is standard equipment for a country Nearly every modern nation runs a central bank, and the job is well defined: manage the currency in circulation, act as a backstop to the banking system in a crisis, and help keep prices stable. These are normal sovereign functions, not exotic ones. Independence means Texas gains the option to perform them for itself instead of having them performed for Texas, from Washington, on behalf of fifty states at once. It funds itself, so it is not a new tax Here is the part that surprises people. A central bank does not run on tax dollars. It funds itself through seigniorage, the ordinary earnings a monetary authority makes managing the currency and its assets. That is exactly why the report counts a Texas central bank inside the thin layer of genuinely new sovereign functions, the whole of which runs about $5 to $15 billion a year, one to three percent of Texas revenue, and a good share of which pays for itself. A central bank sits squarely in the self-funding part of that list. Texans would not face a new tax to operate one. Texas already has the institutional spine for it A central bank needs deep experience managing large pools of money and a credible reserve base. Texas has both. The Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company already manages over $125 billion in public funds. The state runs some of the largest public pension systems in the country. And Texas has been building hard-asset infrastructure for years through the Texas Bullion Depository, the only state-run bullion vault in the nation. The talent and the institutions to anchor a monetary authority are already in Austin. It is the tool that steadies the economy in a downturn A central bank is not just p…

What is the Texas Bullion Depository, and how does it fit in?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The Texas Bullion Depository is a state-run vault for precious metals, the only one of its kind in the country, and it is the physical foundation under Texas's move toward sound money. It exists today, it is open for business, and it means a sovereign Texas would not be starting its hard-money infrastructure from scratch. What it actually is The Texas Bullion Depository is an agency of the State of Texas, a purpose-built, high-security facility in Leander that opened in 2018. It is the only state-administered and state-audited bullion vault in the United States. Any Texan, business, or institution can store gold and other precious metals there, in a state-run facility rather than a private one or a federal one. No other state has built anything like it. Why a state built a gold vault in the first place Texas built the Depository to give Texans a secure, state-backed place to hold tangible assets, and to give the state the ability to anchor money to something real. As then-Comptroller Glenn Hegar put it, the Depository "is the only one of its kind in the United States, giving Texans a safe place to store precious metals with a level of trust and security." That was a deliberate step toward sound money, taken years before any vote on independence. How it connects to spending, through HB 1056 The Depository stopped being just a vault when HB 1056 passed. Signed into law in 2025, HB 1056 makes gold and silver functional money in Texas and directs the Comptroller to build the electronic systems that let Texans spend metal held in the Depository. The design is straightforward: hold gold or silver in the Depository, then spend it through a debit card or mobile app, converted to dollars at the register at the day's price, for everything from groceries to a tank of gas. That infrastructure phases in across 2026 and 2027. It is real, working plumbing that exists before independence. How it fits an independent Texas For a sovereign Texas, the Depository is a head start most ne…

Would Texas back its money with gold or silver?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas has already made gold and silver legal, spendable money, and it has built the vault to hold them. Whether a sovereign Texas formally backs a currency with metal is a decision for the government Texans elect, but the groundwork is laid, and the direction is clearly toward sound money, not away from it. Texas already made gold and silver functional money This is not a hypothetical. HB 1056, signed in 2025, recognizes gold and silver as legal tender in Texas and goes far beyond the symbolic metals laws other states have passed. It directs the Comptroller to stand up the electronic systems that turn metal into everyday spending power: Texans will be able to hold gold and silver in the state-run Texas Bullion Depository and spend those holdings by debit card or app, converted to dollars at the point of sale at the day's price. The system phases in across 2026 and 2027. Texas has already taken the concrete step most "gold standard" conversations never get past. The vault to back it is already built A currency anchored to metal needs a credible, secure place to hold the metal. Texas has one. The Texas Bullion Depository, open since 2018, is the only state-run bullion vault in the country, state-administered and state-audited. If a future Texas chose to anchor a currency to gold or silver, it would not be commissioning a vault and an audit regime after the vote. Those exist now. Why sound money is the through-line The reason Texas keeps moving in this direction is the inflation tax. A currency that loses value over time is a hidden, regressive tax on everyone holding it, and that erosion is a policy choice made in Washington. Hard assets like gold and silver hold value precisely because no central authority can print more of them at will. Building the option to use them is how Texas protects Texans from the slow drain that fiat money imposes. Sound money is cost-of-living relief and savings protection in one move. The choice still belongs to the future Republic Be cle…

What happens to my mortgage and other loans?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Your mortgage, your car loan, and your other debts keep running on their existing terms. A loan is a contract, independence does not rewrite it, and the smartest path through the transition, keeping the dollar in circulation, is the one that keeps your payment exactly the same. A loan is a contract, and the terms travel with it Your mortgage is a binding agreement: a principal balance, an interest rate, a payment schedule, and a payoff date. A change in which government Texas answers to does not reach inside that contract and change its terms. Your rate does not reset because of independence. Your balance does not jump. Your monthly payment is what your note says it is. Existing contracts are honored through a transition by default, the same principle that protects your bank account and your savings. Keeping the dollar keeps your payment unchanged Here is the practical key. Your loan is written in dollars, and an independent Texas can keep the dollar in circulation through the transition and for as long as it serves Texans. Several sovereign nations use the U.S. dollar as their everyday currency with no trouble at all. As long as the dollar stays in use, there is no currency conversion on your loan, no redenomination, and no exchange-rate question. Your dollar-denominated mortgage stays a dollar-denominated mortgage, and your payment stays the same number it is today. Who you pay can change hands without your terms changing Loans are bought, sold, and transferred between servicers all the time, under the current system, with no change to your terms. If your mortgage is currently held or backed by a federal entity, the servicing could move to a Texas institution as part of the transition, and you would simply send your payment somewhere new. That is a routine administrative handoff, the kind that already happens to millions of loans every year. The number you owe and the rate you pay ride along unchanged. Texas has the banking depth to carry its own lending An indepe…

What happens to stocks and brokerage accounts held by Texans?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Your shares are still your shares, your brokerage account stays open, and the market sets your portfolio's value, not the flag over your house. Investors hold these exact accounts from outside the United States every day, and independence makes Texas one more place an account holder happens to live. Shares are property you own, wherever you live A share of stock is ownership in a company, recorded in your name. Your brokerage account is the place that ownership is held and traded. Neither one changes hands because Texas changes how it governs itself. The shares in your account stay yours, the cash stays yours, and the account stays open. Sovereignty changes at the level of governments, not inside your portfolio. Cross-border investing is the global norm People hold U.S. stocks and brokerage accounts from all over the world. Investors in London, Tokyo, and Toronto own American shares; Americans abroad keep their brokerage accounts running for years. The major brokerages already serve clients across borders as ordinary business. An independent Texas would slot into that existing reality, not break it. Your ability to own, hold, and trade securities does not depend on sharing a government with the exchange your shares trade on, any more than a German investor's ownership of a U.S. stock depends on Germany joining the union. Markets keep trading through political change Stock markets are global and they price political events constantly without shutting down. Exchanges keep operating, shares keep trading, and prices keep moving on the fundamentals of the companies involved. A negotiated, peaceful transition is exactly the kind of orderly process markets handle. Your portfolio's value will rise and fall with the markets it is invested in, the way it always has, not because of a change in Texas's status. Texas has the financial infrastructure and the weight This is not a small, fragile economy hoping markets notice it. Texas is the world's eighth-largest economy, with dee…

Would credit and debit cards still work?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Your cards keep working, at the same stores, the same way, on day one. Card networks are global by design, they already run across every border on earth, and an independent Texas is just one more country on a system that already spans about two hundred of them. Card networks are already worldwide Visa, Mastercard, and the rest are global networks. The card in your wallet already works in Paris, Tokyo, and Mexico City, in countries that have never shared a government with the United States. That is the entire design of a card network: it connects banks and merchants across national borders, automatically. Independence does not knock Texas off that network. It simply means transactions in Texas route the way transactions in every other country already route. The technology does not know or care which flag flies over the terminal. Your card is tied to your account, and your account stays put A debit card pulls from your bank account; a credit card draws on a line from your issuer. As covered in the answer on bank accounts, those accounts stay open and stay yours through the transition. As long as the account behind the card keeps working, and it does, the card keeps working. Nothing about independence reaches in and cancels the link between your card and your account. Keeping the dollar means no conversion at the register The smoothest path, keeping the dollar in circulation through the transition, means there is no currency conversion when you tap your card at a Texas store. You pay dollars, the merchant receives dollars, and the transaction settles the way it does today. Even if Texas later introduced a currency of its own, cross-border card payments with built-in currency conversion are already a solved, everyday feature of the global networks. Travelers rely on it constantly. It is not a problem anyone would have to invent a solution for. Texas banks already issue on these networks The banks and credit unions that issue Texans' cards are overwhelmingly the sam…

How would payments between Texas and the U.S. work?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same way payments already move between any two countries with deep trade ties, which is to say constantly, reliably, and mostly invisibly. The global system for moving money across borders already exists, Texas and the United States already use it, and keeping the dollar in circulation makes Texas-to-U.S. payments simpler than almost any pair of countries on earth. Cross-border payments are a solved, everyday system Money crosses borders every second of every day. The world runs on a mature system for it: banks send standardized payment instructions to one another over the global messaging network most people know as SWIFT, and they settle through correspondent banking relationships, the partner accounts banks hold with one another specifically to clear international transactions. This is not new infrastructure anyone would have to build. It is the plumbing that already moves trillions between countries, and Texas banks already plug into it. Keeping the dollar removes the hardest part The friction in international payments usually comes from currency conversion between two different monies. An independent Texas can sidestep most of that by keeping the dollar in circulation through the transition. When both Texas and the United States are transacting in dollars, a payment between them does not need to be converted from one currency to another. That makes Texas-to-U.S. payments closer to a domestic transfer than a typical international one, simpler than payments between, say, the United States and Canada, which run smoothly every day regardless. Texas and the U.S. already move enormous sums across this line This is not theoretical volume. Texas and its neighbors already conduct hundreds of billions of dollars in trade, with money flowing across the border in both directions constantly. The banks, the networks, and the settlement relationships that carry that flow are in place right now. Independence converts an internal flow into a cross-border one in legal catego…

Would Texas banks need new charters?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Most Texas banks already hold a Texas charter, so for them the answer is largely no. The state's bank-charter system is mature, attractive, and already regulating more than half the banks in Texas. Independence finishes a structure that is mostly already standing, it does not start one from scratch. Most Texas banks are already state-chartered This is the foundation, and it surprises people. More banks in Texas are chartered and regulated by the State of Texas than by Washington. Texas has more than 200 state-chartered banks, overseen by the Texas Department of Banking, which supervises more than half the banks operating in the state. For all of those institutions, the charter they operate under is already a Texas charter, issued and examined by a Texas regulator. Independence does not require them to get a new one. They already have the one that matters. Texas built its charter to be one of the best in the country Texas did not back into this position. It built it on purpose. State law gives Texas-chartered banks the same rights and privileges available to nationally chartered banks operating in Texas, and a "super parity" provision lets a Texas-chartered bank conduct any activity allowed to any other insured bank anywhere in the country. That deliberately makes the Texas charter one of the most powerful and attractive in the United States. A bank operating under it is not operating under a weaker instrument. In many respects it is operating under a stronger one. Federally chartered banks would convert, and that path already exists The banks that currently hold a federal charter would move to a Texas charter, and that is a well-worn road, not a leap into the unknown. Banks convert between state and federal charters under the current system regularly. The Texas Department of Banking already has the framework, the staff, and the experience to charter and supervise these institutions. A federally chartered bank in an independent Texas simply re-charters under the Texa…

What replaces FDIC deposit insurance?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: A Texas deposit insurance system, the same tool nearly every developed country already runs. Deposit insurance is standard equipment for a modern banking system, more than a hundred countries have their own version, and an independent Texas would stand one up to protect Texans' deposits the way the FDIC does now. Deposit insurance is normal, and almost universal The FDIC is not a uniquely American invention that Texas would be left without. It is one example of a tool nearly every advanced economy uses. More than one hundred countries run an explicit deposit insurance system. Canada has the CDIC. The United Kingdom has the FSCS. The function is the same everywhere: guarantee ordinary depositors' money up to a set limit so that no one loses their savings if a bank fails, and so confidence in the banking system holds. An independent Texas would run its own, because that is simply what countries do. A Texas system is well within reach Texas is more than capable of operating deposit insurance. It already regulates most of its banks through the Texas Department of Banking, it manages over $125 billion in public funds through the Treasury Safekeeping Trust Company, and it has the world's eighth-largest economy behind it. A deposit insurance fund works by collecting premiums from member banks and building a reserve, exactly as the FDIC does, so it is funded by the banking industry, not by a new tax on Texans. Setting the coverage limit, currently $250,000 per depositor per bank under the FDIC, would be a decision for the Texas system, and matching or exceeding the familiar figure is an obvious option. The transition keeps your deposits covered throughout Your insured deposits do not go uncovered during the handoff. Keeping banking and deposits stable is a first-order priority of the negotiated transition, and a Texas deposit insurance scheme would be among the institutions stood up to ensure continuity. The goal is a seamless switch in which your covered deposit stays cove…

How dependent is Texas on trade with the rest of the United States?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas trades heavily with the rest of the United States, and that is a strength, not a leash. Trade is what neighbors do. The honest question is not whether the trade is large. It is whether independence would cut it off, and it would not, because keeping that trade flowing is exactly what both sides want. Trade is the relationship, not the chain Start by naming the fear plainly. The worry is that Texas and the rest of the country are so commercially intertwined that pulling the political thread would unravel the economy. But heavy trade between two economies is the normal condition of prosperous neighbors, not a sign that one cannot stand without the other. Canada and the United States trade enormously and are two separate countries. Ireland and the United Kingdom trade enormously and are two separate countries. Volume of trade measures how useful two economies are to each other. It does not measure dependence, and it does not vanish when a border appears. The trade keeps running because both sides profit from it Here is the part the scare story leaves out. The rest of the United States does not buy from Texas as a favor. It buys because it needs what Texas sells: the energy, the refined fuel, the chemicals, the food, the manufactured goods. Forty-nine states do not stop needing Texas energy the day Texas is independent. The buyer has every reason to keep buying, and the seller has every reason to keep selling. A political separation does not erase a commercial necessity. It just changes the letterhead on the contract. Texas already sells to the whole world, not just to Washington Texas is not an economy that points only north. It is the No. 1 exporting state in the United States, and has been for more than two decades running, shipping about $455 billion in goods abroad in 2024, which is more than one in every five export dollars the entire country sends out. Texas already sells to over 200 countries. An economy that is the nation's leading exporter to the world i…

What happens to cross-border supply chains that run through Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They keep running, because the whole point of independence is to keep trade free and open, and a supply chain is just trade in motion. The goods, the trucks, the rail, the pipelines, and the ports do not move when the flag changes. What protects them is the same thing that protects all the rest: keeping the border low-friction by agreement. A supply chain is sensitive to one thing, and Texas controls it Supply chains do not care which government signs the treaty. They care about friction: delays at the crossing, paperwork at customs, tariffs at the line. That is the entire variable. The frightening forecasts about separation come from erecting trade barriers, not from independence itself. Britain's own budget watchdog found the long-run cost of Brexit, near 4 percent of GDP, "largely reflects" the non-tariff barriers Britain put up, not the act of leaving. Texas holds that variable nearly constant by keeping free trade with the United States and the dollar in circulation through the transition. Hold the friction down and the supply chain runs the way it does today. The physical network is Texan and immovable Look at what a supply chain actually is on the ground. It is the Port of Houston, the rail lines, the interstate highways, the pipelines, the warehouses, and the border crossings. Every piece of that is physically in Texas. Independence does not relocate a port or pick up a pipeline. The infrastructure that moves goods through Texas stays exactly where it is, owned and operated where it sits, which is why the goods keep moving. Mexico is the proof that borders and supply chains coexist The most integrated supply chains in North America already cross an international border every day. Components in automotive and electronics manufacturing routinely cross the U.S.-Mexico line multiple times during production, parts assembled on one side, integrated on the other, shipped back as finished goods. That is a supply chain that already spans two sovereign countries, two …

How would Texas trade with Mexico and Canada?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: As a country in its own right, with its own seat at the table for the first time. Texas already does enormous trade with both, more than any other state, but right now Washington negotiates the terms. Independence does not threaten that trade. It hands Texas the pen. Texas is already the center of North American trade This is not a relationship Texas would be building from scratch. Texas is the busiest trade gateway on the continent. Texas-Mexico two-way trade runs well over $300 billion a year by TNM's analysis, and Texas-Canada trade reached about $76 billion in 2024, making Canada Texas's second-largest partner. Laredo is now the single highest-value port of entry in the entire United States, moving about $340 billion in trade in 2024, the first land crossing ever to top the country. The trade is already here, already huge, and already flowing through Texas hands. Today Texas does the trade but Washington sets the terms Here is the catch in the current arrangement. Under Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, a state cannot make its own trade agreements. So even though Texas is the country's number-one trading state, the deals that govern that trade are cut in Washington, by negotiators balancing the interests of fifty states, many of whom do not share Texas priorities. Texas carries the trade and accepts the terms. Independence reverses that. Texas would negotiate directly with Mexico and with Canada as a sovereign, for arrangements built around Texas industries rather than national averages. The terms can carry over, then improve Continuity comes first. An independent Texas can keep trading with Mexico and Canada on terms that mirror what exists now, through a free-trade arrangement or by operating under the World Trade Organization schedules already in place, so nothing has to seize up on day one. The live answer on trade with the United States walks through that machinery in detail. From there, Texas is free to negotiate improvements: deals shaped to…

What happens to Texas companies that sell nationwide?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They keep selling nationwide, because their customers are still there and the goods still cross on tariff-free terms. Companies export across borders every hour of every day. A Texas business selling into the other 49 states would simply be exporting, the same way it can already export to 200 countries. Selling across a border is the most ordinary thing in commerce The fear is that a Texas company loses its national market the moment a border exists between Texas and the rest of the union. But selling across a border is not exotic. It is what trade is. A Texas company already sells to customers in Mexico, Canada, Europe, and Asia without those customers being fellow Americans. Adding the other 49 states to the list of places Texas exports to does not shrink the market. The customers in Dallas-bound trucks headed to Oklahoma or Louisiana are the same customers the day after independence as the day before. Tariff-free access is the whole design of the plan The reason this stays smooth is that keeping trade free is the entire objective. A negotiated free-trade arrangement or customs union with the United States, which is in Washington's interest too, keeps goods moving between Texas and the other states with no tariff and no new cost. The live answer on trade with the United States lays out exactly how that works, including the fallback of trading under existing World Trade Organization schedules if the two sides take their time. Under any of those paths, a Texas company's product reaches a customer in Ohio on the same commercial terms it does now. The product is bought because it is wanted, not because of a flag A customer in another state buys a Texas product because of price, quality, and availability, not because Texas and that state share a federal government. Texas chemicals, Texas-refined fuel, Texas food, and Texas-made goods are bought because buyers want them. None of that demand is created by political union, so none of it disappears when the union does. The…

What happens to companies headquartered in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They stay, because they came for reasons independence strengthens. Companies are already moving their headquarters to Texas in record numbers under the current arrangement, drawn by low taxes, light regulation, and a deep market. Independence sharpens every one of those draws. Headquarters are already moving to Texas, not away from it This is not a guess. It is a trend in progress. Texas has led the nation in corporate headquarters relocations for years, with more than 200 between 2018 and 2023, and it has won Site Selection magazine's Governor's Cup for the most new and expanded business facilities thirteen years running. Companies are choosing to plant their flag in Texas right now, while it is still in the union. Independence does not start that migration. It removes a brake on it. Companies headquarter where the conditions are best, not where a flag flies A company picks its home base on hard factors: tax cost, regulatory cost, labor cost, talent, and political stability. Texas wins on those today, and independence improves most of them. It preserves the no-income-tax structure that is one of the main reasons companies come. It removes a federal regulatory layer that, by TNM's analysis, costs Texas manufacturers an estimated $30 to $50 billion a year in compliance. Lower cost and lighter regulation are exactly the conditions that pull headquarters in, and they get better, not worse, with self-government. The market a Texas headquarters sits on does not move A company based in Texas has the world's eighth-largest economy on its doorstep, eight of the top 25 U.S. deepwater ports, the busiest trade gateway on the continent, deep energy supply, and a skilled workforce. None of that relocates at independence. A headquarters in Texas keeps its access to all of it, plus tariff-free access to the U.S. market through the trade arrangement and direct access to global markets that Texas would negotiate for itself. Walking away from that to chase a flag is not how companies…

Would Texas need its own trade negotiators?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, and that is a gain, not a burden. Right now Washington negotiates trade for Texas, even though Texas is the number-one trading state in the country. Building a Texas trade office means Texas finally negotiates its own deals around its own industries, and it is a small, ordinary function every trading nation runs. Today Texas does the trade and someone else cuts the deal Here is the part most people never think about. Texas is the largest exporting state in the United States, by a wide margin, yet under Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution it is forbidden from making its own trade agreements. So the deals that govern Texas trade are negotiated in Washington, by people weighing the interests of all fifty states, many of whom do not share Texas priorities on energy, agriculture, or manufacturing. Texas carries the trade and lives with terms set by others. Needing its own negotiators is just the flip side of finally getting to set its own terms. It is a standard, modest function of a normal country Trade representation is not exotic or expensive. Every trading nation has a trade office, from giants to small countries, and they are lean operations relative to the economies they serve. An independent Texas would stand one up as part of expanding the office of the Secretary of State into a foreign and commercial ministry, one of the genuinely new sovereign functions the report already accounts for. The whole basket of new functions Washington runs from outside the state, a foreign ministry included, costs on the order of $5 to $15 billion a year combined, a low single-digit share of Texas revenue, and a trade office is a small slice of that. Texas already has the raw material for it This is not a skill Texas would import from nothing. Texas already runs the busiest trade gateway in North America, deep ports, a major customs presence on its soil, and an economy that does business with over 200 countries. The expertise in moving goods across borders is everywhere i…

How would independence affect Texas exports?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas would keep exporting at scale and gain the power to grow it. Texas is already the top exporting state in the country, selling to the world without needing political union to do it. Independence keeps that flowing and lets Texas negotiate better access on its own behalf. Texas is an export powerhouse already The numbers settle the question of whether Texas can export as a country, because it already exports like one. Texas has been the No. 1 exporting state in the United States for more than two decades straight, shipping about $455 billion in goods abroad in 2024, which is 21.8 percent of all U.S. exports and more than California and New York combined. Texas sells to over 200 countries. This is not a state that exports only by riding on federal trade deals. It is the country's export engine, and that engine sits in Texas. Most of that trade is with the world, not just the union A huge share of Texas exports already crosses international borders to buyers who are not fellow Americans. Mexico and Canada alone account for hundreds of billions in two-way trade, and Texas reaches markets on every continent. The export relationships that matter most to Texas are already international, already conducted across borders, and already working. Independence does not introduce borders into Texas trade. Texas trade is already global. Continuity protects the exports through the transition Exports to the United States itself keep flowing because keeping trade free is the entire plan. A free-trade arrangement or customs union with the United States, with the World Trade Organization schedules as a fallback, keeps Texas goods crossing into the other states tariff-free. The live answer on U.S. trade details that machinery. For the rest of the world, Texas keeps the access it has and can extend it, because Texas would now sign its own agreements rather than waiting on Washington. The exporter's cost base improves Independence makes Texas exports more competitive, not less. Sheddi…

How would Texas's ports and border crossings operate?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They would operate the way they do now, under Texas authority, moving the same goods across the same docks and bridges. The ports and crossings are physically in Texas, run by Texans, and already among the busiest in the world. Independence puts them fully under Texas control, where the revenue and the rules stay home. These are world-class assets, and they are already Texan Texas does not come to this question short-handed. Texas operates eight of the top 25 deepwater ports in the United States. The Port of Houston is the No. 1 U.S. port by foreign waterborne tonnage. And Laredo is now the single highest-value port of entry in the entire country, moving about $340 billion in trade in 2024, the first land crossing ever to lead the nation. These are not facilities that depend on Washington to function. They are built, staffed, and run in Texas, and they keep running on independence. Ports and crossings already process international trade every day Here is the key point that dissolves the worry. Texas ports and border crossings are already in the business of handling international trade. The Port of Houston clears goods from all over the world. The Laredo crossings process goods moving between the United States and Mexico, two separate countries, around the clock. The customs machinery, the inspection lanes, the brokers, and the logistics are already built for cross-border commerce. An independent Texas does not have to invent any of that. It already operates it daily. Texas would run its own customs, the way every country does On independence, Texas would establish its own customs and border service, one of the genuinely new functions the report accounts for, to administer the crossings it already operates. This is standard for any country, and a large share of it pays for itself through the fees and duties that customs services collect. The crossings keep clearing goods. The difference is that Texas sets the rules and keeps the revenue, instead of operating federal …

Would Texas replace or rejoin USMCA?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas would secure its place in North American trade, and it has more than one path to do it. The goal is continuity of free trade with Mexico and the United States, and whether that comes through joining the existing agreement or through direct deals, the outcome Texas is after is the same: tariff-free access kept intact. First, what USMCA is USMCA is the trade agreement among the United States, Mexico, and Canada, the successor to NAFTA. It is the framework that keeps most goods moving tariff-free across North America. Texas is the busiest trade corridor inside that framework, so its interest is simple and direct: keep that tariff-free flow going, no matter which legal door Texas walks through to do it. The agreement is open to change right now The timing actually favors Texas. USMCA is built to be reviewed, and its first joint review begins July 1, 2026. The three governments are already weighing updates, and one of the live topics under discussion is adding a mechanism for new members to accede, with countries like Costa Rica and Ecuador having already asked to join. That means the question of how a new North American economy enters the agreement is an active conversation, not a closed door, exactly as Texas would be making its case. Path one: accede to the agreement as Texas One route is for an independent Texas to join USMCA, or its successor, in its own name. As the single most important trade corridor on the continent, Texas would be an obvious and valuable party, not a supplicant. The U.S. and Mexico both have a strong interest in keeping the Texas crossings inside the tariff-free framework, because the alternative is friction at the busiest border in North America. Accession terms are negotiated, and Texas negotiates from real strength. Path two: direct free-trade arrangements, with WTO as the floor Texas does not have to wait on a three-country agreement to keep trade free. It can do direct free-trade arrangements with the United States and with Mexico, w…

How would customs and shipping work?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Customs and shipping would work the way they already do at an international border, which Texas already runs every day, kept fast and cheap by a trade agreement. Texas operates some of the busiest customs lanes and shipping gateways on Earth. Independence puts them under Texas control without breaking how they function. Texas already operates international customs and shipping The premise that customs and shipping are a mystery Texas would have to solve from scratch is simply false. Texas ports clear goods from around the world. The Laredo crossings process goods between the United States and Mexico, two sovereign countries, around the clock, the highest-value port of entry in the entire United States. The customs brokers, the inspection lanes, the freight forwarders, the logistics networks: all of it already exists in Texas and already handles cross-border trade. The machinery is built. Independence changes who administers it, not whether it runs. Texas would run its own customs service, a standard function On independence, Texas would establish its own customs and tax service, one of the genuinely new functions the report accounts for, to administer the crossings and ports it already operates. Every country runs one. A good share of it pays for itself, because customs services collect the very fees and duties that fund them. Goods keep clearing the way they do now. The difference is that Texas writes the rules and keeps the revenue. A trade agreement keeps the friction low The thing that determines whether customs is fast or slow is the trade arrangement behind it. A free-trade arrangement or customs union with the United States, which is in Washington's interest too, keeps tariffs at zero and clearance simple. Under a customs union, as the live trade answer explains, the work is essentially done, because the two sides run a common external trade policy. Under a free-trade agreement, goods still cross tariff-free with standard origin paperwork. The U.S.-Mexico bor…

Would imported goods cost more for Texans?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They would not have to, because the plan is to keep trade free and the dollar in circulation, and a Texas setting its own trade policy can lower import costs rather than raise them. The fear of pricier imports assumes new tariffs and a weak new currency. Texas is built to avoid both. Import prices move with two things: tariffs and currency Be precise about what actually makes an imported good cost more. It is tariffs at the border, and a currency that loses value against the seller's. Those are the two levers, and an independent Texas is positioned to hold both steady. Keep trade free, and there is no new tariff. Keep the dollar, and there is no currency shock. Those two choices are exactly the ones the plan makes. Keeping trade free means no new tariff on the things Texans buy A free-trade arrangement or customs union with the United States, in Washington's interest too, keeps goods crossing tariff-free in both directions, so the U.S.-made and U.S.-routed goods Texans buy do not pick up a new cost. For the rest of the world, Texas can set its own tariff schedule, and the live answer on U.S. trade explains that Texas can adopt existing World Trade Organization schedules to start, then negotiate its own terms. A Texas writing its own trade policy can choose lower tariffs on goods Texans actually buy, instead of carrying federal tariffs designed to protect industries in other states. Keeping the dollar means no currency shock at the register The single biggest way a separation can spike import prices is a new, untested currency that loses value. Texas removes that risk by keeping the U.S. dollar in circulation through the transition, the way Panama, Ecuador, and El Salvador use it today, with no exchange-rate risk. When the money in a Texan's pocket holds its value, imports priced in dollars do not jump. Currency continuity is the default in the plan precisely because it protects prices. Independence ends a hidden tax that already raises every price There is a cost Te…

What happens to interstate commerce rules Texas businesses rely on?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The practical thing those rules deliver, free and frictionless trade across the line, is preserved by the trade arrangement, while the federal control that comes attached to them ends. Texas businesses keep the open market and lose the federal overhead. That is the trade, and it favors Texas. Be clear about what "interstate commerce rules" actually are The phrase covers two very different things bundled together. One is the practical benefit: goods moving across state lines without tariffs or border friction, a single open market. The other is the legal machinery: the federal Commerce Clause power that Washington uses to regulate, often heavily, almost every kind of business activity. Texas businesses value the first. They carry the cost of the second. Independence is designed to keep the benefit and shed the cost. The open market is preserved by the trade arrangement The tariff-free, frictionless flow of goods between Texas and the other states does not depend on sharing a federal government. It can be delivered just as well by a free-trade arrangement or customs union between Texas and the United States, which is in Washington's interest too, with the World Trade Organization schedules as a fallback. The live answer on U.S. trade lays out exactly how that keeps commerce moving across the line tariff-free. So the thing a Texas business actually relies on, an open market it can sell into, carries straight through. The federal regulation attached to it is what ends, and that is the upside Here is what most people miss. The Commerce Clause is not just a guarantee of open trade. It is the hook Washington uses to impose a vast regulatory layer on Texas business, much of it written for conditions in other states. By TNM's analysis, that federal regulatory layer costs Texas manufacturers an estimated $30 to $50 billion a year in compliance overhead. Independence removes that layer. Texas keeps the open market and trades the federal rulebook for a lighter, Texas-made one i…

What happens to my 401(k), IRA, and pension funds?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Your retirement accounts are your private property, held in your name, and independence does not change who owns them. They do not vanish, freeze, or reset when sovereignty changes. People hold these exact accounts from outside the United States right now. These are private assets, not government property A 401(k), an IRA, and a private pension are contracts and account balances held at private financial institutions on your behalf. They are your property. A change in which government Texas answers to does not transfer ownership of your savings any more than it transfers ownership of your house or your truck. The dollars, shares, and balances in those accounts remain yours throughout. Cross-border account-holding is routine Americans live in dozens of countries and keep their 401(k)s, IRAs, and brokerage accounts running the entire time. Foreign nationals likewise hold U.S. retirement and investment accounts. The major custodians, the Fidelitys, Schwabs, and Vanguards of the world, already serve account holders across borders every day. An independent Texas would simply be one more place where account holders live, a situation these institutions handle as a matter of ordinary business. Texas already runs some of the largest pension systems anywhere Public pensions in Texas are already Texas-run. The Teacher Retirement System of Texas alone holds about $225 billion in assets, the sixth-largest public pension fund in the United States, and the Employees Retirement System of Texas manages tens of billions more, both entirely under state administration. The expertise to oversee large retirement portfolios is not something Texas would have to import. It already exists here, at scale, and has for generations. The transition protects continuity Following a vote, the relationship between Texas and the United States would be settled through negotiation and a transition period in which existing arrangements continue while the details are worked out. Tax treaties and totalizat…

How will TEXIT give us better government in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: We have our own issues of bad governance in Austin. However, most of what is happening in our Capitol has flourished because of our continued membership in the United States. Compliance Most Texans aren't aware that the vast majority of legislative wrangling in Texas government takes place over issues that are not of our making. In this recent session, nearly half of all bills filed directly referenced federal law, federal regulations, federal agencies, or federal court rulings. That doesn't include bills that were filed in response to those where they weren't directly referenced but were filed to place Texas in compliance with one or more of those. We can't even begin to count the bills that were filed solely to capture federal money. You know, the federal money that first came out of your pocket and then, after a 40% "membership fee" has been deducted, is dangled in front of the Texas Legislature as a reward for their loyalty. Then you get into the areas of education, transportation, and social services which, to some degree, have their policy directions set in relation to or because of federal law or mandate. Being outside of the United States means that we could set our own direction and create policies that are a perfect fit for us. If a policy doesn't work, we can scrap it and create a new one. It would be our decision and our decision alone. Aspiration Lest we forget, many in Texas government treat elected office like tryouts for the Federal Government. Granted, some get in and get comfortable. But others are like contestants on American Idol. They hope that they are good enough to get to the next round. Oftentimes the policy decisions and the direction of the debate are dictated by how much of an audience they will get outside of Texas. They jockey just to get an interview on FoxNews or MSNBC, because deep in their heart-of-hearts, they want their 15 minutes of fame in a larger market. Being known in a larger market means that they can run for the US House o…

Does Texas need to draft a new constitution before we TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: There is a misconception that there can be no Texit without first having drafted and ratified a new constitution for an independent Republic of Texas. Given the unwieldy size of the current Texas Constitution, there might be some merit to revisiting it. However, the assertion that no Texit can take place without it is completely wrong. In fact, without some changes to the existing constitution, post-referendum, the Texas government doesn't possess the legal authority or the statutory framework to move to the next step. The problem is basic. There is no legal framework for Texas to engage the United States on equal footing. The legal framework that currently exists allows Texas to engage the other States within the Union, but nothing that allows Texas to engage them all as a collective entity. As a State of the Union, we are prohibited from entering into treaties under Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution. This is problematic, as a significant portion of the negotiation and transition will require Texas to sit across the negotiating table with representatives of the United States as well as other countries as equals to execute international agreements on a variety of issues. Luckily, in the wake of an affirmative vote for Texit, Texas has the power to make the needed changes to the Texas Constitution required to start the process without rewriting the entire document. In the 1960s, a complete overhaul of the Texas Constitution was completed through what became known as the Deadwood Amendment. It was a single constitutional amendment that removed redundant or obsolete language from the Texas Constitution. Some of these provisions dealt with land issues related to Spanish land grants. Some dealt with cleaning up language that existed elsewhere in the Constitution or had been overturned by the courts. All these edits and changes were rolled into a single constitutional amendment and placed before the voters of Texas. In a similar fashion, any substanti…

Will Texas be able to fund the government after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Simple arithmetic proves the ability of an independent Texas to fund a government at the same level that Texans are currently accustomed to if that's what Texans want. Rebuilt in 2026 on six years of federal data (2019 through 2024), the arithmetic is straightforward. Texans pay about $453 billion a year to the two governments that tax them, Washington and Austin. Governing Texas, every program, every federal and state job, every department, every facility and base, costs about $295 billion a year. That works out to roughly $14,500 paid per Texan against about $9,400 in cost. The revenue Texans already generate covers the full cost of their government, with a wide margin, and without raising anyone's taxes by a single cent. To be fair about it, net Social Security and Medicare out of both sides, the benefits and the payroll taxes that fund them, and the margin narrows toward break-even, so the honest claim is not a giant surplus. It is self-sufficiency: Texas funds 100 percent of its own government, and a large share of the rest of the country's besides.

Will Texans Lose US Citizenship and Retirement Benefits After Independence?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: One question about independence comes up more than any other: "Will we lose our US citizenship and our Social Security if Texas becomes independent?" The short answer is no. The longer answer is that both are far more secure than the scare stories suggest, and on the law it is not close. The Federal Government has spent decades making it nearly impossible for Americans to lose their citizenship involuntarily. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that US citizenship is a fundamental right that cannot be stripped away without clear, explicit consent. When it comes to Social Security, millions of Americans already collect their benefits while living abroad. The path forward for an independent Texas is clearer than many realize. The Iron-Clad Protection of US Citizenship The foundation of citizenship protection lies in the Fourteenth Amendment and decades of Supreme Court precedent that have made losing US citizenship extraordinarily difficult. The landmark 1967 case Afroyim v. Rusk fundamentally changed how citizenship works in America. The Court ruled that Congress cannot take away someone's citizenship without their "assent," meaning a clear, voluntary intent to give it up. Before this decision, the Federal Government routinely stripped citizenship from Americans for various acts, including voting in foreign elections. Beys Afroyim, a naturalized citizen from Poland, had his citizenship revoked simply for voting in an Israeli election. The Supreme Court said this violated the Constitution. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment "was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship." The 1980 case Vance v. Terrazas reinforced this protection even further. The Court ruled that the government must prove not only that someone voluntarily performed an act that could lead to loss of citizenship, but also that they specifically intended to give up …

What will the requirements be for citizenship?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: This is more so a question for the Texas Legislature following a referendum vote. However, the requirements will likely mirror many of the requirements to be a citizen of any other self-governing independent nation. Of course, Texans who are already legally living within the state when it becomes independent will automatically gain Texas citizenship.

What if my spouse isn't a natural-born Texan?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: While laws regarding this topic within Texas are not yet in place, the law will likely match the US laws on the topic. Those being that a US citizen cannot lose their citizenship simply for living in another country. Spouses make matters a little more tricky. While there is no question that a Texan citizen and their spouse may reenter the independent Texan nation to live, the spouse may have to apply for a 'green card' and complete a number of years in the country before becoming a full citizen, like in the US. However, there are no concrete laws on this matter, and after independence, it will be up for debate among the Texas State Legislators.

How will Texas handle immigration?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texans are not opposed to sensible immigration. In fact, Texas celebrates the diversity that immigration brings. What Texans do want, however, is for those who emigrate to do so properly and in a manner consistent with the needs of Texas. On the issue of immigration, Texas has always sought a sustainable equilibrium. It is reasonable to assume that Texas would implement a sensible immigration policy that allows immigration based on the ability of Texas to handle the increased infrastructure requirements and the need to supplement the pool of skilled workers required for business and industry. Citizens would be given priority in employment, with immigration used to supplement shortages in key job sectors. Concretely addressing the immigration and security concerns of Texans leads to greater confidence in our institutions, frees up public sector expenditure, and leads to better relations with our neighbor to the south.

Will illegal immigrants be offered amnesty after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: One of the biggest concerns for Texans continues to be immigration and border security. The federal government has consistently shot down any attempt by Texans to fix the problem of illegal immigration by claiming it falls under the federal government's jurisdiction. The federal government fails to allocate resources to protect the border and even incentivizes illegal immigration by forcing states like Texas to provide public services without regard to immigration status. Texans are not opposed to immigration but are opposed to the way the feds handle immigration policy. The most important statistic to look at is the amount of money illegal immigration costs taxpayers. Texas' taxpayers are burdened by some of the highest illegal immigration costs, accounting for nearly $13 billion annually. It will be up to the legislative body, but it is highly unlikely illegal immigrants will be granted amnesty as that would incentivize more illegal immigrants to enter Texas.

How will TEXIT affect open and concealed carry laws?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It won't. Texas already has both open and concealed carry laws in place. These laws will not be affected as they were voted on and passed by the Texas State Legislature. An individual may currently carry openly or concealed without a permit, although a mechanism is in place to obtain a 'License to Carry' or LTC. There are restrictions in place on locations where firearms may be carried, such as hospitals, bars, polling places on Election Day, etc. The state-level restrictions on short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles were removed by legislation passed in the 89th session of the Texas Legislature, but federal registration requirements remain in place. Machine guns are prohibited unless registered with the federal government. After the independence act is passed, the laws governing these restricted firearms must be modified, as they reference federal government gun laws. However, any modification would require passing a bill by a majority of the collective Texas State Legislature.

How will TEXIT affect banks in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Banking institutions are already covered by a regulatory regime that makes for a smooth transition during Texit. Existing federal law already allows foreign banks to operate in the United States through a direct banking office or a nonbanking representative office. Foreign banks also run standard consumer retail banks with their deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), just like domestic banks. In fact, many large U.S. banks are owned by foreign banks. Foreign-owned banks already run full retail networks across the United States. TD Bank, owned by Toronto-Dominion of Canada, operates around 1,100 US branches and ranks among the ten largest banks in the country. BMO, also Canadian, runs roughly 970 offices across 23 states. Santander, owned by the Spanish group of the same name, runs about 650 retail offices in the northeast. iBank.net reports 174 foreign banking organizations of all types operating in the U.S. as of March 2025, with 8 having offices in Texas. Conversely, the State of Texas currently allows non-Texas banks to operate in Texas. In fact, Texas goes out of its way to ensure that operating a bank in Texas is as attractive as possible. Article XVI, Section 16(c) of the Texas Constitution provides that Texas-chartered state banks have the same rights and privileges that are or may be granted to national banks of the United States domiciled in Texas. This clause essentially gives banks an option to operate under a charter from the United States or from the State of Texas operating under the oversight of the Texas Department of Banking. In July 1999, then-Governor George W. Bush signed a bill into law that formally opened Texas to interstate bank branching. The bill made Texas bank charters one of the most attractive in the United States to conduct banking business. The bill included what was called the "super parity" provision, which provides a framework for a state bank chartered in Texas to conduct any of the activities allowe…

Will Texas be divided into states after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas will not be divided into separate states as a result of Texit. Texas is a unitary nation-state and, as such, does not need to be divided. This question often comes from the misconception that the 50 states of the United States are collectively a unitary nation-state. It isn't. It's a political union of 50 independent, sovereign states of which Texas is currently one. Texas is already internally divided into 254 counties, over 1,000 cities and towns, 31 Senate Districts, 150 House Districts, and other entities that function as administrative and political subdivisions of the state. There is no need nor is there a desire to create new divisions within Texas.

How will TEXIT affect Social Security recipients?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The Social Security issue is perhaps the thorniest and the most complex. If most Texans understood how the system currently worked, they would likely opt for open rebellion rather than an orderly Texit. Before looking at how Texas should handle this issue in the negotiation and transition phase, it is important to make an honest assessment of the Social Security system as it is now in the United States. While Social Security retirement benefits are perceived as an earned benefit, in actuality the benefits paid are at the discretion of the federal government. It amounts to a government-sponsored, government-mandated Ponzi scheme that relies on an increasing number of workers who pay into the system in order to pay out the benefits promised by the self-serving political class. The faith in the government's ability to meet its promises is eroding daily. A 2015 survey by Pew Research Center found that "41 percent of Americans think there will be no Social Security benefits for them when they retire." Another third believe they will receive significantly reduced levels of benefits. In CNBC's article about the PRC report, they painted an even direr scenario. "The Social Security and Medicare Trustees' 2014 report projects that all the Social Security trust funds will be depleted by 2033. At that point, the agency will be able to pay out about 77 percent of retirement benefits from payroll taxes collected. By 2088, the trustees forecast the agency will be able to pay out 72 percent of benefits. (Studies from Harvard and Dartmouth project the trust funds could be depleted sooner than that and claim the Social Security Administration's actuarial forecasts have been consistently overstating the financial health of the program's trust funds since 2000.)" That article quotes the 2014 Trustees report, and the projection has moved the wrong way since. The 2026 Trustees report puts depletion of the retirement trust fund in the fourth quarter of 2032, roughly a year earlier than th…

What could replace Social Security in an independent Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Although those currently receiving Social Security payments would continue to do so in an independent Texas, the question becomes one of what a replacement system could look like in an independent Texas. Fortunately, Texas is already leading the way with concrete examples of what a Social Security replacement could look like. Three counties in Texas have shown the public that they can opt-out of Social Security by setting up their own system for personal retirement accounts. This decision has allowed these counties to avoid any financial concerns and has even provided their retirees with a higher amount of retirement income. Employees of Brazoria, Matagorda, and Galveston County have experienced a growth in retirement savings annually. Under their model, both employee and employer contributions are handled by a financial planner. The agency "First Financial Benefits Inc." of Houston currently manages their retirement accounts and has done so since the systems were set up beginning in 1981. All of the contributions are collected, similar to bank deposits, and financial institutions begin bidding on the money. These same institutions guarantee that interest rates will not go down to a certain level, and may even go higher if everything goes smoothly in the market. Under this model, accounts are able to earn between 3.75% and 5.75% each year, averaging at about 5% overall. This rate was even higher during the 1990s when it reached up to 7%. Employees make more money when the market is up and still earn something when it goes down. The "Texas Model" in these three counties has consistently outperformed the federal system with better returns and greater long-term stability. Guaranteed retirement benefits from a private organization are enticing for us in Texas, especially since studies have indicated the depletion of Social Security funds in the near future. The model shown by the three counties proves that we Texans can set up our own retirement and pension system, and …

What will happen to people who rely on Medicare after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Medicare is an incredibly important issue for many Texans who support Texas independence. We will not abandon Texans who rely on these kinds of services as the whole point of independence is to help Texans whose needs and values have been abandoned by the federal system. According to KFF (using data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics, Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse), total expenditures for Medicare in Texas come to about $28 billion (2021, the latest figure available). When it comes to determining the total amount taken out of the pockets of Texas taxpayers to fund Medicare, even the Internal Revenue Service is stumped. "Collections of withheld individual income tax are not reported by taxpayers separately from Old-Age, Survivors, Disability, and Hospital Insurance (OASDHI) taxes on salaries and wages (under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act or FICA) and individual income tax payments along with taxes on self-employment income (under the Self-Employment Insurance Contributions Act or SECA)." Given the current imbalance in how much Texans pay into the federal system versus how much we get, it's safe to assume that we are putting more in than we are getting back. The fact is that the $28 billion is a drop in the bucket of the amount we already overpay into the federal system. An independent, self-governing Texas would need to set up our own version of the Medicare system for those who are already on Medicare or those close to nearing retirement age who would otherwise rely on the healthcare coverage provided by Medicare. This would be accomplished during the transition period after a TEXIT vote. Given how much more Texans pay into the federal system than they get back, this should not be too difficult. This new system would also run a lot smoother and be more flexible as it will be run by Texans and for Texans.

How will TEXIT affect student loans?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: An independent Texas would have no effect on existing student loans. Student loans are contracts between the lender (federal government) and borrower (student). These contracts will need to be fulfilled and will not be voided. However, the federal government has facilitated predatory lending practices aimed at college students. Texas has taken a strong stance against such practices in other areas so it is reasonable to believe that an independent Texas will not tolerate such activities.

What would happen to our public universities and their athletic conferences?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Universities would continue to function as normal, the only difference is they would be classified as "international" with respect to universities within the US. Athletic conferences on the college level would continue to operate as normal. For example, Texas' college football teams are already accepted into the NCAA, therefore once Texas withdraws from the union it should not lose its qualification.

What happens to Medicaid?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Medicaid keeps running, because Texas already runs it. Texas administers the entire program today, funds a large share of it from its own treasury, and would simply stop sending the rest of the money to Washington first. Nobody on Medicaid loses their coverage at independence. Texas already operates Medicaid, start to finish Medicaid is not a Washington program that happens to Texans. It is a Texas program that Washington helps fund and heavily regulates. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission determines eligibility, enrolls families, pays providers, manages the health plans, and runs the entire operation. Medicaid is roughly a $51 billion program in Texas, and the state already funds about $20 billion of that from its own budget. The agency, the workforce, the rules engine, and a large slice of the money are already Texan. Independence does not build a new program. It hands Texas full control of one it already operates. Medicaid is welfare Texas keeps funding, and we are honest about that We do not pretend Medicaid is free or that it disappears. It is means-tested assistance, not an earned benefit like Social Security, and the 2026 analysis counts every dollar of it as a real cost an independent Texas carries the whole way through. Texas keeps funding Medicaid because Texas takes care of its own. The difference is that the money stays home and the rules get written in Austin instead of arriving from Washington with conditions attached. The current deal already short-changes Texas The arrangement Texans are told to fear is the one they already live under, and it is not a good one. On Medicaid, Washington writes the rules and pays only part of the bill, and the federal share comes with strings and matching requirements that force Texas to put up its own funds to unlock it. Much of what gets counted as "Washington's spending in Texas" was paid for, in part, by Texans a second time. Independence does not add that burden. It ends the part where Texas pays for ru…

What happens to federal disability benefits (SSDI)?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Your disability benefits are earned, they are yours, and they keep coming. Social Security Disability Insurance follows the same rules as Social Security retirement, and it is protected the same way, through a tool the United States already uses across borders every day. SSDI is an earned benefit, like the retirement check Disability Insurance is not welfare and it is not a favor. You qualified for it by working and paying Social Security taxes, the same payroll taxes that fund the retirement program. That makes it earned, pre-paid property, exactly like a retirement benefit, and it gets treated the same way through independence. The Texas Nationalist Movement's position on benefits Texans paid for is a no-surrender position. You paid in, you are owed, and that does not change. Citizens already collect SSDI while living abroad The fear that crossing a border ends a disability check is built on a rule that does not apply to most Texans. United States citizens can continue to receive SSDI in nearly every country in the world. The "benefits stop after six months" rule that critics quote is a rule for non-citizens, and Texans are overwhelmingly citizens who stay citizens through any transition. People with disabilities receive their Social Security checks today while living in France, Mexico, the Philippines, and dozens of other countries. There is no honest reason an independent Texas would be the one place on Earth where that suddenly fails. The mechanism already covers disability, not just retirement The instrument that handles benefits across an international border is the totalization agreement, and the United States already maintains these with more than two dozen countries. Here is the part the scare stories leave out: these agreements cover retirement, disability, and survivors benefits alike. They are written under the same part of the Social Security Act that governs SSDI. So the exact tool that protects a Texas retiree's check protects a Texas disability chec…

What happens to SNAP and other federal assistance?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: SNAP and the other assistance programs keep operating, because Texas already operates them. The state runs eligibility, issues the benefits, and oversees the program day to day. Independence keeps the help flowing and stops routing the money through Washington first. Texas already administers SNAP Food assistance in Texas is run by Texans. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission determines who qualifies, issues the benefits, oversees the retailers who accept them, and guards against fraud. The federal government funds the benefit dollars and shares the administrative cost, but the program on the ground, the offices, the caseworkers, the system that decides eligibility, is already a Texas operation. The same pattern holds across the assistance programs: Washington sets rules and sends money, Texas does the work of delivering it to families. This is welfare Texas keeps funding, stated plainly We are honest about what these programs are. SNAP and similar assistance are means-tested welfare, not earned benefits, and the 2026 analysis counts them as real costs an independent Texas carries. Texas keeps funding them because a Texas that leaves to take care of its own does not begin by pulling food assistance from struggling families. What changes is not whether the help exists. It is who controls it and where the money comes from. The revenue to cover it is already Texan The dollars that fund SNAP came from Texans in the first place. Texans pay about $453 billion a year to Washington and Austin combined, and governing Texas, every assistance program folded in, costs about $295 billion a year. The money that currently funds food assistance through Washington does not vanish at independence. It stops leaving Texas, then funds the same program directly, without the detour and without the conditions Washington attaches on the way back. Continuity through the transition After a vote, existing arrangements continue through a negotiated transition while the details are set…

What happens to federal unemployment insurance?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas already runs its own unemployment insurance. The benefit amounts, the eligibility rules, the trust fund, and the agency that pays claims are all Texan today. Independence keeps the system Texans already operate and lets Texas keep the federal payroll tax that currently leaves the state. Unemployment insurance is already a Texas-run program People picture unemployment benefits as a federal program. They are not. Under the federal-state system, Washington sets broad standards, but each state runs its own program, sets its own benefit amounts and eligibility rules, collects its own state unemployment tax, and pays its own claims. In Texas, that is the Texas Workforce Commission. It determines who qualifies, calculates the benefit, issues the checks, and manages the state unemployment trust fund. The part of the system Texans actually touch is already built and run in Austin. What Washington's piece actually is The federal layer is narrower than the name suggests. A federal payroll tax funds the administration of state programs and provides a backstop: it helps pay for extended benefits during deep recessions and operates a fund states can borrow from if their own reserves run low. That is real, and an honest plan accounts for it. But it is a financing-and-backstop role on top of a program the states design and deliver, not the program itself. An independent Texas keeps the federal unemployment tax its employers already pay and folds the backstop function into its own treasury, the same way it already manages its own trust fund. Texas already keeps its own reserve Texas does not depend on Washington to cushion a downturn in the first place. The state runs its own unemployment trust fund and, separately, a rainy day fund projected near a record balance of about $28.5 billion. A country starts with real reserves already banked and the institutional habit of maintaining them. The federal "backstop" is a smaller part of the picture than the question assumes, and Texas…

What happens to military pensions?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Military retirement pay is earned, and it keeps coming. It follows the retiree wherever they live, it is one of the strongest claims Texas brings to any negotiation, and Texas will stand behind the men and women who served. This is not a benefit Washington gets to hold hostage. A military pension is earned pay, and it is portable Retirement pay is not a gift. It was earned through a career of service, and it follows the person. Military retirees already live all over the world and draw their pay every month, because the Defense Finance and Accounting Service sends retirement pay to retirees regardless of where they live, with no residency-based disqualification. A retiree in Germany, in Mexico, or in Paris, Texas gets the same check. Independence makes Texas one more place a military retiree lives, which is an ordinary situation Washington's own pay system already handles every single day. The no-surrender position covers those who served On benefits Texans earned, the posture is not negotiation for leverage. It is no surrender. Any Texan who earned military retirement should continue to receive it, without question, hesitation, or reservation. That obligation was made to people who served the country, and it should be honored. Texas would hold the line on it. Earned benefits are leverage Texas holds, not a liability it carries Here is what flips the fear on its head. The benefits Washington owes Texans, military retirement among them alongside Social Security and Medicare, add up to a claim on the order of $7.7 trillion, more than double the roughly $3.2 trillion debt share Washington might try to assign. In any separation, what each side owes the other gets netted out. So if Washington ever tried to cut off pay that Texas veterans earned, it would only hand Texas the cleanest possible grounds to cancel the debt bill against the benefits it owes. Either the checks keep flowing by agreement, which is cheaper for Washington, or the claim offsets the debt. Both outcom…

Would there be a transition agreement so benefits don't just stop?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Benefits do not stop the morning after a vote, because a vote is the start of a negotiated process, not a switch that flips. Continuity is the entire design, and both governments have every practical reason to preserve it. A vote opens negotiation, it does not end anything The single most common misunderstanding about independence is that it happens in one dramatic instant. It does not. A referendum is the starting gun. What follows is a negotiated transition, conducted the way every modern separation has been conducted, in which existing arrangements continue while the details are worked out. Benefits keep being paid during that period. There is no day when Texans wake up to find checks canceled and clinics closed, because that is not how any of this works. The tools to keep benefits flowing already exist Nations do not improvise this. The instruments that keep benefits moving across a border are standard and already in use. The United States maintains totalization agreements with more than two dozen countries precisely to keep Social Security, disability, and survivors benefits flowing to people who have lived or worked on both sides of a line. Tax treaties prevent double taxation. These are the ordinary furniture of relations between countries, and an independent Texas would use the same furniture. The mechanism is not theoretical. It is what lets a retiree in Lisbon draw her American Social Security right now. Most of the machinery never leaves Texas anyway Continuity is easier than people fear because so much of the delivery is already Texan. Medicaid, SNAP, unemployment insurance, and the hospitals and clinics that provide care are administered and operated in Texas today. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission, the Texas Workforce Commission, and Texas providers keep doing what they already do. For the earned federal benefits that are paid from Washington, like Social Security and military pensions, the payment systems already reach across border…

What happens to healthcare in an independent Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Healthcare in Texas is delivered by Texans today, in Texas hospitals and clinics, by Texas doctors and nurses, under a Texas medical board. Independence changes who sets the policy, not who provides the care. The system does not go anywhere, because the system is already here. The care is already Texan Almost everything people mean by "healthcare" is local and already Texan. The hospitals are in Texas. The physicians and nurses are licensed by the Texas Medical Board and the Texas Board of Nursing. The medical schools, the trauma networks, the clinics, and the pharmacies operate under Texas law. Washington does not deliver medical care in Texas. It funds parts of it and regulates parts of it from a distance. The act of caring for a patient happens entirely on Texas soil, performed by Texans, and independence does not move a single bed. Texas already runs the public side of health, too The government machinery of health is also largely in Austin. Texas runs Medicaid through the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. It runs public health through the Texas Department of State Health Services. It licenses and inspects hospitals and clinics, runs its own emergency medical services framework, and oversees the health plans. The agencies, the workforce, and a large share of the funding already sit at the state level. Independence puts the slice Washington still controls under the same roof as the system Texans already operate. Earned benefits are protected, and stated honestly For Texans on Medicare, the earned benefit you paid for is protected and netted at the table, the same as Social Security, and the dedicated page on this lays out the mechanism in full. One honest point: Medicare is a program that pays for care delivered inside the United States, so the real assurance is not that "your Medicare travels," it is that the care itself is delivered in Texas, by Texas providers, and an independent Texas keeps that care running. For Medicaid, which is means-tested, Tex…

How would Texas handle public health functions the CDC used to cover?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas already does most of this work. The state runs disease surveillance, outbreak response, and public health labs today, and the federal role is largely funding and coordination on top of operations that are already Texan. An independent Texas keeps the functions, keeps the money at home, and cooperates internationally the way every country does. The frontline public health work is already done by Texas The hands-on work of public health happens at the state and local level, not in Atlanta. The Texas Department of State Health Services runs disease surveillance, investigates outbreaks, operates public health laboratories, manages immunization programs, and coordinates with local health departments across the state. When there is a foodborne illness, a measles cluster, or a new pathogen, it is Texas epidemiologists and Texas labs doing the detection and the response. The federal disease-control agency depends on receiving its data from state and local health departments in the first place. The base of the public health system is already Texan. What the federal agency actually provides Be precise about the federal role so the gap is honest, not exaggerated. The federal disease-control agency is the primary funder of state and local public health activity, it runs national surveillance systems that aggregate state data, it provides specialized laboratory capacity and technical expertise for rare and dangerous pathogens, and it coordinates across states. Those are real functions worth replacing deliberately. But notice the shape: it is money, coordination, and a top tier of specialized capability layered on top of operations the states already run. An independent Texas funds its own public health from the revenue that stops leaving for Washington, builds out its own top-tier lab capacity, and plugs into the international system directly. Public health is international, and Texas would join the network directly Disease does not respect borders, which is exactly why th…

What about hospitals that rely on federal funding?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The hospitals stay open, keep their staff, and keep treating patients, because the building, the people, and the patients are all in Texas. Most "federal funding" for hospitals is Texans' own money on a round trip, and some of it is an unfunded mandate Texas hospitals already eat. Independence keeps the funding at home and ends the part where Washington orders care it does not pay for. The funding is mostly Texans' money returning, plus payments for care When people say hospitals "rely on federal funding," they mostly mean two things: Medicaid and Medicare payments for treating patients, and a handful of grants. Medicaid is already administered by Texas and funded in large part by Texas, so that money does not depend on Washington to reach a Texas hospital. Medicare payments are reimbursement for care actually delivered to Texas patients in Texas. None of this is Washington's charity. It is payment for services rendered, drawn from money Texans paid in. Independence keeps that revenue in Texas and pays the same hospitals for the same care, without the Washington detour. Washington already orders care it refuses to pay for Here is the part that turns the question over. The most consequential federal rule for hospitals is one that sends no money at all. Federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, requires every hospital that takes Medicare to screen and stabilize anyone who arrives at the emergency room, regardless of ability to pay, and Washington attaches no funding to that command. It is a textbook unfunded mandate. It cost Texas hospitals roughly $3 billion in uncompensated care in 2023. So a large piece of the "federal" relationship with Texas hospitals is not funding at all. It is an order to provide billions in care for free. Independence ends the part where Washington writes the rule and Texas hospitals pay for it. Texas already runs hospital funding and regulation The machinery is Texan. Texas licenses and inspects its hospitals, runs the Medi…

How would drug and treatment approval work without the FDA?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas would run its own medicines regulator the way every developed country does, and it would not start from scratch. The standard practice worldwide is to recognize and rely on the approvals of trusted authorities, so Texans would keep access to the same medicines, often faster, not slower. Every country regulates its own medicines, and Texas would too The United States does not have a monopoly on safe medicine. Every developed nation runs its own drug and device authority: Europe has the European Medicines Agency, the United Kingdom the MHRA, Switzerland Swissmedic, Australia the TGA, Canada Health Canada. An independent Texas would establish a Texas medicines authority, exactly as countries Texas's size and smaller already do. This is a solved problem with dozens of working models to copy, not a novel risk. Regulatory reliance is the global norm, and it is fast Here is the part that dissolves the fear. Countries do not each re-test every drug from zero. The established practice, used across the developed and developing world, is regulatory reliance: a national authority recognizes the approvals of trusted reference regulators and clears the medicine on that basis. Many countries explicitly rely on the approvals of the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, Swissmedic, Health Canada, and the Australian TGA, the bodies often called stringent regulatory authorities. Some run formal recognition pathways that cut approval times dramatically by accepting these decisions. A Texas medicines authority would do the same, recognizing FDA and European approvals so that anything cleared there is available in Texas without delay. Texas could move faster than Washington, not slower Reliance can make access quicker. When a regulator accepts a trusted approval rather than repeating the full review, it shortens timelines. Smaller, modern regulators that lean on reliance can clear medicines promptly, and there are international consortia built for exactly this kind of cooperation, wh…

What happens to disability and long-term-care services?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: These services keep running, because Texas already runs them. Long-term care, disability services, and the supports families depend on are administered by Texas today, funded in large part by Texas, and delivered by Texas providers. Independence keeps them, and keeps the people who rely on them covered through the transition. Texas already administers disability and long-term-care services The supports that disabled Texans and their families depend on are run in Austin, not Washington. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission administers the Medicaid long-term services and supports that fund nursing homes, community attendant care, the waiver programs for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and home and community-based services. The case management, the eligibility, the provider networks, and a large share of the funding are already Texan. The direct-care workers, the group homes, the nursing facilities, and the therapists are all here. Independence does not build this system. Texas already operates it. The earned piece is protected, the welfare piece is kept Two different things sit inside "disability services," and both are covered. The earned benefit, Social Security Disability Insurance, is protected exactly like Social Security retirement, portable across borders for citizens and secured by the same totalization tool, addressed in full in the SSDI answer. The means-tested piece, Medicaid long-term care and disability waivers, is welfare Texas already co-administers and funds, counted as a real cost the whole way through. Texas keeps funding it because Texas takes care of its own. Neither the earned check nor the funded service disappears. Continuity is the design After a vote, existing arrangements continue through a negotiated transition. A Texan in a nursing home, a family caring for an adult child with a disability, a person on an attendant-care waiver, none of them face a cutoff, because the program serving them is the Texas progr…

How would an independent Texas handle a pandemic?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same way it already handles disease outbreaks, with its own public health agency, its own labs, and its own hospitals, plus direct participation in the international system that actually coordinates a global response. Texas already did the frontline work in the last pandemic. Independence gives Texas a direct seat instead of a secondhand one. Texas already ran its pandemic response on the ground The frontline of any disease response is the state, and Texans saw this firsthand. In the last pandemic, the Texas Department of State Health Services ran the surveillance, the Texas hospitals provided the care, the Texas labs did testing, and Texas coordinated its own hospital capacity and distribution. The federal role was funding, national coordination, and a layer of specialized capacity, but the actual response on Texas ground was run by Texans. An independent Texas keeps every piece of that and funds it from revenue that stops leaving the state. The international system is what coordinates a global response A pandemic is global by definition, which is exactly why the meaningful coordination is international, not internal to one country. The World Health Organization coordinates global surveillance and early warning, countries share genetic sequences of new pathogens within days, and that data-sharing is what lets any nation respond. An independent Texas would plug into that network directly, as a country, receiving early warnings and sharing data on its own account rather than waiting for a federal agency to relay it. Direct participation is faster and more reliable than dependence on a middleman in Washington. Vaccines and treatments through recognition, not isolation Texas would not be cut off from new vaccines or treatments. Through the same regulatory reliance that governs medicines generally, a Texas medicines authority would recognize approvals from the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, and other trusted regulators, so a vaccine cleared in the developed wor…

What about mental health and addiction services?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Mental health and addiction services keep running, because Texas already runs them. The state operates the mental health system, the local authorities, the hospitals, and the substance-use programs today. Independence keeps the services, keeps the funding at home, and lets Texas shape them around Texan need. Texas already operates the mental health and addiction system These services are delivered by Texans, through Texas institutions. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission oversees the state mental health system, including the state psychiatric hospitals and the network of local mental health and behavioral health authorities that serve communities across Texas. Substance-use prevention, treatment, and recovery programs run through that same Texas structure and through Texas providers. The clinics, the counselors, the crisis lines, and the treatment centers are here. The administration and a large share of the funding are already in Austin. Independence does not invent this system. Texas already runs it. The federal piece is funding and rules, and the funding is Texans' money The federal role in behavioral health is mostly grant funding and program rules layered on top of services Texas already delivers. Federal block grants support some mental health and substance-use programs, and Medicaid funds a meaningful share of behavioral health care, but Medicaid is already administered by Texas and funded in large part by Texas. The money that flows through Washington for these services came from Texans first. Independence keeps it home and funds the same programs directly, without the conditions Washington attaches on the way back. Continuity for people in treatment After a vote, existing arrangements continue through a negotiated transition. Someone in treatment for addiction, a Texan receiving mental health care, a family relying on a local authority, none of them face an interruption, because the system serving them is the Texas system. The providers keep prov…

Would healthcare cost more or less after independence?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: We will not invent a number, and anyone who promises you an exact figure is guessing. What we can say honestly is that the forces pushing healthcare costs up are largely made in Washington, and independence moves Texas away from them while keeping the revenue and the control at home. The honest answer starts with what we do not claim Healthcare pricing is complex, and a responsible answer does not pretend to forecast it to the dollar. We are not going to fabricate a percentage. What we can do is name the real cost drivers honestly and show which direction independence pushes each one. That is a more useful answer than a made-up number, and it is the kind of answer Texans can actually check. The inflation tax raises the price of everything, healthcare included The single largest hidden force pushing up the cost of living, including healthcare, is the steady erosion of the dollar, and that is made in Washington. The dollar has lost about 22 percent of its purchasing power since 2020 alone, by the federal government's own inflation measure. When Washington spends past what it collects and the money supply balloons, prices rise across the board, and medical prices have risen faster than most. An independent Texas with sound money, built on the Texas Bullion Depository and the gold-and-silver legal tender of HB 1056, steps away from the largest tax Texans never voted for, which is direct relief on the cost of everything, healthcare among it. Texas keeps more of every paycheck to spend on care Texas funds itself with no personal income tax, and that does not change at independence. Keeping more of a paycheck is itself relief against the cost of healthcare, because it is income families keep to spend on premiums, deductibles, and care. And ending the roughly $72 billion a year that leaves Texas just in federal debt interest frees up room that a Texas government could direct toward health priorities. The structure that helps stays in place, and the biggest outflow goes away…

What happens to federally funded community clinics?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The community clinics stay open and keep serving the Texans who depend on them. They are local Texas institutions whose federal grants make up a portion of their funding, not all of it, and an independent Texas keeps that funding at home rather than routing it through Washington. The doors do not close. These are Texas clinics serving Texas communities Community health centers, the federally qualified health centers, are local institutions. There are 71 of them serving Texas, operating more than 700 service delivery sites, run by community boards, staffed by Texas clinicians, providing primary care, dental, mental health, and substance-use treatment to underserved Texans on a sliding fee scale. They are physically in Texas, governed in Texas, and serving Texans. Nothing about independence moves a clinic or its patients. The care is delivered here. Federal grants are a portion of the funding, not the whole thing Be precise about the federal role so the picture is honest. Grants from the federal Health Resources and Services Administration provide about 30 percent of a typical health center's revenue. That is meaningful, and the 2026 analysis counts federal grants to Texas as a real cost an independent Texas carries. But it also means roughly 70 percent of a community clinic's funding already comes from other sources: payments for treating Medicaid and Medicare patients, patient fees, state support, and other grants. The clinics are not federal outposts. They are Texas institutions with a federal funding stream layered on top. The grant money is Texans' money, kept home That federal grant share is not Washington's gift. It is Texans' own money, paid to the federal government and routed back with conditions. An independent Texas keeps that revenue in Texas and can fund its community clinics directly, the way it already funds the larger share of their budgets through Medicaid and state programs. The money that supports these clinics does not disappear at independence. I…

How would an independent Texas be governed?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same way it is governed today, by Texans, through the government Texas already runs. Independence does not build a new government from scratch. It removes the layer in Washington and leaves the people of Texas in charge of the one in Austin and the ones in their own counties. Texas already has a full, working government This is the part the scare stories leave out. Texas is not a province waiting for institutions. It is a self-governing state with a constitution, a bicameral legislature, an elected executive, a court system, and a state-level counterpart to nearly every function Washington performs. The Texas Legislature seats 31 senators and 150 representatives. The state is organized into 254 counties, more than any other state in the union, each with its own elected government close to the people it serves. None of that is created by independence. All of it is already here, already staffed, already operating. The structure is already the structure of a nation A self-governing nation needs a constitution, lawmakers, an executive to carry out the laws, and courts to interpret them. Texas has every one of those, in a form that is already republican and already close to how independent nations are built. The current Texas Constitution describes Texas as a free and independent State. The framework does not need to be invented. It needs a few targeted changes to operate on the world stage rather than inside the union, and that work is the business of the transition after a vote. What changes is who has the final say Today, the decisions that shape life in Texas are filtered through a federal government a thousand miles away. After independence, those decisions are made in Texas, by people Texans elect and can vote out. The same Capitol, the same county courthouses, the same elections, but now the buck stops in Austin. That is the whole point of self-government: a government close enough to be held accountable by the people who live under it. The details belong to T…

Would Texas keep its current state government structure?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, as the foundation. Independence does not throw out the government Texas has built. It keeps the existing structure, the constitution, the Legislature, the courts, the agencies, and makes the focused changes needed for that structure to function as a nation rather than as a member of the union. The existing framework is the starting point, not a casualty There is a myth that independence means tearing everything down and starting over. It does not. The Texas Constitution stays. The Legislature stays. The court system stays. The Railroad Commission, the Department of Public Safety, the Comptroller, the General Land Office, the Texas Military Department, all of it stays. Continuity is the default. The agencies that deliver services on Monday before a vote deliver them on Monday after. A focused update, not a teardown What independence does require is targeted constitutional work, and Texas has a proven, low-drama way to do it. In the 1960s, Texas cleaned up its constitution through a single amendment, often called the Deadwood Amendment, that removed obsolete and redundant language all at once. The same kind of vehicle can make the changes independence calls for: removing references to the federal government and the U.S. Constitution, adding treaty-making authority, and expanding the role of the office that handles foreign relations. These are surgical edits to a document that already works, not a blank page. Some changes are mostly a change of name A handful of updates are largely cosmetic, and they are choices, not requirements. An independent Texas could rename the State of Texas to the Republic of Texas, or rename the office of governor to president and the Legislature to a congress, to reflect its standing as a nation. Whether and how to make those naming changes is for the people and their elected representatives to decide. The institutions themselves carry over either way. Filling the gaps the union left After decades inside the union, there are areas where…

Would Texas be a republic or a democracy?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: A republic, the same form Texas has now. The Texas Constitution does not merely allow a republican form of government, it requires one, and that requirement is the one limit written directly into the people's power to change their own government. Texas is already a constitutional republic A republic means the people govern through elected representatives under a constitution and the rule of law, rather than deciding every question by direct majority show of hands. That is exactly what Texas is today. Texans elect lawmakers, an executive, and judges, all bound by a written constitution and a Bill of Rights. Independence does not change that character. It carries it forward, with the same elections and the same representative institutions, now answerable to Texans alone. The republican form is locked into Texas law This is not a preference. It is a constitutional commitment. Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution states that the faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and that, subject to this limitation only, the people have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their government as they think expedient. Read that carefully. The one and only limit Texans placed on their own sweeping right of self-government is that whatever they build must stay a republic. That guardrail does not disappear at independence. It is part of the document Texas carries with it. Why the republican form is a feature, not a technicality A republic protects against two opposite dangers at once: the concentration of power in one ruler, and the raw, unchecked will of a momentary majority. Representatives, a written constitution, separated powers, and a Bill of Rights all slow things down and force decisions through institutions that answer to the people over time. That is how the rights of every Texan, including those on the losing side of any given vote, stay protected no matter which way the political …

How would elections work in an independent Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Through the election system Texas already runs. Texas administers its own elections today, in every county, under its own laws and its own officials. Independence does not require Texas to build an election system. It already has one, and it would keep using it. Texas already runs its own elections Federal elections are administered by the states, and Texas runs a large, mature operation. The Secretary of State serves as the chief election officer. County officials conduct the voting. The Texas Election Code sets the rules. Voter rolls, polling places, ballots, early voting, and the count are all handled in Texas, by Texans, right now. Remove the federal offices from the top of the ballot and the machinery underneath does not change. It is already ours. The same voters, the same ballots, the same officials On the first election day after independence, a Texan would walk into the same polling place, show the same identification, and vote on the same kind of ballot. What changes is what is on it. Instead of choosing members of a distant Congress where Texas holds a small minority of seats, voters choose the leaders of their own nation. The act of voting stays familiar. The stakes get higher, and closer to home. Independence sharpens accountability at the ballot box Inside the union, attention and money are pulled toward Washington, and down-ballot Texas races get a fraction of the focus they deserve. Once Texas governs itself, there is no larger stage to chase and no federal drama to drown out state and local contests. Elections in Texas become the main event. Officials answer to Texas voters and no one else, which means voters hold the real power to reward good service and remove bad. A government that cannot pass the buck to Washington is a government that has to face its own people. The rules of the game are for Texans to set How an independent Texas structures its elections going forward, the calendar, the offices, the role of parties, any reforms to districts or …

Would there still be political parties?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: That is for Texans to decide, and almost certainly yes, because free people organize. The movement takes no side on which parties should exist or who should win. What can be said is that independence is not a partisan project, and the party landscape of an independent Texas belongs to its voters, not to this movement. Independence is not a one-party cause Texas independence is not the property of any party. The case for it, that decisions about Texas should be made in Texas by Texans, lands across the political spectrum. Support is broad enough that it does not fit a single partisan box, and a cause that wide cannot be the project of one faction. The movement's discipline here is deliberate: it advocates for self-government and takes no stance on the partisan questions a free Texas will settle for itself. Parties are how free people organize In every free republic, people who share goals form parties to contest elections and offer voters a clear choice. There is no reason to expect that to stop in an independent Texas, and no desire to stop it. Whatever parties exist would do what parties always do: compete for votes, advance their ideas, and answer to the public at the ballot box. The right to organize politically is itself one of the freedoms self-government protects. The field could open up, not close down There is a practical reason an independent Texas might see a livelier political landscape, not a narrower one. Today, money and attention flow toward Washington, and incumbents draw on contributions from across the union. Once Texas governs itself, that out-of-state money is foreign money, and Texas does not allow political contributions from foreign sources. The result is a more level field, more room for new voices and real competition, and more turnover when voters want it. That tends to widen the political conversation rather than wall it off. The choices belong to the voters How many parties, which parties, how they nominate candidates, how elections are o…

What happens to Texas's current members of Congress?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: When Texas becomes an independent nation, it no longer sends representatives to a federal Congress, because Texas is no longer in that union. Its members of the U.S. House and Senate would no longer hold federal seats. Where those individuals go next is a personal choice, and the deeper point is that Texas trades a small, outvoted delegation for a government that is entirely its own. No union means no seats in its legislature This is simple. A country does not send members to another country's legislature. Once Texas is independent, the offices that exist to represent Texas inside the federal government in Washington no longer apply to Texas, the same way Texas does not send senators to Mexico City or London. The federal seats end because the federal relationship ends. That is not a loss of representation. It is the replacement of distant representation with self-government. The people are the ones who gain power The math of the current arrangement tells the story. Texas sends a few dozen members to a U.S. House of 435 and 2 senators to a Senate of 100. Even when every Texan in Washington votes together, Texas is heavily outnumbered in a body designed to be governed by majorities from everywhere else. Independence ends that permanent minority status. Instead of a small voice in someone else's capital, Texans get the whole say in their own. The power does not vanish. It comes home. Sitting officials choose their own next chapter The men and women who currently hold those federal seats are Texans, and independence does not change that. What they do next is up to them. Many have deep experience in government and public life that an independent Texas could put to good use, in its own offices, its diplomacy, or its public institutions, if they choose that path and the voters choose them. Others may step back. That is an individual decision, made like any other Texan's, and the movement does not presume to script it or to endorse anyone for any role. Texas's own legislatu…

How would Texas take over the functions Washington used to handle?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Mostly by expanding what Texas already does. For nearly every function Washington performs, Texas already runs a state-level counterpart. Independence is less about building new machinery than about scaling up machinery that already exists and filling a handful of genuine gaps. Texas already has a counterpart to almost every federal function This is the fact that defuses the whole worry. Texas has a state-level analog to nearly every cabinet-level federal department. Defense has the Texas Military Department. Law enforcement has the Department of Public Safety and the Texas Rangers. Environmental protection has the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Energy has the Railroad Commission. Land and resources have the General Land Office. Money and revenue have the Comptroller. Roads have the Texas Department of Transportation. The state runs its own power grid through ERCOT. The institutions are not theoretical. They are operating today, and most of them would simply take on a larger role. The handoff happens in phases, not overnight Independence is reached through a transition, not a single switch. After a vote, existing arrangements keep running while the details are negotiated and authority transfers in an orderly way. Things continue as they have until they change, deliberately and on a schedule. The mail moves, the lights stay on, services continue. The work of shifting authority from the federal level to the Texas level proceeds underneath, without leaving Texans without the services they rely on. The four baskets of work The job after a vote sorts into four buckets. Constitutional changes update the founding document to function as a nation. Statutory changes fill gaps where Texas had deferred to federal law and build out capacity, including growing the Texas Military Department into a full national defense. International agreements set up trade, travel, and recognition. And a negotiated settlement with Washington handles the orderly division of assets and…

How would an independent Texas guard against corruption?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: With the oldest and best safeguard there is: a government close enough to the people that the people can watch it and throw it out. Independence does not promise perfect politicians. It removes the distance and the distractions that let bad behavior hide, and it shuts off the flood of outside money that corrupts. Distance is what protects corruption Inside the union, Texans' attention is pulled toward Washington. Federal drama dominates the news, and state and local government runs with far less scrutiny than it deserves. Low public attention is exactly the cover that lets officials misbehave; they can brush off a concern because they have not heard from many constituents who are watching. Independence removes the federal distraction and puts the government Texans can actually reach, the one in Austin and the one in their own county, back at the center of attention. Sunlight is the first disinfectant, and self-government turns the lights up. Cutting off the outside money Follow the money and you find the leverage. Today, contributions pour into Texas races from political interests all over the union, giving entrenched incumbents an edge and tilting the field against challengers. The moment Texas is independent, that out-of-state money becomes foreign money, and Texas does not allow political contributions from foreign sources. That single change levels the playing field, weakens the grip of distant donors, and opens the door to real competition and turnover. Money from outside Texas can no longer buy influence over Texas. Accountability with nowhere to hide Self-government concentrates responsibility. When there is no federal layer to blame and no larger stage for officials to chase, the buck stops in Texas. Voters can see clearly who is responsible for what, reward those who serve well, and remove those who do not. A government that cannot pass the buck to Washington is a government that has to answer to its own people, every election, on the record. The tools to f…

What stops Texas from sliding into authoritarianism after independence?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same things that stop it now, only closer and more accountable: a written constitution, separated powers, independent courts, a Bill of Rights, and free elections that let the people remove anyone who overreaches. Independence does not weaken those guardrails. It puts them fully in the hands of Texans. The guardrails are already built and already in force Texas does not start from a blank slate where a strongman could simply take over. It begins with a constitution that has governed for generations, a Bill of Rights that protects free speech, religion, due process, property, and the right to keep and bear arms, courts that can strike down unlawful acts, and regular elections. All of that is in force today and carries straight through independence. A would-be tyrant in an independent Texas runs into the same wall of law and institutions that exists now, with no distant federal patron to appeal to. Power is split on purpose The Texas Constitution does not gather power in one place. Article 2, Section 1 divides the powers of government into three distinct departments, legislative, executive, and judicial, and forbids anyone in one department from exercising powers that belong to another, except where the constitution expressly allows it. That separation is a deliberate barrier against one person or faction seizing control. It is written into the document Texas already lives under, and it does not vanish when Texas governs itself. If anything, it answers directly to Texans instead of being one layer among several. The people hold the ultimate check In Texas, power is not granted from the top down. Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution states that all political power is inherent in the people. The people elect their representatives, and the people can vote them out. An official who tries to grab more than the law allows faces the most basic check there is: the next election, and the courts in the meantime. Authoritarian rule requires silencing or sidelining …

How would Texas protect minority rights generally?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same way it protects the rights of every Texan: under the Texas Bill of Rights, which already guarantees equal protection to all, and as full and equal citizens of a Texas that belongs to everyone who lives here. Government by the consent of the governed means all of the governed. Independence does not weaken those protections. It puts Texas directly in charge of upholding them. The protections are already written into Texas law Texans do not depend on Washington for their fundamental freedoms. The Texas Constitution opens with a Bill of Rights that protects free speech, religion, due process, property, the right to keep and bear arms, and more, and it applies to every Texan. It also speaks directly to equality. Article 1, Section 3 guarantees that all who form the social compact have equal rights, and that no man or set of men is entitled to exclusive privileges except in consideration of public service. Article 1, Section 3a goes further, providing that equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. Those guarantees are in force today, and they carry straight through independence. Equal protection that answers to Texas directly After independence, those protections are not second-guessed from a thousand miles away. They are upheld by Texas's own constitution and Texas's own courts, accountable to Texans. A right written into the Texas Bill of Rights and enforced by Texas judges is a right that belongs fully to the people of Texas, not one administered at a distance. Self-government means Texas answers to its own promises of equality, in front of its own people. Consent of the governed means all the governed The moral foundation of the movement is government by the consent of the governed, and that phrase has no asterisk. It means every Texan, of every background, of every faith, of every origin. A cause built on that principle cannot turn around and treat any group of Texans as less than full memb…

Would there be term limits?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: That is a decision for the people of Texas and the government they elect, not a promise this movement makes. There is a strong starting point already in place, and the question of term limits is exactly the kind of choice self-government puts back in Texans' hands. This belongs to Texans, not to the movement The Texas Nationalist Movement's job is to win independence and secure the result, not to pre-write the rules of a government that does not yet exist. Whether an independent Texas adopts term limits, for which offices, and of what length, is a structural choice that belongs to the people and their elected representatives. Locking in that answer today would be deciding for Texans something Texans should decide for themselves, and the movement takes no partisan side on it. The starting point is already strong Independence does not begin from nothing on this question. Texas already holds regular elections, which are themselves a recurring check on every officeholder. Every term already ends at the ballot box, where voters can keep or replace anyone. Whatever Texas decides about formal term limits would build on a system in which the people already get the regular, final say over who holds power. There are real choices, and Texans get to weigh them Term limits are a genuine debate in every republic, with honest arguments on both sides. Limits can bring fresh faces and curb entrenchment. The absence of limits can preserve experience and leave the choice entirely to voters. Reasonable people disagree, and that disagreement is precisely what a self-governing people are equipped to settle through their constitution and their lawmakers. The movement does not put its thumb on that scale. Self-government means owning the rules The deeper answer is that the power to set rules like this is the whole point of independence. Inside the union, the structure of high office is shaped by a distant federal system. An independent Texas decides its own offices, its own terms, and its …

How would power be divided in a new Texas government?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The way it is divided now, and the way free republics have always divided it: among separate branches, between state and local levels, and ultimately resting with the people. Independence keeps that structure and makes it fully answerable to Texans. Three branches, already separated by the constitution Texas does not concentrate power, and it would not start. The Texas Constitution, in Article 2, Section 1, divides the powers of government into three distinct departments, legislative, executive, and judicial, and forbids anyone in one department from exercising the powers of another, except where the constitution expressly allows it. The Legislature makes the laws, the executive carries them out, and the courts interpret them, each checking the others. That separation is already in force, and it carries straight through independence as the backbone of a self-governing Texas. Power split between Austin and the local level Authority in Texas is not all gathered in the capital, either. It is shared with 254 county governments, more than any other state in the union, along with more than a thousand cities and towns and other local districts, each with its own elected officials close to the people they serve. That layered design keeps decisions near the Texans they affect. Independence preserves it, and removing the federal layer actually pushes more authority toward the governments closest to home, not toward a distant center. The people hold the power that matters most Underneath every branch and every level sits the real source of authority. Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution states that all political power is inherent in the people, and that they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their government. The branches and the local governments exercise power on loan from the people, who grant it through elections and can take it back the same way. That is the deepest division of power there is: not power handed down to the peopl…

What happens to public schools?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They keep opening every morning, run by the same Texans who run them now. Texas already governs its own public schools almost entirely. Independence changes the small federal slice, not the schoolhouse. Texas already runs its own schools This is the fact that settles most of the worry. Public education in Texas is a Texas operation today. The Texas Education Agency sets the standards, the State Board of Education and the Legislature set policy, and about 1,200 independent school districts, each with its own locally elected board, run the schools day to day. Teachers are hired locally. Curriculum is set in Texas. Buildings are built and maintained with Texas and local money. Washington does not run a single Texas classroom, and it would not be running one the day after independence either. The federal government pays a small share, and only for narrow things Look at where the money comes from. The federal government supplies only about 10 to 14 percent of K-12 funding, and the rest, the overwhelming majority, comes from Texas and local sources, mostly property taxes and the state budget. And the federal slice is not general support for every school. It is targeted money: Title I for schools with concentrations of low-income students, IDEA for special education, school nutrition, and a few smaller programs. Independence does not touch the 86 to 90 percent that is already Texan. It only raises the question of how to handle the targeted federal slice, and the answer to that is straightforward. The money to replace the federal share already leaves Texas This is the heart of it. The federal dollars that flow into Texas schools are Texans' own money, sent to Washington first and routed back with conditions attached. Texans pay about $453 billion a year to the two governments that tax them, and governing Texas, every program folded in, costs about $295 billion. The K-12 funding that currently arrives through Washington does not vanish at independence. It simply stops leavin…

What happens to federal education funding?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It gets replaced by the much larger sum Texans already send to Washington, and the targeted programs it pays for keep running, administered the way they already are, in Austin. The federal share is small, and it was Texans' money to begin with. Put the federal share in perspective The fear behind this question assumes Washington is a major funder of Texas education. It is not. The federal government supplies only about 10 to 14 percent of K-12 funding. The other 86 to 90 percent already comes from Texas: property taxes, the sales tax, and the state budget. So independence is not a question of how Texas survives without its main source of school funding. Washington was never the main source. It is a minority contributor, and a conditional one. Understand what the federal money actually funds Federal education dollars are not a general grant a school can spend however it likes. They are tied to specific purposes. The largest stream is Title I, which targets schools serving low-income students and ran about $18.4 billion nationwide in 2024. Next is IDEA, for special education. Then school nutrition, and a handful of smaller programs. Each comes with federal rules about how it must be spent and reported. The programs are real and they matter, which is exactly why an independent Texas keeps funding them, and keeps the parts it already administers running without interruption. The replacement money is not new money, it is returning money This is the part opponents leave out. Every federal education dollar that lands in Texas came out of Texans' pockets first. It went to Washington as taxes, took a cut along the way, and came back wearing conditions. An independent Texas does not have to find this funding from nowhere. It keeps the revenue at home. Texans pay about $453 billion a year to Washington and Austin combined, and governing Texas costs about $295 billion. The education funding currently routed through Washington stops making the round trip and is simply spent here…

What happens to student loans and federal financial aid?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Existing student loans are contracts and they do not vanish, freeze, or reset when sovereignty changes. And federal aid already crosses borders today, so Texas students would not be cut off from it. Going forward, an independent Texas would run its own aid the way it already runs the rest of its education system. Existing loans are contracts, and they hold Start with what people already owe or are owed. A federal student loan is a contract between a borrower and the lender. A change in which government Texas answers to does not erase a contract any more than it erases a mortgage or a car note. The terms continue. Borrowers keep repaying on schedule, and nobody's balance is wiped out or accelerated by the transition. This is the same answer the live site already gives on student loans, and it holds: independence has no effect on the validity of an existing loan. Federal aid already works across borders Here is what most people do not realize. U.S. federal student aid does not stop at the U.S. border now. American citizens can already use federal Direct Loans, the subsidized, unsubsidized, and PLUS loans, to attend hundreds of schools outside the United States that participate in the federal "Foreign School" program. Students study abroad on federal aid every year through their home institutions. So the machinery for federal aid to flow to students at institutions in another country already exists and runs routinely. Texas students at Texas universities would be one more case the system already handles, not a new problem it has never seen. A transition keeps aid flowing while the details are settled After a vote, the relationship between Texas and the United States gets worked out through negotiation and a transition period, during which existing arrangements continue. Students in the middle of a degree do not get stranded. Loans already disbursed stay disbursed, aid already awarded continues through the transition, and the two governments have every reason to keep it…

What happens to federal research grants at Texas universities?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Research funding does not stop at a border, and Texas universities would keep competing for it, because federal agencies already fund research at institutions in other countries every day. Texas also brings world-class research capacity that the work follows, and a sovereign Texas would fund its own science besides. Federal research money already crosses borders The premise that a grant must end the moment the university sits in another country is simply false. The National Institutes of Health fund research at foreign institutions routinely, foreign organizations are eligible for most NIH research project grants, and the National Science Foundation runs collaborative programs that send funding across borders to partner researchers. Universities in Canada, Britain, and beyond hold and participate in U.S. federal research grants right now. Independence would make Texas one more country whose universities partner with U.S. agencies, which is an ordinary arrangement, not a barrier. The research is in Texas because the capability is in Texas Grants follow talent and facilities, and those do not relocate. Texas is home to major research universities, the University of Texas and Texas A&M systems, Rice, Baylor College of Medicine, the Texas Medical Center in Houston, the largest medical complex in the world, and a deep bench of scientists, labs, and equipment. A federal agency does not move a particle accelerator or a cancer research center because a treaty changed. It keeps funding the work where the capability lives, because the alternative is to lose access to it. The capability is the asset, and the capability is Texan. Texas would fund its own research, and can afford to An independent Texas would not be dependent on outside grants to keep its universities doing science. Texas already funds research through state programs and university endowments, some of the largest in the world. The Permanent University Fund alone backs the UT and A&M systems with an endowment in …

Would Texas degrees still be recognized in the U.S. and abroad?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Degrees are recognized through accreditation and reputation, not through which government a university sits under, and Texas universities are accredited and respected worldwide today. Nothing about independence undoes a diploma already earned or a university's standing. Recognition does not come from Washington in the first place Here is the fact that dissolves the worry. The U.S. federal government does not certify or validate college degrees. There is no central federal body that stamps a degree as legitimate. In the United States, recognition rests with the receiving party: the university you transfer to, the employer who hires you, or the state licensing board that licenses your profession. So a Texas degree was never "recognized" by Washington to begin with. Independence cannot take away a recognition the federal government does not grant. Accreditation is private, not federal, and Texas universities already have it Degrees carry weight because the institution behind them is accredited, and accreditation in the United States is done by private, nongovernmental organizations, not by the government. The U.S. Department of Education only *recognizes* those private accreditors; it does not accredit a single school itself. Texas universities are accredited today by these independent bodies, and that accreditation does not evaporate because Texas becomes a country. The standing of the University of Texas, Texas A&M, Rice, and the rest rests on their academic quality and their accreditation, both of which Texas keeps. (The next answer covers how Texas handles accreditation going forward.) Degrees are recognized worldwide on reputation, which Texas keeps Internationally, recognition works the same way: there is no single global authority, and a degree's worth abroad depends on the university's reputation and on credential evaluation by the receiving country's own bodies. Texas universities are already known and respected around the world, enrolling international s…

What happens to federal special-education requirements (IDEA)?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas already educates its special-needs students, already runs the programs, and already pays most of the bill, because Washington funds only a fraction of what it promised. Independence keeps the commitment to these students and ends the broken federal funding arrangement that left Texas covering the gap. Texas already delivers special education, today The services that IDEA governs are not delivered from Washington. They are delivered in Texas classrooms by Texas educators, overseen by the Texas Education Agency and run through the roughly 1,200 local school districts. The evaluations, the individualized plans, the specialists, the classrooms, all of it already happens in Texas, staffed and managed by Texans. IDEA is a federal law that sets requirements and promises money, but the actual education of special-needs children is a Texas operation now and would continue as one. Washington promised 40 percent and delivers about an eighth This is the part of the IDEA story that changes how the question looks. When Congress passed the law, it committed the federal government to fund 40 percent of the added cost of special education. It has never come close. Federal funding has not exceeded about 18 percent in its best year and now runs under 13 percent, roughly an eighth of the promise. The Congressional Research Service put the nationwide shortfall at nearly $24 billion in a single recent year. For Texas, the gap Washington leaves runs more than a billion and a half dollars a year, a bill Texas already pays out of its own treasury to serve its own students. Independence does not open the gap, it closes a broken deal Because Texas is already covering most of the cost, independence does not create a funding hole in special education. The hole is already here, built into a federal promise Washington has broken for decades. What independence ends is the arrangement where Washington writes the mandate, pays an eighth of it, and sends Texas the rest of the bill with conditio…

How would Texas handle school and university accreditation?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Accreditation in America is already private, not federal, so an independent Texas inherits a system that does not depend on Washington. Texas universities keep their existing accreditation, Texas already oversees its own schools, and a sovereign Texas can recognize accreditors itself, exactly as it does many of these functions now. Accreditation is not a federal function to begin with The premise that Washington accredits schools is wrong, and clearing it up answers most of the question. In the United States, accreditation is performed by private, nongovernmental organizations. The U.S. Department of Education does not accredit a single college; it only *recognizes* the private accreditors as reliable. So accreditation never ran through the federal government in the operational sense. Texas universities are accredited by independent bodies today, and independence does not sever a federal tie that was never the source of accreditation in the first place. Existing accreditation does not disappear Because the accreditors are private organizations, not government agencies, a Texas university's accreditation is a relationship with an independent body, not with Washington. That relationship does not automatically end when Texas becomes a country. These accreditors already operate across the country, the federal government eliminated the old regional/national geographic distinction in 2020, and they accredit institutions wherever those institutions are. A Texas university keeps its accreditation through the transition, and its standing rests on its academic quality, which independence leaves untouched. Texas already accredits and oversees its own schools Texas is not new to this work. For K-12, the Texas Education Agency already sets standards, accredits school districts, and holds them accountable, a function Texas performs entirely on its own today. For higher education, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board already oversees public colleges and universities, appr…

What role would replace the U.S. Department of Education?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Mostly, the agencies Texas already has. The U.S. Department of Education does not run schools, it routes money and enforces rules, and Texas already runs the schools and already has the agencies to handle the rest. Independence folds a thin federal layer into a Texas education system that is already built. Know what the federal department actually does Clear up the misconception first, because it does most of the work here. The U.S. Department of Education does not operate schools, hire teachers, write curriculum, or run universities. None of that. Its core jobs are narrower: it routes federal money to states and students (Title I, IDEA, Pell grants and federal student aid), it enforces certain civil-rights laws in schools, it collects national education statistics, and it recognizes private accreditors. It is a funding-and-rules agency, not a school system. So "replacing" it does not mean replacing the people who educate Texas children. They already work for Texas. Texas already runs the school system The actual education of Texans happens through institutions that are already Texan. The Texas Education Agency oversees K-12, accredits districts, and administers state and federal funds. About 1,200 local school districts run the schools. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board oversees public colleges and universities. That is the part of "the Department of Education" that touches a real classroom, and in Texas it is already a Texas operation. Independence does not need to stand up a school system. The school system is here. The funding role is just a matter of keeping the money home The department's biggest function is moving money: distributing Title I, IDEA, and student-aid dollars. Independence handles that by keeping the money in Texas in the first place rather than sending it to Washington to be sent back. The Texas Education Agency already distributes education funds and already administers the federal streams that flow through it, so the mechanism exis…

Would college tuition change?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Tuition is set in Texas already, by Texas institutions and the boards Texans appoint, so independence does not impose a tuition change from outside. What independence does is hand Texas full control of the levers, the funding, the student-aid system, and the policies, that actually drive what college costs. Tuition is already a Texas decision The starting point clears up the worry. Tuition at Texas public universities is not set by Washington. It is set by the universities and their boards of regents, within a framework the Texas Legislature and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board shape. That is true today, and it stays true after independence. There is no federal tuition authority that independence removes, and no outside body that would suddenly start dictating what Texas charges. The people who set tuition now are Texans, and they would still be Texans. Independence does not raise tuition, because the funding stays The fear is that losing federal involvement spikes the price. But the public funding that supports Texas universities is overwhelmingly Texan already, the state appropriation, the endowments like the Permanent University Fund, and tuition itself. The federal role in higher education is mostly student aid and research grants, both of which, as the aid and research answers explain, continue across borders. Independence keeps Texas's own funding for its universities right where it is, and keeps the federal aid flowing through the transition, so there is no funding shock to pass on to students as higher tuition. Texas keeps the revenue that could ease the burden Here is where the case actually points toward relief. The most expensive thing Texans fund is not their universities, it is Washington. Texans send up about $72 billion a year just in interest on a federal debt they never voted for, plus about $150 billion a year in fresh federal borrowing. None of that educates a single Texan. An independent Texas that stops that outflow has more room in…

How would Texas protect the rights of people who voted no?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same way it protects the rights of everyone else: under the Texas Bill of Rights, which already guarantees them, and as full citizens of a Texas that belongs to all Texans, not only to those who voted yes. Their rights are already written down Texans do not depend on Washington for their fundamental freedoms. The Texas Constitution opens with a Bill of Rights that protects free speech, religion, due process, property, the right to keep and bear arms, and more, and in several respects it protects them more strongly than the federal Constitution does. Those protections are already in force, they apply to every Texan regardless of how they voted, and independence does not weaken a single one of them. If anything, an independent Texas answers to its own Bill of Rights directly, without it being second-guessed from outside. A free vote includes the freedom to lose one Independence is decided by a referendum, the most democratic instrument there is. In every election, some people are on the losing side, and they remain full and equal citizens the next morning. That is how self-government works. A Texan who votes no is not a second-class anything. They are a Texan whose side did not carry a particular vote, exactly like a Texan whose candidate lost an election, and they keep every right, every freedom, and every claim on their government that they had the day before. Independence is not a purge, it is a homecoming There is no version of Texas independence that involves treating fellow Texans as enemies. The entire premise of the movement is government by the consent of the governed and closer to the people it serves. A government built on that premise cannot turn around and disenfranchise the very neighbors it claims to represent. People who voted no will vote in the next election, run for office, own property, speak freely, worship freely, and shape the country Texas becomes. Many who oppose independence beforehand become invested in making it succeed once it is the s…

How will an independent Texas defend itself?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas has always shown a belief in a strong national defense, with a focus on threats to the safety and security of Texans at home. An independent Texas has little in the way of conventional national security concerns. The threat of a combined land, air, and sea invasion is next to non-existent. But threats do still exist. There is the threat of the cartels and violence spilling over our border with Mexico as well as the threat of international terrorists using that same border to execute attacks on civilian targets within Texas. In addition, there are always threats that could upset international stability. While these are often met with the combined military might of the western world, an independent Texas would be ready and willing to do its part. The bulk of Texas national defense will be concentrated on three key areas: strengthening the borders against national security risks, defense against attack from international state actors, and supporting military actions of allies that are congruent with our strategic objectives. Start with what is already here. Defense spending in Texas runs $47 to $72 billion a year. The 2023 figure was $71.6 billion, the most of any state in the country, anchored by Lockheed Martin's F-35 line in Fort Worth and a vast installed base that includes Fort Hood, Joint Base San Antonio, Fort Bliss, and the Air Force training wings. An independent Texas would not try to copy Washington's $874 billion global-hegemon budget. It would defend Texas. Benchmarked to capable middle powers, Australia funds its entire military for about $29 billion and Israel for about $31 billion, while the NATO target of 2 percent of GDP would give Texas roughly $55 billion a year, two percent of its $2.77 trillion economy. A budget in the Australia-Israel range would rank Texas among the world's top fifteen militaries. And if Texas chose to keep the full $72 billion the federal government already spends on defense inside the state, it would rank around sixth or…

What will happen to all of the U.S. military bases after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas is currently home to 15 military installations with an economic impact of around $150 billion. However, the military installations account for only $14 billion in federal payroll spending in Texas. In addition, there are currently roughly 150,000 Texans on active duty across all branches of the military. These are not insignificant figures. However, military presence and political union are two different issues. The United States maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. No one would argue that those 70 countries are in a political union with the United States due to the presence of a U.S. military base, nor would anyone argue that they should be. The presence of these military bases on foreign soil is solely about shared defense concerns and security interests. It does not imply any further political connection. After a Texit, Texas may not share a government with the rest of the United States, but we will still share defense and national security concerns. International military cooperation has been a cornerstone of U.S. defense policy since the Second World War and, while it has been suggested that there should be some reforms, the underlying policy is unlikely to change, especially close to home. It is, therefore, highly probable that Texas would enter into a mutual defense pact with the United States that includes joint use and operation of existing military bases and facilities in Texas or their full transfer to the Texas Military Department. As a part of any mutual defense pact, Texas will likely have to pledge to spend a set percentage of its GDP on national defense, much like the reforms proposed for NATO. In return, the United States should guarantee the availability of military arms and equipment for tariff-free purchase by manufacturers in the United States and vice versa. Texas should stipulate that the mutual defense pact should only extend to commonly agreed defense concerns. Any mutual defense pact of…

What will happen to Texans serving in the United States military after Texit?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: There are already federal policies in place that governs non-citizens in the military. Every year, more than 8,000 non-citizens enlist in the United States armed forces. In addition, because of existing international treaties, citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau are allowed to enlist and regularly do so, as are Canadian citizens of Native American heritage. It is reasonable to assume that the United States military would want to extend this existing policy to cover the roughly 150,000 Texans who currently serve on active duty, and likely any other Texans who would want to in the future. While this option may be extended to Texas, many, if not all, Texans currently serving in the military will want to shift their enlistment to the Texas Military Forces as early as possible.

Will veterans continue to receive benefits after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: If you're a Veteran who lives overseas, you remain entitled to the benefits and services you earned through your military service. Most VA benefits are payable regardless of your place of residence or nationality.

Will I still retain my veterans' benefits after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Veterans who live outside the United States remain entitled to the benefits and services earned through their military service. Most VA benefits are payable regardless of your place of residence or nationality. VA benefits include disability compensation, pension, education and training, health care, home loans, insurance, vocational rehabilitation and employment and burial. The Department of Veterans Affairs publishes the full details at va.gov.

How will Texas handle natural disasters without FEMA?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texans are no strangers to natural disasters. Any notion that Texas needs FEMA is misinformation at best and a blatant lie at worst. It is important to remember that FEMA does not do any actual immediate disaster relief. That is handled by the Texas Military Department as well as local and State law enforcement and volunteers. FEMA's primary role is logistics and administration. In short, they come in and take control of what Texas is already doing well. In the aftermath, FEMA coordinates the distribution of some, not all, of the resources being funneled into the areas affected by the disaster. That includes cots for shelters, some bottled water, and some ice. However, this is an extremely small percentage when compared to the outpouring of donations from private relief organizations, churches, and individuals. As anyone in Texas can tell you, FEMA gets in the way more than it helps. During Hurricanes Rita and Ike, they refused to distribute ice collected for the disaster zones until county sheriffs ordered it to be done with or without FEMA authorization. During the Bastrop wildfires, they turned away firefighters that came from all over Texas to help fight the fires. These are just two examples that show how the same bureaucratic cancer that infects every other Federal agency is at its absolute worst in FEMA. What FEMA really does is hand out money. Looking at FEMA's assistance in the wake of Hurricane Ike makes for a solid comparison. FEMA approved 121,666 Individual Assistance Applications and spent $532 million on individual assistance. It spent another $2.2 billion on Public Assistance Grants. In total, for Hurricane Ike, FEMA assistance in Texas totaled approximately $2.7 billion. By TNM's most recent comprehensive fiscal analysis, Texans overpaid about $103 billion a year into the Federal system. We sent roughly $265 billion to Washington each year and got back, at best, only about $162 billion in Federal spending, just 61 cents of value for every dollar sen…

What is the Texas Military Department and the State Guard?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The Texas Military Department is the state's own standing military command, and it exists right now. It is not a body that has to be invented after an independence vote. Texas already fields, funds, and commands its own forces, and an independent Texas would build on that foundation rather than start from a blank page. Three branches, already in place The Texas Military Department is made up of the three military branches of the State of Texas: the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard. All three are administered by the state adjutant general, who is appointed by the governor, and all three fall under the governor's command. This is a real institution with real formations, not a paper plan. The Texas Army National Guard fields the 36th Infantry Division, the 71st Troop Command, and the 176th Engineer Brigade. The Texas Air National Guard fields the 149th Fighter Wing, the 147th Attack Wing, and the 136th Airlift Wing. What the State Guard is, and why it matters The Texas State Guard is the piece most people have never heard of, and it is the one that makes the point cleanest. It is a state defense force that answers to the governor alone. It is organized into army regiments, air wings, maritime regiments, and medical battalions, and it is staffed by Texans, many of them prior-service veterans of the regular forces. Because the State Guard is exclusively a Texas force, it cannot be called into federal service the way the National Guard can. It is the clearest existing example of military capability that is already, fully, and only Texas's. Texas commands these forces today The everyday command of the Texas Military Department runs to Austin, not to Washington. The governor is the commander in chief of Texas's forces under the Texas Constitution, the adjutant general reports to the governor, and the department mobilizes for Texas missions, hurricane response, border operations, flood rescue, on the governor's order. Texans …

Would Texas join NATO?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: That would be a decision for the government Texans elect, not a promise the movement makes. What can be said now is that the option would be open to a sovereign Texas, that joining is a deliberate process rather than an automatic one, and that Texas's security does not depend on the answer either way. This is a sovereign foreign-policy choice Whether an independent Texas seeks NATO membership, pursues a different security arrangement, or stays out of formal alliances entirely is precisely the kind of question that belongs to the elected government of the future Republic and the people it answers to. The Texas Nationalist Movement's job is to win independence and secure the result, not to pre-write the treaty commitments of a nation that does not yet exist. Locking that in today would put the cart generations before the horse. How NATO accession actually works NATO is not a club you join by sending in a form. Under Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the existing members may, by unanimous agreement, invite a new European state to accede. That invitation has to be followed by a signed accession protocol and ratification by every single member country according to its own national process. In plain terms, accession requires the yes of all current members, and any one of them can slow or stall it. Recent history shows it: Turkey held up Finland's and Sweden's accession for months before agreeing. The point is simply that membership is earned through diplomacy, not granted on request, and a serious Texas would treat it that way. There is a geographic question worth being honest about The North Atlantic Treaty, by its own text, contemplates inviting "European" states. Texas is not in Europe. That does not make cooperation with NATO impossible, plenty of non-member nations partner with NATO, but it is an honest reason to expect that Texas's most natural security relationships run closer to home rather than through a transatlantic alliance. We would rather state that p…

Would Texas sign a mutual-defense treaty with the United States?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Almost certainly, and it is the most likely shape of the Texas-United States security relationship after independence. The two countries would no longer share a government, but they would still share a border, a continent, and a long list of common threats. A mutual-defense arrangement is the natural, stabilizing answer to that, and both sides have every reason to want one. Shared neighbors share defense When Texas becomes independent, Texas and the United States stop sharing a government. They do not stop sharing security concerns. The cartels do not respect the new border. Terrorism does not. Threats to trade routes, to the Gulf, and to the airspace over North America are common problems for two neighbors who will still do hundreds of billions of dollars in business with each other. Allied nations meet shared threats with shared commitments. That is the entire logic of a mutual-defense treaty, and it fits Texas and the United States precisely. What such a treaty would actually contain A Texas-United States defense pact would most likely cover the things these agreements always cover. Continued joint use and operation of the existing military installations in Texas. A Texas commitment to spend an agreed share of its economy on defense, the same kind of benchmark NATO members commit to. In return, guaranteed tariff-free access to arms and equipment for defense manufacturers on both sides of the new border, which matters enormously given that the F-35 is built in Fort Worth. And a transition period in which forces operate under joint command until Texas's own forces reach full readiness. None of that is exotic. It is the standard furniture of an alliance between neighbors. The status-of-forces piece is routine, not novel People hear "foreign troops on our soil" and picture something dramatic. The reality is paperwork that allied nations execute as a matter of course. A Status of Forces Agreement, the instrument the United States already has with every NATO host, gove…

How would Texas secure its border with Mexico?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: With more control than it has now, not less. The hard truth Texans already know is that the border is not secure under federal management today. An independent Texas would set its own border and immigration policy, direct its own forces to the line, and answer to the people who actually live with the consequences, instead of to officials a continent away. Border security is already largely a Texas effort The state is not starting from zero. Texas already funds and runs major border operations with its own money and its own people. The Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Rangers, the Texas Military Department, and the Texas Highway Patrol are on the river right now. The state already appropriates its own budget for border security on top of whatever the federal government does, precisely because Texans concluded that Washington was not getting the job done. The institutions, the personnel, and the will already exist inside Texas. Independence removes the official a continent away Today, the most important decisions about the Texas-Mexico border, how it is enforced, who crosses, what the policy is, are made in Washington by people who do not live near it and do not answer to Texans for the results. That is the core dysfunction. Independence ends it. A sovereign Texas would own its border policy completely. It could decide its own enforcement posture, its own ports-of-entry rules, and its own immigration system, calibrated to Texas's needs rather than to a federal compromise written for fifty states with conflicting interests. A secure border and a working crossing are not opposites Securing the border does not mean sealing it. The Texas-Mexico relationship is one of the largest trade relationships on Earth, with two-way commerce that runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and more than a million lawful crossings happen on the southern border every single day for work and family and trade. An independent Texas has every incentive to keep lawful …

How would Texas handle intelligence and cybersecurity?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: With capabilities it has already started building, and with the kind of partnerships every modern nation relies on. Intelligence and cybersecurity are real responsibilities for any sovereign state, and they are exactly the practical security challenges an independent Texas would be built to meet, rather than the conventional-invasion fears that do not apply. Texas already runs intelligence and cyber functions The state is not starting from a blank slate here either. Texas already operates the Texas Fusion Center, the state's around-the-clock hub for sharing homeland-security and criminal-threat information across local, state, and federal agencies. On the digital side, the Texas Department of Information Resources already sets the state's technology and cybersecurity policy, works to detect threats to government systems, and helps agencies recover from cyber incidents. These are functioning institutions with trained people, doing real intelligence and cyber work for Texas today. Sovereignty means owning the mission outright What independence changes is ownership. Today these Texas functions plug into a federal apparatus that Texans neither control nor fully see. A sovereign Texas would run its own national intelligence and cybersecurity mission end to end, set its own priorities, and answer to its own elected leaders for the results. It would build on the Fusion Center and the Department of Information Resources, and on the deep cyber and technology talent already concentrated in Texas, to stand up a national capability scaled to a country rather than a state. Intelligence-sharing is how the real world works No nation, however large, runs its intelligence entirely alone. The serious powers cooperate, pool signals, and share warning, because threats like terrorism and cyberattacks do not respect borders. An independent Texas would do the same, almost certainly through a close intelligence relationship with the United States as part of the broader defense partnership,…

What happens to federal law enforcement like the FBI, DEA, and ATF in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Their federal authority in Texas ends at independence, and Texas's own law-enforcement institutions, which already exist and already do this work, take it from there. The functions these agencies perform do not vanish. They come home to Texas agencies that answer to Texans. Texas already has the institutions to do this work Texas is not missing a state-level version of these agencies. It has them. The Texas Rangers have served as the state's bureau of investigation since 1935, with lead responsibility for major violent crimes, unsolved cases, serial offenders, public corruption, and officer-involved shootings, the same heartland of work the FBI does federally. The broader Texas Department of Public Safety handles statewide criminal investigation, organized crime and cartel activity, fugitive apprehension, and major-incident response. Texas already investigates drug trafficking and firearms crimes under Texas law every day. The capability exists, it is mature, and it is Texan. What the federal agencies actually do, and where it lands Each of these agencies has a defined job, and each has a clear Texas home. The FBI is the federal government's general investigative agency, enforcing federal statutes; its domestic-investigation role is exactly what the Texas Rangers and DPS already perform under state law. The DEA is a single-mission drug-enforcement agency; Texas already enforces its own drug laws and runs major anti-cartel operations. The ATF enforces federal firearms and explosives law and investigates arsons and bombings; Texas has its own firearms, arson, and explosives statutes and the investigators to enforce them. Nothing essential is lost. The jurisdiction simply shifts from a federal badge to a Texas one. Cooperation does not require shared sovereignty Independence does not mean Texas stops working with American law enforcement. It means Texas works with them as a sovereign partner instead of as a subordinate jurisdiction. Police agencies of neighboring count…

Would the Texas National Guard stay under Texas control?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Permanent, exclusive Texas control of Texas's forces is one of the central things independence delivers. Today the Texas National Guard serves Texas in normal times but carries a federal string. Independence cuts that string for good. How it works today Right now the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard live in a dual-status arrangement. Day to day, they belong to Texas. The governor commands them, the state adjutant general runs them, and they answer to Austin for hurricanes, floods, and border missions. But under federal law, the President retains an authority to call the National Guard into federal service in certain circumstances. That call-up power is the one way Washington can reach into the Texas Guard, and it is the precise limitation independence is designed to remove. What independence changes Sovereignty resolves the dual status in Texas's favor, permanently. An independent Texas's forces answer to Texas and only to Texas. There is no federal call-up authority over the military of a separate nation. The Texas Guard would simply become what the Texas State Guard already is today: a force under the exclusive command of the Texas government, with no outside claim on it. The arrangement Texans already trust for the State Guard becomes the arrangement for all of Texas's forces. Texas already commands these forces in every way that counts It is worth seeing how little has to change institutionally. The chain of command already runs to the governor. The adjutant general is already a Texas appointee. The soldiers and airmen are already Texans, the bases are already in Texas, the equipment is already here. The Texas Military Department already mobilizes for Texas missions on the governor's order. Independence does not build a new command. It removes the single federal exception sitting on top of a command that is otherwise already Texas's. The State Guard proves the model Texans do not have to imagine a state force that Washington cannot tou…

Could the President nationalize the Texas National Guard before independence is final?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: This is a transition question, not a settled one, and we will treat it honestly. The short version: under federal law as it stands, the President does have statutory authorities to call the National Guard into federal service in certain situations, so this is a real factor to plan around during the period after the vote but before independence is final. It is a negotiation and contingency question, and the deeper answer is that the politics make a hostile call-up far less workable than the statute alone suggests. Be straight about the federal law We are not going to pretend the law says something it does not. Several federal statutes let the President bring the National Guard, including Texas's, into federal service without a state's agreement in defined circumstances. There is a call-up authority used to enforce federal law or respond to rebellion or invasion, where orders are to be issued through the governors of the states. And there is the older Insurrection Act, which provides separate pathways for the President to use the military domestically, and which in two of its three pathways does not require a state's request or consent. Whether and how those authorities could be stretched to an independence transition has never been tested, and reasonable lawyers would fight hard over it. Honesty requires saying that plainly rather than inventing a guarantee. This is exactly why the process is built the way it is The Texas Nationalist Movement has always insisted on a lawful, peaceful, democratic path for precisely this kind of reason. The strength of Texas's position is not a clever legal trick. It is legitimacy: a free, fair vote of the people of Texas, conducted through the Texas Legislature under Article 1, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution. A peaceful, democratic mandate is the worst possible target for a federal show of force, because using troops against millions of Texans who simply voted would be a political and moral disaster for Washington, not a tidy leg…

What happens to federal military equipment and weapons stationed in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It gets settled at the negotiating table, the same as every other asset question. Some equipment stays with Texas, some is purchased or transferred, some leaves with departing United States forces. The split is a matter of orderly accounting, and it does not determine whether Texas can defend itself. Who owns what today The equipment at U.S. installations in Texas belongs to the United States, and so does most of what the Texas Military Department handles day to day. Under 32 U.S.C. 710, military property the United States issues to a state's National Guard remains the property of the United States. Texas holds custody and operational control. Washington holds the title. What the Texas State Guard buys with state money is Texas property outright and stays that way, but the heavy equipment of the Texas Army Guard and the Texas Air Guard sits on federal title. That is why this is a negotiation rather than an assumption in either direction. How countries actually divide military equipment Every peaceful division of a country in the modern era has run on the same two rules: immovable property goes to the country where it sits, and movable property is divided by agreement, usually in proportion to population. Those rules are written down in the 1983 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts, which never entered into force for want of ratifications. Governments follow them anyway, because they are what parties converge on once they are actually sitting at the table. Czechoslovakia, 1993 Czechoslovakia is the closest analog to a negotiated Texas exit, and it went exactly that way. The country divided on January 1, 1993. Buildings and installations went to whichever republic they stood in, and movable federal property, army equipment included, was split two to one, Czech to Slovak, matching the population ratio. Much of the hardware and many of the units had already been repositioned before the split date, and compensation wa…

Would Texas need a navy or coast guard for the Gulf?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas would maintain a maritime force for its Gulf coast, and the most likely shape of it is a coast guard built for the real missions, search and rescue, law enforcement, environmental and port protection, rather than a blue-water battle fleet Texas does not need. Texas already has the seed of this capability in place. Match the force to the actual mission Start with what a Gulf maritime force is actually for. Texas has a long, busy, vital coastline: the Port of Houston, the largest United States port by foreign tonnage, energy infrastructure offshore, fisheries, and heavy commercial traffic. Protecting that means search and rescue, fisheries and law enforcement, environmental response, aids to navigation, and port and coastal security. Those are coast-guard missions. They are not a reason to build an aircraft-carrier navy. Right-sizing the force to Texas's genuine needs is not a limitation. It is simply how a serious country plans. Texas already has a maritime element to build on The Texas State Guard already includes maritime regiments, staffed in part by veterans of the United States Coast Guard, Navy, and Marines, trained for waterborne search and rescue, dive recovery, and boat operations, and they have worked alongside the United States Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security. That is a real, existing maritime capability under the governor's command. An independent Texas would have a foundation to grow a national coast guard from, not a blank stretch of water. A coast guard is what the missions actually call for Look at what a coast guard does, by its own founding charter, and the fit is obvious. The United States Coast Guard's core duties are enforcing the law on the water, maritime surveillance and interdiction, promoting safety of life and property at sea, search and rescue, and maintaining aids to navigation. Every one of those is a thing Texas's Gulf coast needs done. An independent Texas would stand up a coast guard scaled to its coastline a…

How would Texas handle air defense?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas already flies its own combat air wings, and an independent Texas would defend its skies with a combination of its own air forces and the cooperative arrangements that every nation in North America already relies on. Air defense is one more area where Texas starts with real capability rather than from nothing. Texas already has military aviation This is not hypothetical. The Texas Air National Guard already fields the 149th Fighter Wing, the 147th Attack Wing, and the 136th Airlift Wing, flown and maintained by Texans, under a chain of command that runs to the governor. Fighters, attack aircraft, and airlift are already in Texas colors today. An independent Texas would build its national air defense on top of that existing force, not conjure an air arm out of thin air after the vote. Texas builds front-line aircraft on its own soil Almost no aspiring nation can say what Texas can: it manufactures advanced combat aircraft itself. The F-35, one of the most capable fighters in the world, is built in Fort Worth. Texas is not merely a buyer of modern airpower. It is a producer of it, with the industrial base, the supply chain, and the skilled workforce already here. A country that builds fifth-generation fighters is exceptionally well positioned to equip and sustain its own air force over time. Air defense in North America is already cooperative Here is the fact that reframes the whole question. Even the United States does not defend North American airspace alone. It does it jointly with Canada through NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, a binational command that has run the shared monitoring and defense of the continent's skies since the 1950s and that both countries have renewed without expiration. The very model for air defense on this continent is two sovereign nations sharing the mission. An independent Texas would fit naturally into cooperative air-defense arrangements with its neighbors, because that is already how the airspace over North Ame…

What happens to people who live in Texas but moved here from elsewhere?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They become Texans, the same as everyone else. Citizenship in an independent Texas would follow from living here lawfully, not from where you were born or how long your family has been in the state. A transplant from California, Ohio, or anywhere else who is legally living in Texas at independence is a citizen of the new nation. Citizenship would follow residence, not birthplace The movement's position on this is already on the record, and it is simple: Texans who are legally living within the state when it becomes independent automatically gain Texas citizenship. That rule does not ask where you came from. A Texan is a Texan whether their roots run six generations deep or six years. The state has always been built by people who chose it, and independence keeps faith with that. If you have made your life in Texas and you are here lawfully, you are in. This is how new nations have always handled it There is nothing novel here. When a new country comes into being, the standard, well-precedented approach is to grant citizenship to the people lawfully resident in its territory on the day it becomes independent. When Scotland prepared its 2014 independence vote, its plan called for automatic citizenship for everyone living in Scotland at the time, regardless of where in Britain or the world they had come from. A people define their new nation by who lives in it and helps build it, not by an accident of birthplace. Texas would do the same. Your US citizenship is a separate question, and it is secure Moving to Texas from another state does not put your existing US citizenship at risk, and neither does Texas independence. Under settled US law, an American does not lose citizenship without a clear, voluntary intent to give it up, which is why so many Americans hold dual citizenship today. Becoming a citizen of an independent Texas would not, by itself, cost a transplant their US citizenship. We cover that in depth in the answer on keeping your US citizenship and benefits. Th…

What about Texans living in other states when independence happens?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They would not be cut off from home. A Texan who happens to be living in another state when independence arrives keeps their tie to Texas, and the path to Texas citizenship for people with a clear Texas connection is exactly the kind of detail the new nation would settle in its citizenship law. Independence is not a door that locks behind the people who are temporarily away. A military posting or a job out of state does not erase being a Texan Plenty of Texans are living elsewhere at any given moment: service members stationed at a base in another state, workers on a multi-year assignment, students finishing a degree, families caring for a relative. None of that makes them less Texan. A nation does not abandon its own people because they are temporarily across a line, and an independent Texas would have every reason to keep faith with Texans abroad, just as the United States keeps faith with Americans living overseas today. Citizenship rules for Texans abroad are the new nation's to set, and the precedents are generous Exactly how a Texan living out of state claims or confirms Texas citizenship is a question for the future Texas Legislature, the same as the rest of the citizenship framework. But the precedents all point one way. Nations routinely extend citizenship by descent and by prior residence, and they build straightforward processes for citizens abroad to register, vote, and come home. A Texan with deep ties to the state, family, property, a life built here, is precisely the kind of person a sensible citizenship law is written to include, not exclude. Coming home stays open There is no version of this where a Texan who was working in Denver or stationed in Virginia is barred from returning. Free people move toward home, and managed movement between an independent Texas and the United States is the easy part, handled the way contiguous neighbors handle it everywhere. We cover the travel mechanics in the answers on passports, freedom of movement, and the border…

What happens to legal immigrants and green-card holders living in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Their lives do not get upended. People who are in Texas lawfully stay lawfully, and the status of lawful permanent residents already living here is exactly the kind of acquired right that a transition is built to protect. Independence is a change of government, not a mass eviction. Lawful residents keep their lawful status Start with the principle. When sovereignty changes, the settled approach in international practice is to protect the legal status people have already acquired, not to wipe it out. That rule lives in practice rather than in a treaty. The 1983 Vienna Convention on succession to state property says in Article 6 that it does not prejudge questions about the rights of individuals, so the protection comes from what states actually do, and what they do has been consistent. For someone living in Texas on a green card or another lawful status, that means the default is continuity. The framework that recognizes their right to live and work here carries forward into the transition while the details are settled, rather than vanishing the day the flag changes. What a "green card" actually is, and why that matters A US green card is lawful permanent residence in the United States. Under US rules, a permanent resident holds that status until they either naturalize or give it up, and ordinary travel does not jeopardize it. That is useful to understand for two reasons. First, a green-card holder living in Texas does not automatically lose their US permanent residence because Texas becomes independent, any more than a US citizen automatically loses citizenship. Second, it shows the world already runs systems that track and preserve a person's lawful status across borders and over time. An independent Texas steps into that reality, it does not break it. Texas would set its own residency and citizenship rules going forward Looking ahead, an independent Texas would define its own categories of residency and its own path to citizenship, the way every nation does, and t…

Would Texas issue its own passports?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Issuing passports is one of the basic functions every independent nation performs, and an independent Texas would do it like any other country. A Texas passport is part of what it means to be a nation among nations, and the movement has named it as a concrete step in securing independence. A passport is standard nation-state machinery Every sovereign country issues travel documents to its citizens. It is as routine as running a treasury or a court system. A passport is simply a government's certification of who its citizens are, recognized by other governments so its people can travel. An independent Texas issuing Texas passports is not exotic or aspirational; it is one of the ordinary, expected functions of statehood, and the plan for securing independence lists it plainly alongside reopening a Texas embassy abroad. Texas already runs the kind of identity systems this requires Issuing secure documents is not new ground for Texas. The state already operates large-scale identity and credentialing systems, issuing driver licenses and state IDs to tens of millions of people with security features, biometric data, and verification built in. The institutional muscle to produce a secure, internationally recognized travel document already exists in Texas. Standing up passport issuance is a matter of organizing capability the state already has, not inventing it from nothing. It would meet international standards so it works everywhere For a passport to be useful, other countries have to accept it, and that runs through the same global system every nation uses. Travel documents follow international standards set through the civil-aviation framework that nations join, which is how a passport issued in one country is read and trusted at a border in another. As covered in the international cluster, an independent Texas would join those bodies as a matter of routine administrative work. A Texas passport would be built to that standard, so it functions at borders and airport…

Would Texans need visas or work permits to work in the U.S.?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The terms for Texans working in the United States would be set in the separation negotiation, and the strong likelihood, given how much labor and commerce already crosses that line, is an arrangement that keeps it easy. Plenty of Texans would also keep their US citizenship, which removes the question entirely for them. The honest answer is that the details are negotiated, and every incentive points toward minimal friction. Many Texans would not need anything, because they keep US citizenship Start with the simplest case. A large number of Texans hold, and would keep, their US citizenship, because Texas independence does not strip it. A dual citizen of Texas and the United States needs no visa or work permit to work in the US at all; citizenship carries the right to work. For those Texans, the question does not even arise. We cover how US citizenship is retained in the dedicated live answer; the relevant point here is that the visa question is moot for everyone who keeps their US status. For the rest, this is a negotiated arrangement, and the models are easy ones For Texans who are not US citizens, cross-border work runs on agreements between the two countries, and there are well-worn models that keep it simple. Contiguous neighbors routinely build streamlined ways for each other's citizens to do business and work across the line. The United States already issues Mexican nationals a Border Crossing Card that lets them travel directly from Mexico into the US, and it already runs work-and-business mobility arrangements with trading partners. Texas, as the United States' largest trading partner among its neighbors, would be negotiating from enormous leverage for terms at least that friendly. Both economies depend on people and goods moving, which is the strongest possible reason to keep the door open. The deep integration is the argument for easy access, not against it Opponents sometimes wield how intertwined the two economies are as a reason Texans would face barriers…

How would the Texas-Mexico border be managed after independence?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: By Texas, for the first time. Today the southern border is run from Washington, and Texas, the state that actually shares it, is a back-seat passenger. As an independent nation, Texas would set its own border and immigration policy and manage its own ports of entry, working with Mexico on the practical mechanics the way neighboring countries do everywhere. Control of the border becomes a Texas decision This is one of the core promises of independence. Right now, decisions about who and what crosses the Texas-Mexico border are made by a federal government a long way off, for the whole union, and Texans have watched the results with frustration for years. As a sovereign nation, Texas would make those decisions itself: its own border policy, its own immigration rules within the bounds the movement has already stated, and direct management of its own crossings. The authority over the border would sit with the people who live alongside it, which is the whole point of self-government. Texas already does much of the on-the-ground work Texas is not starting from zero at the border. The state already commits its own money and personnel to border security, operating state law enforcement along the Rio Grande today. The institutions, the Department of Public Safety, state troopers, the capacity to coordinate large operations, already exist and already work the border. Independence does not require Texas to conjure a border apparatus overnight. It hands Texas full authority over, and full funding for, work the state is already partly doing. The river is a shared resource, governed by a treaty that survives the change The Rio Grande is both the boundary and a shared water supply, and that is managed by long-standing agreement, not by ownership. The 1944 treaty on the waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and the Rio Grande, administered by the binational International Boundary and Water Commission, sets Mexico's delivery obligation to the US side, on the order of 350,000 acr…

Would there be freedom of movement between Texas and the U.S.?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Almost certainly yes, in practical terms, because that is what serves both countries, and the models for it already exist and work. Whether through keeping US citizenship, streamlined travel cards, or a formal movement arrangement, the realistic outcome is that people keep crossing between Texas and the United States with minimal friction. The exact form is negotiated; the direction is not in serious doubt. For many Texans, movement stays totally free because they keep US citizenship The simplest path to free movement is the one a lot of Texans already have. Texas independence does not strip US citizenship, so many Texans would remain dual citizens, and a dual citizen moves between Texas and the United States with no restriction at all. For them, "freedom of movement" is not even a question to negotiate; it is a right they keep. The dedicated live answer explains how US citizenship is retained. Free, friendly movement between neighbors is the norm, not the exception Look at how the world actually works and easy movement between contiguous, friendly nations is ordinary. The United States already lets more than a million people a day cross its border with Mexico, many using only a Border Crossing Card rather than a passport. It runs a Visa Waiver Program that lets citizens of dozens of countries travel for business or tourism without a visa. The live answers on travel and the border walk through how smoothly a Texas-US border can function, using the long, friendly US-Canada boundary as the template. Friction is a political choice, and neither side has a reason to choose it. There is a formal model for exactly this: the Common Travel Area If the two countries wanted to go further than streamlined travel and formalize genuine freedom of movement, there is a proven template. Ireland and the United Kingdom run a Common Travel Area, under which Irish and British citizens move freely and live in either country with no visa and no work permit, and with the right to work, stu…

What happens to families split across the Texas-U.S. line?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They stay families. Nothing about independence cuts a parent off from a child, a grandchild from a grandparent, or a Texan from a sibling who lives in another state. Keeping families connected across the Texas-US line is the easy part, and every tool to do it already exists and is in daily use. Most of these families keep moving freely because they keep US citizenship Take the most common situation first. A Texan with family in Oklahoma or Tennessee very likely keeps their US citizenship, because Texas independence does not strip it, and a US citizen crosses into the United States freely. For a huge share of split families, there is no barrier at all to visiting, helping out, or moving back and forth, because the people involved remain citizens of both. The dedicated live answer covers how that citizenship is retained. Easy family travel between neighbors is routine, not remarkable Even where family members are citizens of different countries, visiting across a friendly border is something neighbors handle every day. More than a million people a day already cross between the United States and Mexico, many on a simple Border Crossing Card, no passport required, exactly so that families and workers can move. The live answers on travel and the border show how smoothly a Texas-US border can run, modeled on the long, open US-Canada line. Keeping a holiday dinner or a hospital visit within reach across that line is a solved problem. The point of independence is to bring decisions closer to families, not to separate them It is worth saying plainly what this movement is and is not about. Independence is about who governs Texas, not about walling Texans off from the people they love. The whole premise is government closer to the people it serves. A movement built on that premise has no interest in, and no reason for, separating families; it is the opposite of what self-government is for. Texans built families, businesses, and generations of history that reach across state li…

Would Texas have nuclear weapons?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: That would be a decision for the government Texans elect, not a promise the movement makes. What can be said now is that Texas would be fully capable of defending itself either way, and that its security does not hinge on nuclear arms. This is a sovereign decision for the future Republic The Texas Nationalist Movement's job is to win independence and secure the result, not to pre-write the defense policy of a nation that does not yet exist. Whether an independent Texas pursues, declines, or forgoes nuclear weapons is precisely the kind of question that belongs to the elected government and the people it answers to. Locking in that answer today would be putting the cart generations before the horse. Texas does not need nuclear weapons to be secure An independent Texas faces no realistic threat of conventional invasion. Its security challenges are the practical ones: a secure border, protection against terrorism, and cybersecurity. Those are met with capable conventional forces and good intelligence, not with warheads. Plenty of stable, prosperous, secure nations maintain strong militaries and no nuclear arsenal at all. Texas would be one of them by default, and a well-resourced one. The defense foundation is already here Texas would build on a serious base. More than 200,000 Texans already serve in uniform, defense spending in the state runs on the order of $72 billion a year, and the Texas Military Department already exists as a functioning command. A conventional Texas military funded at the level of capable middle powers would rank among the strongest in the world. Security is not in question. The nuclear question is a separate, downstream policy choice. Cooperation is the more likely path It is far more probable that an independent Texas would address strategic security through a mutual-defense arrangement with the United States, a natural neighbor with deep shared interests, than by racing to build an arsenal. Shared defense among allied nations is the norm, and…

Will we have to buy our electricity from the U.S. after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The short answer is an emphatic "NO". Here's what you need to know. Texas both produces and consumes more electricity than any other state. Texas' abundant natural resources, including natural gas, coal and wind, are readily available to fuel our power plants. Texas is the only one of the contiguous 48 states with its own stand-alone electricity grid, one of the three main grids in the U.S.: the Eastern Interconnection, Western Interconnection and Texas Interconnection. The Texas Interconnection, which covers 213 of the 254 Texas counties, is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT. Portions of Texas near the state's borders are covered by the eastern and western grids. As the independent system operator for the Texas grid, ERCOT connects more than 54,100 miles of transmission lines and more than 1,250 power generation facilities, providing electricity to more than 27 million customers. ERCOT's primary responsibilities include maintaining power reliability, ensuring open access to transmission lines and facilitating competitive electricity markets. It's overseen by the Texas Public Utility Commission, which also enforces compliance with the state's utility laws and regulates Texas' electric utility rates. In Texas, several types of entities are involved in providing electricity to end users. The current structure dates from 1999, when the Texas Legislature introduced retail competition in much of ERCOT's service area. According to ERCOT, about 75 percent of its total power load represents customers in these "competitive" areas. In competitive areas, power generators produce electricity from fuel and sell it on the wholesale market, where it's purchased by private companies called investor-owned utilities or retail electricity providers (REPs). Texas has about 300 REPs; customers can choose among them based on pricing and various options such as an emphasis on renewable power. Electricity purchased from REPs is distributed to homes, businesses …

How will Texas protect the environment after Texit?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas already has one of the best environmental protection systems through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Unlike the federal government, Texas has been able to balance environmental protection and economic growth. There is no reason to believe that this would be any different after Texit.

How would independence affect energy prices?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas is the largest energy producer in the union, and a producer sets prices from a position of strength. Independence puts Texans on the right side of the energy equation, in control of the resource the rest of the world has to buy. Texas produces far more energy than it uses Start with the fact that decides everything else. Texas pumps about 43 percent of all the crude oil and 27 percent of all the natural gas produced in the United States, roughly 5.6 million barrels of oil a day. It is also the largest wind producer in the country by more than two to one, and its solar capacity has tripled since 2020. Texas does not import its energy. It exports it. A place that produces a surplus of the thing everyone needs is a place with leverage over price, not a place at the mercy of it. An energy producer controls its own energy costs The countries that struggle with energy prices are the ones that depend on someone else for supply. Texas is the opposite. With its own oil, its own gas, its own grid, and a fast-growing base of wind and solar, an independent Texas would have more control over what Texans pay for fuel and power, not less. The supply is here. The refineries are here. The generation is here. Independence keeps the value of all of it inside Texas instead of routing decisions about it through Washington. The hidden price increase is the inflation tax, and that is made in Washington The largest force quietly raising the cost of everything, energy included, is the falling value of the dollar, and that is a Washington product. The dollar has lost about 22 percent of its purchasing power since 2020 alone. When the price at the pump climbs, part of that is the fuel and part of it is a dollar worth less than it used to be. An independent Texas building sound money, on the Texas Bullion Depository and the gold-and-silver legal tender of HB 1056, takes a step away from the inflation that inflates every energy bill. Texas already runs its own electricity market Texas is …

Would Texas control its own oil and gas regulation?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas already does. The agency that regulates oil and gas in Texas is a Texas agency, and it has been for more than a century. Independence does not create that control. It removes the federal layer sitting on top of it. The oil and gas regulator is already Texan The primary regulator of oil and natural gas in Texas is the Railroad Commission of Texas, a state agency with jurisdiction over exploration, production, and the pipelines that move oil and gas inside the state. It has held that authority since the Oil and Gas Conservation Law of 1919. Its job is to prevent waste, protect the rights of mineral owners, and guard against pollution. None of that runs through Washington, and none of it disappears at independence. The institution that governs the most important industry in Texas is built and staffed in Texas right now. The resource itself is overwhelmingly Texas-owned Here is what makes Texas different from most oil states. Texas mineral rights are overwhelmingly privately owned, not federally owned, because Texas kept its own public lands when it joined the union in 1845 instead of handing them to Washington. In much of the West, the federal government owns the minerals and controls the leasing. In Texas, the oil and gas under the ground belongs to Texans and Texas landowners. That ownership does not change at independence, which means the foundation of the industry, who owns the resource, is already settled in Texas's favor. The federal layer is the part that lifts off Where Washington touches Texas oil and gas, it does so from the outside, through federal agencies that set rules on emissions, drilling, and permitting that apply nationwide. That federal layer is exactly what independence removes. What remains is the Texas regulatory system, run by the Railroad Commission, which Texans can then shape to fit Texas rather than to satisfy a fifty-state mandate written for very different places. A regulator built for an energy economy The Railroad Commission alread…

Would Texas control its own energy exports?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, and that is one of the strongest cards Texas holds. An independent Texas would be one of the largest energy exporters on Earth, selling its own oil, gas, and power on its own terms, with the export revenue staying in Texas. Texas is already an energy export power Texas produces far more energy than it consumes, which is the definition of an exporter. It pumps about 43 percent of America's crude oil and 27 percent of its natural gas, and its gas output alone exceeds Iran, Qatar, and Canada combined. As an independent nation Texas would rank among the top three or four oil producers and among the top energy exporters in the world. The Gulf Coast export terminals, the pipelines that feed them, and the refineries behind them are all physically in Texas. The export machine is already here. Today, Washington sets the export rules. Independence changes that. Under the current arrangement, the terms of American energy exports, the trade policy, the licensing, the deals with buyer nations, are set in Washington for the whole country. An independent Texas would set its own. It would negotiate directly with the countries that want Texas energy, sign its own trade agreements, and answer to Texas producers and Texas workers rather than to a federal policy balancing fifty states. The decisions about who buys Texas energy and on what terms would be made in Texas. Buyers come to the supplier, which gives Texas leverage Energy is the ultimate seller's market for a producer this large. Nations recognize, trade with, and stay on good terms with the country that fuels them. The world does not cut off the supplier of a meaningful share of its oil and gas. That dependency runs in Texas's favor. It is a major reason an independent Texas would find trading partners and recognition coming quickly, because being shut out of Texas energy is not something a serious economy chooses. The export revenue stays home When energy leaves Texas today, the value flows into a national economy and th…

What happens to national parks and federal land inside Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Very little, because the federal footprint on Texas land is unusually small to begin with. Texas kept its own land when it joined the union, so the federal government owns less of Texas than it does of almost any western state, and the parks Texans love stay open through a routine transition. Texas owns Texas, by design This starts with a fact most people do not know. When Texas joined the union in 1845, it kept its public lands instead of ceding them to the federal government, which is what most other states did. The result is that the federal government owns only a small slice of Texas, on the order of 1.8 to 2 percent of the state, a tiny share next to states like Nevada or Utah where Washington owns most of the ground. The land question in Texas is small precisely because Texans never handed their land away. The famous parks are a short list, and they stay open Texas has two national parks, Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, along with national seashores and preserves like Padre Island and the Big Thicket, all run by the National Park Service. Nobody benefits from closing a beloved park, and an independent Texas would keep them open. The standard menu for any federal site applies: transfer to Texas, a cooperative agreement, or continued joint operation. The most natural outcome is that these lands pass to Texas stewardship, most likely under Texas Parks and Wildlife, which already manages a state park system bigger than the federal footprint. Big Bend does not close because the flag changes. It gets a Texas steward. Most of Texas land is already in Texan and private hands Because the federal share is so small, the overwhelming majority of land in Texas is already private property, state land, or local public land, none of which is affected by independence at all. Your ranch, your home, your county park, your state park: ownership of all of it is settled under Texas law today and stays exactly where it is. The transition touches only the narrow federal sliver, not…

What happens to pipelines that cross state lines?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They keep operating, because the oil and gas they carry is something both sides want to keep flowing, and pipelines cross international borders all over the world every day. A pipeline does not stop pumping because there is a border on the map. Cross-border pipelines are ordinary, not exotic The premise that a pipeline must shut down the moment it crosses an international line is simply false. Pipelines move oil and gas across borders worldwide, between Canada and the United States, across Europe, throughout the Gulf region. The line on the map is handled by agreement, not by a valve. An independent Texas would treat the pipelines that cross its borders the way every neighboring pair of nations treats theirs: as shared infrastructure governed by a treaty, kept running because both sides profit from the flow. Most of the Texas network is already Texas-regulated Texas has one of the most extensive pipeline networks on Earth, and the pipelines that run inside Texas are already regulated by Texas. Pipelines that operate within a single state, the intrastate lines, fall under state authority, and in Texas that means the Railroad Commission of Texas. The vast Texas pipeline grid is therefore largely under Texan control today. Independence does not disturb that. It leaves the in-state network exactly where it is, governed by the Texas agency that already governs it. The interstate piece converts from a federal matter to a treaty matter Pipelines that cross state lines are currently overseen at the federal level by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Natural Gas Act. On independence, a line that used to cross from Texas into another U.S. state becomes a line that crosses an international border, and it shifts from federal regulation to a bilateral agreement between Texas and the United States, the same way cross-border pipelines are governed between any two countries. The substance of who ships what to whom does not have to change. Only the legal category doe…

How would Texas handle renewable and grid policy?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: On its own terms, balancing every source it produces, which is something Texas is uniquely equipped to do because it already leads the country in both fossil fuels and renewables at the same time. Independence puts the whole energy mix under Texan control. Texas already leads in everything at once Here is the fact that makes Texas different from almost anywhere else. Texas is the largest oil and gas producer in the United States and the largest wind producer in the United States, simultaneously. It generates more wind power than France, Italy, or the United Kingdom, and its solar capacity has tripled since 2020, even as it pumps about 43 percent of the nation's crude oil. Texas does not have to choose between energy camps. It already runs both at the top of the league, which means an independent Texas sets a balanced energy policy from a position no other place can match. Texas already runs its own grid Unlike any other state in the lower 48, Texas operates its own self-contained electricity grid through ERCOT. The grid, the market, and the operator are Texan today. That is a structural advantage almost no aspiring nation has: the central nervous system of the power system is already built, already independent, and already under Texas oversight through the Texas Public Utility Commission. Independence does not require Texas to build a grid. It already has one. Independence removes the federal hand on the grid and the mix Today, federal rules on emissions, generation, and energy markets reach into Texas from the outside and shape what the grid and the energy mix have to look like. Independence lifts that federal hand off. What is left is a grid and an energy policy that Texans set for themselves, tuned to Texas weather, Texas demand, Texas industry, and Texas resources, rather than to a fifty-state framework written for very different conditions. Balance is a Texas decision, and Texans make it The right mix of gas, wind, solar, nuclear, and whatever comes next is exa…

What happens to federal energy subsidies and credits?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They are Texans' own money on a round trip to Washington and back, and an independent Texas would decide for itself what to support, funded directly, without the detour or the strings. Texas sends Washington far more than any energy credit it gets in return. Federal subsidies are Texans' money, returned with conditions Whatever flows back to Texas as a federal energy subsidy or tax credit came out of Texans' pockets first. Texans send their taxes to Washington, and a portion returns as credits shaped by federal priorities, with federal conditions attached. An independent Texas does not lose the ability to support its energy industries. It keeps the revenue at home and sets its own incentives, aimed at what Texas wants to build rather than at what Washington decides to reward. The flow already runs the wrong way for Texas Step back and look at the whole ledger. Texans ship about 72 billion dollars a year to Washington just in interest on a federal debt they never voted for, plus about 150 billion dollars a year in fresh federal borrowing. Any energy credit returning to Texas is a rounding error next to that outflow. The notion that Texas depends on Washington's energy subsidies has the arithmetic backwards. Texas is a large net contributor, and independence stops the bleed. Texas can support its own energy on its own terms Freed from the federal framework, an independent Texas would design whatever energy incentives Texans choose, for production, for the grid, for wind and solar, for reliability, without asking permission and without accepting strings written for fifty states. The decision about what Texas energy gets encouraged becomes a Texas decision, made by people accountable to Texas voters and Texas workers, instead of a formula set in Washington. The industry does not run on federal credits anyway Texas energy is the strongest in the union because of the resource, the infrastructure, and the workforce, not because of a federal subsidy line. The oil, the gas, …

How would Texas handle emissions and climate policy on its own?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The way it already handles environmental protection, through its own agency, balancing a clean environment against a working economy, and answerable to Texans. Independence puts emissions and environmental policy in Texan hands instead of Washington's. Texas already runs its own environmental regulator Texas does not depend on Washington to protect its air, water, and land. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality already administers environmental regulation across the state, including air and water quality, and it does the day-to-day work today. It is funded and run in Texas. Independence does not create that capacity and does not remove it. The machinery of environmental protection in Texas is already Texan. The federal layer is what lifts off Where Washington touches environmental policy in Texas, it does so from the outside, through federal agencies setting nationwide rules. That federal layer is what independence removes. What remains is the Texas system, which Texans can then shape to fit Texas conditions, balancing protection and growth the way the state already aims to, rather than to a single federal standard written for fifty very different places. Texas sets its own balance, and Texans decide it How an independent Texas weighs emissions, air and water quality, conservation, and economic growth is exactly the kind of decision that should be made by the people who live with both the environment and the economy. Texas would set that balance through its own elected government and its own regulators, accountable to Texas voters. This is a Texas decision, made in Texas, not a policy handed down from outside or borrowed from anyone else's politics. The world deals with environmental questions nation to nation Environmental and emissions questions that cross borders, shared air, shared water, regional concerns, are handled between sovereign nations by agreement all the time. An independent Texas would engage with its neighbors and with the world on those que…

What about offshore drilling and resources in the Gulf?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas holds a stronger offshore hand than almost anyone realizes, because its historic sea boundary reaches three times farther than most states', and an independent Texas would control its own coastal waters and negotiate the rest as a nation. The Gulf resources off Texas are a Texas asset. Texas already owns farther offshore than other states This is a piece of history that pays off directly. Most coastal states control the waters out to three nautical miles. Texas controls three marine leagues, about nine nautical miles, three times the standard distance. That boundary comes from the days when Texas was an independent republic, and the Supreme Court upheld it under the Submerged Lands Act precisely because of that history. Texas's seaward reach is unusually deep, and it is unusually deep for a reason rooted in Texas sovereignty. Independence converts a federal-state line into a national boundary Today, beyond the Texas state boundary lies the federal Outer Continental Shelf, where Washington controls leasing and the resources. On independence, what is now a line between Texas and the federal government becomes the maritime boundary between two nations, Texas and the United States, and it gets settled the way maritime boundaries are settled everywhere: by negotiation under the established rules nations use for the sea. Texas would come to that table as a coastal nation with a strong, historically grounded claim, not as a junior partner. The infrastructure and the expertise are already on the Texas coast The platforms, the ports, the refineries, the service industry, and the skilled offshore workforce are physically on the Texas Gulf Coast. None of that relocates at independence. A nation does not walk away from a working offshore industry, and the United States does not either, because the resource and the capability are valuable to both. Continuity in the existing operations is the natural outcome, with Texas now holding a direct seat in every decision about its …

Who would regulate nuclear power plants in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: An independent Texas would run its own nuclear regulator, and it would build it on a foundation Texas already has, because Texas already regulates radioactive materials under its own authority today. The plants keep running, safely, under Texas oversight. Texas already does part of this job Most people assume nuclear regulation is purely federal, but Texas already carries a significant piece of it. Texas is what is called an Agreement State, and has been since 1963, which means the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission long ago handed Texas the authority to license and regulate radioactive materials within the state. That work is done in Texas, by Texas, right now. The institutional knowledge, the inspectors, and the licensing apparatus for radioactive materials already exist in Austin. What is still federal, and what changes The piece that remains federal today is the licensing and safety oversight of the commercial power reactors themselves, handled by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Texas has two such plants, Comanche Peak near Glen Rose and the South Texas Project in Matagorda County. On independence, that reactor-oversight function is what Texas would take over, extending the nuclear-safety role it already performs for materials to cover the power plants as well. This is an expansion of an existing Texas capability, not the creation of one from scratch. Building a reactor regulator is a known, well-trodden task Every nation that runs nuclear power runs its own nuclear safety regulator, and they cooperate through shared international standards. An independent Texas would stand up its own reactor-safety authority on the base of its existing Agreement State program, adopt the proven international safety norms, and cooperate with global nuclear-safety bodies the way every nuclear nation does. There is a clear, established template for exactly this, followed by countries with far less of a head start than Texas already has. The plants keep running, and safety is …

What happens to rivers that flow between Texas and other states?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They keep flowing, and they keep being shared the same way they are shared right now: by written agreement. Independence changes the legal label on those agreements. It does not change the water or the way it is divided. Texas already shares these rivers by compact, not by ownership No state owns a river that crosses its borders, and Texas does not own one now. The rivers Texas shares with its neighbors are governed by interstate compacts, which are negotiated agreements that divide the water between the states that share it. Texas is already party to several: the Rio Grande Compact with Colorado and New Mexico, the Pecos River Compact with New Mexico, the Canadian River Compact with New Mexico and Oklahoma, the Red River Compact with Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana, and the Sabine River Compact with Louisiana. These are the rules of the road for shared water, and they exist today, inside the union. A compact between states becomes a treaty between countries When Texas is independent, an agreement between two American states simply becomes an agreement between two countries. The substance of who gets how much does not have to change. Only the legal category changes, from interstate compact to international treaty. This is the ordinary way neighboring nations all over the world share the rivers that run between them. Nothing about it is exotic, and nothing about it requires Texas to surrender a drop it is entitled to today. Texas would represent itself directly Here is the practical upgrade. Today, when those shared-water arrangements are disputed or enforced at the level above the states, Texas depends on federal involvement to defend its share. As an independent nation, Texas negotiates and enforces its own water agreements as a party in its own right, with its interests represented directly rather than filtered through Washington. The state that has the most at stake in Texas water would finally be the one holding the pen. Continuity is the default, for everyone…

What happens to the 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It survives, and Texas steps into it as a party in its own right. Boundary and water treaties are precisely the kind that carry over when sovereignty changes, and the 1944 treaty is an asset for Texas, not a problem. What the treaty actually is The water relationship along the Rio Grande is governed by the treaty signed in 1944 on the waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and the Rio Grande. It is administered by the International Boundary and Water Commission, a binational body with a United States Section headquartered in El Paso and a Mexican Section in Ciudad Juarez. Under it, Mexico delivers Rio Grande water to the United States on the order of 350,000 acre-feet a year, accounted for as 1,750,000 acre-feet over each five-year cycle. Texas, and Texas farmers in the Rio Grande Valley in particular, are the principal beneficiaries on the U.S. side. Treaties about borders and water do not vanish at independence This is settled ground in international law. Under the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, opened in 1978, treaties that establish boundary and territorial regimes pass to a successor state rather than lapsing. The International Court of Justice confirmed in its 1997 Gabcikovo-Nagymaros judgment, when Slovakia inherited a Danube water treaty from the former Czechoslovakia, that this principle reflects general international law. A change of flag does not erase a boundary-water treaty. It transfers it. An independent Texas gains a direct seat for the first time Right now, the people with the most at stake in this treaty, Texans, do not sit at the table. The U.S. Section of the IBWC answers to the federal State Department, and Texas water is one priority among fifty states' worth of priorities in Washington. An independent Texas would deal with Mexico on Rio Grande water directly, as the neighbor that actually shares the river. When Mexico has fallen behind on deliveries in the past and Valley farmers have paid the price, Texan…

Who would control the Rio Grande?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No single country controls a river that forms an international border. The Rio Grande is already shared between the United States and Mexico under a treaty, and an independent Texas would take the U.S. seat in that arrangement, with more direct control over Texas water than Texas has today. The Rio Grande is already a shared, governed river For most of its length the Rio Grande is the boundary between Texas and Mexico, and it has been jointly managed for generations. Upstream, the U.S. portion is divided among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas by the Rio Grande Compact. At the border, the water is shared with Mexico under the 1944 treaty and administered by the binational International Boundary and Water Commission. No one party owns the river now. It is governed by agreement, and that does not change at independence. Texas takes the U.S. seat at the table Today, on the U.S. side of the border arrangement, Texas water is represented by the federal government. The U.S. Section of the IBWC answers to Washington. On independence, Texas would step into that role for its own stretch of the river, dealing with Mexico directly as the neighbor that shares the water. That is more control for Texas, not less. The state whose farms and cities actually depend on the river would be the one negotiating for it. Upstream and downstream, the rules carry over The compact that divides the upper Rio Grande among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas would convert from an interstate compact into an agreement between countries, the same as every other shared river. The 1944 treaty with Mexico carries over under international law. The result is that the Rio Grande keeps being managed by the same kind of agreements that manage it now, with Texas holding its own seat instead of being one voice inside a federal delegation. Honest about the pressure on the river The Rio Grande is a working river under real strain, from drought, from growth on both sides of the border, and from years when deliveries h…

How would interstate water compacts be handled after independence?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They convert from agreements between states into agreements between countries, and the water keeps being divided on the same terms. This is a change of legal category, not a change of substance, and it is exactly how neighboring nations share water everywhere in the world. What an interstate compact is A compact is a negotiated agreement, approved by the legislatures involved, that divides a shared resource between states. For water, it sets how much of a shared river each state may use. Texas is already party to a full set of them: the Rio Grande Compact, the Pecos River Compact, the Canadian River Compact, the Red River Compact, and the Sabine River Compact. These agreements already do the hard work of dividing shared water, and they already function without Texas owning any of the rivers outright. Independence reclassifies them, it does not erase them When Texas becomes independent, a compact between Texas and another American state becomes an agreement between Texas and a foreign country. The allocations can carry forward unchanged. What changes is the heading on the document and the body that enforces it, which moves from the framework for interstate disputes to ordinary international practice. Nations that share rivers, and there are many, manage them with exactly this kind of bilateral or multilateral agreement. Existing terms are the natural starting point There is no reason for either side to tear up a working allocation. The farms, cities, and power plants that depend on a shared river need predictability above almost everything else. The sensible path, and the one that protects everyone who relies on the water, is to carry the existing division of water into the new agreements and adjust only by mutual consent over time, the way water agreements have always been revised. Texas negotiates for itself The upgrade for Texas is representation. Inside the union, shared-water arrangements that reach above the state level involve the federal government on Texas's…

Would Texas have enough water to stand on its own?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Water is a real, long-term challenge for Texas, and an honest answer says so plainly. It is a challenge whether Texas is independent or not. The difference independence makes is who gets to solve it, and an independent Texas gets the full set of tools and answers only to Texans. The challenge is real, and the state already measures it Texas is growing fast, and a growing state needs more water. The Texas Water Development Board lays this out in the State Water Plan. Texas already runs this planning process itself, through sixteen regional planning groups and a statewide plan that projects population, demand, and supply for decades ahead and prices out the infrastructure needed to close the gap. The plan does not hide the problem. It quantifies it, and it lays out thousands of strategies, from conservation and reuse to aquifer storage, brackish groundwater, and desalination, to meet demand through a repeat of the worst drought on record. That work is Texan, and it continues unchanged at independence. Texas already runs its own water, top to bottom The institutions that plan, allocate, and protect Texas water are state institutions. The Texas Water Development Board produces the State Water Plan and finances water projects. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality administers water rights and water quality. Groundwater conservation districts manage aquifers locally. River authorities manage the basins. None of that depends on Washington, and none of it disappears at independence. The day-to-day machinery of Texas water is already built and run in Texas. Independence puts the decisions and the money where they belong Today, water strategy for Texas competes for federal attention against the priorities of fifty states. An independent Texas would set its own water strategy, fund its own infrastructure, prioritize its own projects, and answer to its own people, without waiting in line behind everyone else or asking permission. The same revenue base that funds the res…

What about aquifers that cross state and international lines?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They are managed by cooperation, the same tool used for shared rivers, and that cooperation continues at independence. Aquifers that cross borders are a common feature among neighboring states and nations, and nothing about independence requires Texas to drain or surrender a drop. Some Texas groundwater is shared, and that is already true today Groundwater does not stop at a survey line. The Ogallala, part of the larger High Plains Aquifer that sits beneath the Texas Panhandle, also underlies seven other states. Along the border, aquifers like the Hueco Bolson and the Mesilla Basin extend beneath Texas, New Mexico, and the Mexican state of Chihuahua, supplying cities including El Paso and Ciudad Juarez. Shared groundwater is not a new problem created by independence. It is a present-day fact that Texas already lives with. Texas manages its own groundwater locally Inside Texas, groundwater is managed under Texas law, primarily through local groundwater conservation districts working within the state planning framework. That structure is entirely Texan and does not depend on Washington. It keeps running at independence exactly as it runs now, setting local rules for how much can be pumped and protecting the resource for the long term. Cross-border aquifers are handled cooperatively, between sovereigns Where an aquifer crosses into another state or country, the tool is cooperative management, the same approach used for shared rivers. The United States and Mexico already study the border aquifers together through a binational assessment program. After independence, that kind of cooperation simply continues between sovereign neighbors, the way shared groundwater is managed cooperatively in many parts of the world. Texas would participate directly, as the party that actually shares the water, rather than through a federal intermediary. Independence does not require Texas to give anything up There is no mechanism by which a change of sovereignty drains a Texas aquifer or t…

What happens to Texas farmers and ranchers?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They keep farming and ranching, on the same land, in a Texas that finally writes its own agricultural rules instead of taking them from Washington. Texas agriculture is one of the largest and most productive on Earth, and independence makes it stronger, not weaker. Texas agriculture is already a powerhouse This is not a small or fragile sector hoping to survive. Texas leads the United States in the number of cattle, with more than 12 million head, far ahead of any other state. It is a leading producer of cotton, hay, sheep, goats, and mohair, and its total agricultural output ran well over 25 billion dollars in 2024. Texas farms and ranches feed Texans and sell the surplus to the world. That production capacity is built into the land, the climate, and generations of know-how. None of it changes when the flag changes. The land, the herds, and the operations stay exactly where they are A farm is real property. A ranch is real property. The cattle, the equipment, the barns, and the water rights are owned by the families and businesses that hold them. A change in which government Texas answers to does not transfer ownership of a single acre or a single head of cattle. Texas farmers and ranchers wake up on independence owning everything they owned the day before, working the same ground. Independence means rules written in Texas, for Texas Texas farmers and ranchers spend their working lives under federal rules they had little say in writing, set by a Washington that answers to fifty states. An independent Texas sets its own agricultural policy. That means regulation sized to Texas conditions, trade deals negotiated for Texas products, and a government close enough to the people working the land to actually hear them. The existing Texas Department of Agriculture already serves the industry day to day, and it continues, with a national mandate instead of a subordinate one. Markets and exports keep running Farmers and ranchers sell into a global market, and that market doe…

Would Texas keep access to U.S. agricultural markets?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Trade between Texas and the United States continues after independence, governed by agreement the way trade between neighboring countries always is, and both sides have overwhelming reasons to keep the food and fiber flowing. The buyers and the supply chains do not move The grocers, processors, feedlots, and food companies that buy Texas beef, cotton, grain, and produce do not relocate because Texas changes its flag. The demand is where it is, the supply is where it is, and the trucks, rail lines, and ports that connect them are where they are. The most basic fact of this market is that the United States buys what Texas grows and Texas grows what the United States needs. That relationship does not switch off. Trade between neighbors runs on agreements, and the tools already exist After independence, commerce between Texas and the United States is governed by a trade agreement, the same as commerce between any two trading partners. Texas would pursue tariff-free terms through a customs union or a free trade agreement, and at a minimum can trade under the World Trade Organization schedules the United States has already agreed to. The live FAQ answer on tariffs covers this mechanism in detail. The point here is simple: there is a well-worn, ready-made set of tools for keeping agricultural trade open, and Texas would use them. Continued access runs in both directions, because the dependence is mutual Texas does not only sell to the United States. It buys too, and the two agricultural economies are deeply interwoven. That mutual dependence is exactly what makes open trade the obvious outcome. Cutting off Texas agriculture would raise costs and disrupt supply chains on both sides of the border for no gain. Neighbors who need each other trade with each other, and they write the agreements that keep it smooth. Texas trades with the whole world, not just Washington Keeping U.S. market access does not mean depending on it. Texas is the top exporting state in the union an…

How would food prices be affected?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas is one of the great food-producing places on the planet, and a place that produces a surplus of food is in a strong position on price, not a weak one. The largest hidden force pushing food prices up is the falling value of the dollar, and that is made in Washington. Texas produces far more food than it eats Start with the fact that decides the rest. Texas leads the union in cattle and is a leading producer of cotton, hay, grain, and more, with agricultural output well over 25 billion dollars a year. A nation that grows a surplus of food and exports it is not at the mercy of someone else for its dinner. The supply is here, the ranches and farms are here, and the processing is here. That is the foundation of food security, and it is already in place. Supply chains keep running, so the shelves stay stocked The trucks, rail, ports, and processors that move food do not stop at independence, and trade with the United States and the world continues under ordinary agreements. Food keeps moving across the Texas-U.S. border the same way it moves across every friendly border, which means the grocery shelves stay stocked. Continuity is the default, and both sides have every reason to keep it that way. The biggest hidden price increase is the inflation tax When the price of groceries climbs, part of that is the food and part of it is a dollar that buys less than it used to. The dollar has lost roughly 22 percent of its purchasing power since 2020 alone. That erosion is a Washington product, driven by federal borrowing and money printing, and it raises the price of everything, food included. An independent Texas building sound money, on the Texas Bullion Depository and the gold-and-silver legal tender of HB 1056, takes a step away from the inflation that quietly inflates every grocery bill. Honesty about what we will not promise We will not hand you a made-up number for how much your groceries change, because no one can honestly produce one. Food prices move with weather, f…

What happens to agricultural exports?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They keep flowing, and Texas gains the power to expand them. Texas is the top exporting state in the union and a leading agricultural exporter, and an independent Texas would negotiate market access for its farmers and ranchers directly, instead of living under deals written in Washington. Texas is already an export powerhouse Texas has been the number one exporting state in the United States for more than two decades running. Its farms and ranches sell around the world, with cotton and beef leading the way, backed by the most cattle of any state and a leading position in several major crops. Buyers on multiple continents already depend on Texas agricultural products. That demand is real, it is global, and it does not evaporate when Texas governs itself. Exports run on agreements, and Texas would write its own Agricultural exports move under trade agreements and, at a minimum, under World Trade Organization schedules the United States has already accepted. An independent Texas can trade under those existing schedules from day one and negotiate better, Texas-specific terms from there. For too long, federal trade policy has treated Texas agriculture as a bargaining chip, favoring a handful of sectors while leaving farmers and ranchers exposed. An independent Texas negotiates for Texas products as the priority, not the afterthought. Direct relationships with the buyers As a nation, Texas deals directly with the countries that buy its cotton, beef, and crops, building its own trade relationships rather than inheriting whatever Washington happened to negotiate. When a foreign market closes to U.S. goods in a federal trade dispute Texas had no part in, Texas farmers currently get caught in the crossfire. An independent Texas sets its own course and is not dragged into trade wars it did not pick. The ports and the logistics are already here Texas does not have to build an export economy from scratch. It already runs eight of the United States' top 25 deepwater ports, inclu…

How would Texas handle food safety without the USDA and FDA?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same way it handles much of it now: through Texas agencies that already do this work, scaled up to cover what the federal agencies did. Texas does not have to invent a food-safety system from scratch. It already runs one, and an independent Texas would expand it to fill the federal role. Texas already inspects its own food Food safety in Texas is not purely a federal job today. The Texas Department of State Health Services already runs a state meat-safety program that inspects meat and poultry produced and sold within Texas, operating its own inspection regime alongside the federal one. The Texas Department of Agriculture already handles a wide range of agricultural and consumer-protection functions. The bones of a Texas food-safety system are in place and working right now, staffed by Texans. The federal functions are well understood and reproducible What the federal agencies do is no mystery. The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service inspects meat, poultry, and eggs. The FDA oversees most other foods, along with drugs and medical products. These are defined, well-documented functions, and many countries run them through their own national agencies at a high standard. An independent Texas would assign these responsibilities to Texas agencies, building on the meat-safety and agricultural-inspection capacity the state already has, and would set food-safety standards answerable to Texans. Standards stay high because the market demands it A food-exporting nation has every incentive to maintain rigorous, internationally recognized safety standards, because buyers abroad require them. To keep selling Texas beef, produce, and processed foods into the United States and around the world, Texas would meet the standards those markets expect, often by maintaining equivalence with the systems trading partners already trust. Independence does not create pressure to lower food safety. It creates pressure to keep it high, because that is what keeps the export markets open.…

What happens to cattle and beef exports?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas runs the largest cattle herd in the United States, and that herd and the beef it produces keep selling at home and abroad after independence. Beef is one of Texas's signature exports, and independence gives Texas direct control over the trade terms that govern it. Texas is the cattle capital of the country No state comes close to Texas on cattle. Texas holds more than 12 million head, roughly double the next state. Beef is one of the two products, alongside cotton, that lead Texas exports abroad. This is a core Texas industry with deep roots, enormous scale, and global demand. The herd is on Texas land, owned by Texas ranchers, and it does not go anywhere when Texas governs itself. The buyers and the packers stay put The feedlots, packing plants, and buyers that turn Texas cattle into beef on tables in the United States and overseas do not relocate at independence. The processing capacity is in Texas and the surrounding market, the demand is global, and the logistics are built. Beef keeps moving across the Texas-U.S. border and out through Texas ports the same way it does today, under the trade agreements neighbors use. Independence means Texas writes its own beef-trade terms Beef exports live and die by trade access and by sanitary standards that importing countries recognize. Today those terms are negotiated by Washington for the whole country. An independent Texas would negotiate market access for Texas beef directly and maintain the internationally recognized food-safety standards that buyers require, building on the state meat-inspection capacity Texas already runs. When a foreign market closes to U.S. beef over a federal dispute, Texas ranchers pay for a fight they did not pick. Independence takes Texas out of that crossfire. A global brand with room to grow Texas beef is a recognized brand worldwide. As a nation, Texas could market and sell it on its own terms, pursue new export markets directly, and protect its ranchers from being used as leverage in f…

Would farm equipment, fuel, and inputs cost more?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: There is no reason they should, and several reasons they could cost less. Texas would keep trade in farm inputs open by agreement, it produces its own fuel in abundance, and it would shed the federal regulation and inflation that quietly raise the cost of everything a farm buys. Fuel is a Texas strength, not a Texas weakness Start with fuel, because it runs every tractor, truck, and irrigation pump. Texas is the largest energy producer in the union, pumping about 43 percent of the country's crude oil and 27 percent of its natural gas, with about a quarter of U.S. refining capacity. A farm in an independent Texas would be buying diesel and fuel from the most productive energy economy on the continent, sitting right on top of the supply. If anything, a Texas that keeps the full value of its own energy is better positioned on fuel cost, not worse. Trade in equipment and inputs stays open Tractors, parts, fertilizer, seed, and chemicals move under trade agreements, and Texas would keep that trade open the same way it keeps all trade open, through a customs union, a free trade agreement, or at a minimum the World Trade Organization schedules already in place. Suppliers want to sell into a market the size of Texas, and Texas wants to buy. The mutual interest points squarely at tariff-free or low-tariff access for the inputs farms depend on, and an independent Texas would negotiate exactly that. Independence strips out federal regulation and the inflation tax Two Washington-made costs sit inside the price of everything a farm buys. The first is federal regulation, which adds compliance overhead at every step of manufacturing and distribution. The second is the inflation tax: the dollar has lost about 22 percent of its purchasing power since 2020 alone, which raises the sticker price on equipment and inputs across the board. An independent Texas sets its own lighter-touch regulation and builds toward sound money through the Texas Bullion Depository and HB 1056. Both moves p…

How would Texas handle agricultural labor and seasonal workers?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Through a Texas immigration and labor policy designed for Texas agriculture, instead of a federal system that has never worked well for the people who actually grow the food. Independence lets Texas build a legal, workable program for the seasonal and agricultural labor its farms and ranches depend on. Agriculture depends on a reliable, legal workforce Texas farms and ranches, like farms everywhere, rely on seasonal and migrant labor for planting, harvest, and livestock work. That is a practical reality of feeding a nation. The current federal system for agricultural and seasonal work is widely criticized across the political spectrum as cumbersome and poorly matched to how farms actually operate. Texas growers live with the consequences of a system written in Washington for the whole country. Independence lets Texas design a program that fits An independent Texas would set its own immigration and labor policy and could build a guest-worker and seasonal-labor program tailored to Texas agriculture: legal, orderly, and sized to the real needs of the farms and ranches that use it. This is the kind of practical, sector-specific policy that is hard to get through a federal system juggling fifty states and Washington politics, and straightforward for a nation governing itself. The doctrine here is simple: a legal, workable channel for the labor agriculture genuinely needs, set by Texas. A secure border and a working labor program go together Wanting a secure border and wanting a functional agricultural labor program are not in tension. They are two halves of the same policy. A nation that controls its own borders is exactly the nation that can run an orderly, legal guest-worker program, because it decides who comes, for what work, and on what terms. An independent Texas would pair real border security with a lawful channel for the seasonal workers its farms depend on, which is precisely the combination the current federal approach has failed to deliver. An honest note on …

What about water for irrigation?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Irrigation water is governed by Texas water law and Texas institutions today, and that does not change at independence. The shared water that reaches Texas farms keeps coming under agreements that carry over, and an independent Texas would set its own irrigation and water-infrastructure priorities for the first time. Irrigation water is already Texas-governed Most of the water that irrigates Texas crops is allocated under Texas law. Surface-water rights are administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Groundwater, which feeds a great deal of Texas irrigation, is managed locally through groundwater conservation districts. The Texas Water Development Board plans for agricultural water demand inside the State Water Plan, right alongside municipal and industrial needs. This is a Texas system, run by Texans, and it keeps running unchanged when Texas governs itself. The shared water that reaches the fields keeps flowing Some of the most important irrigation water in Texas is shared. Farmers in the Rio Grande Valley depend on Rio Grande water delivered under the 1944 treaty with Mexico, and growers across the Panhandle draw on the Ogallala, which Texas shares with other states. Those arrangements carry over at independence. The river compacts convert to international agreements on the same terms, the 1944 treaty survives under well-established international law, and Texas gains a direct seat at the table to defend the deliveries its farmers depend on, rather than relying on federal negotiators in Washington. Honest about the strain on irrigation water This is where the long-term water challenge is most real. The Ogallala is being drawn down faster than it refills, Rio Grande deliveries have run behind in dry years, and the State Water Plan projects rising demand against shrinking existing supplies if nothing is built. None of that is created by independence, and staying in the union does not fix it. The difference is who sets the strategy and funds the so…

What happens to the interstate highways?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They stay exactly where they are, and Texas keeps running them, because Texas already does. The roads are not going anywhere, the asphalt does not belong to Washington in any practical sense, and the agency that builds and maintains them is a Texas agency. Independence changes the name on the funding stream, not the highway under your tires. Texas already owns and maintains these roads Here is the fact that settles most of this question before it starts. The Interstates inside Texas, along with the US and state highways, are what the state calls "on-system" roads, and they are built, maintained, and operated by the Texas Department of Transportation. TxDOT crews patch them, TxDOT engineers design them, TxDOT contracts rebuild them. The federal government sets standards and sends a share of the money, but it does not run a single mile of road in Texas. The day-to-day machinery of the Texas highway network is already a Texas operation, staffed by Texans, headquartered in Austin. Independence does not require Texas to take over the roads. Texas is already doing the work. The "Interstate" label is about a federal standard, not federal ownership The word "Interstate" leads people to picture Washington owning the highways. It does not. The Interstate system is a set of design and connectivity standards plus a federal funding share, layered on top of roads the states own and maintain. When Texas is independent, I-35 and I-10 do not get pulled up. They become part of the Texas national highway network, built to the same standards, connecting to the same crossings at the border. A road that runs from Laredo to the Red River is a Texas road. What changes is the paperwork above it, not the route. The roads keep connecting to the United States, because that is how borders work Highways cross international borders all over the world. You can drive from the United States into Canada or Mexico today on a continuous highway, through a port of entry, without the road changing into s…

What happens to federal highway funding?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas stops sending the money to Washington and stops waiting for a fraction of it to come back. Most of what pays for Texas roads is already Texas money. The federal share is real, but it is a share, and it is a share of taxes Texans paid in the first place. An independent Texas funds its own roads directly, which is cheaper and faster than the round trip through Washington. Most road money in Texas is already Texas money Start with the proportions. About one third of Texas highway funding comes from the federal government; the rest already comes from Texas sources, the state motor-fuel tax, vehicle registration fees, and dedications written into the Texas Constitution. So when people imagine independence "cutting off highway funding," they are picturing the loss of roughly a third of the budget, not the whole thing, and even that third is not a gift. It is Texans' own fuel-tax dollars making a trip to Washington and back. How the federal piece actually works, and why the round trip costs you The federal share runs through the Highway Trust Fund. Drivers pay a federal fuel tax of 18.4 cents a gallon at the pump, that money goes into the Trust Fund, and Washington sends it back to the states as grants under formulas set in federal law, with federal strings attached. Texans pay in, Washington takes its cut and its time, and a portion returns wrapped in federal mandates. An independent Texas collects the fuel tax Texans already pay and spends it on Texas roads directly, without the detour, the skim, or the strings. The dollar that used to go to Washington and come back smaller and slower just stays home. This is the same self-sufficiency story as the rest of the budget Highway funding is one line item inside a question Texas has already answered: can Texas pay for its own government? Yes, with margin. Texans pay about $453 billion a year to Washington and Austin combined, and the full cost of governing Texas, every function, runs about $295 billion a year. Roads are i…

How would air travel between Texas and the U.S. work?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same way air travel works between any two friendly countries, which is to say easily and constantly. Planes fly between countries every minute of every day. The whole world runs international air service on a settled framework of treaties and agreements, and an independent Texas would plug straight into it. You would still board a flight from Dallas or Houston to anywhere in the United States; what changes is the category of the agreement underneath the flight, not the flight. International air travel already runs on a global rulebook There is nothing improvised about flying between countries. Since 1944, international civil aviation has operated under the Chicago Convention, which created the body now known as ICAO and the shared rules that let aircraft cross borders safely. 193 countries are parties to it. An independent Texas would join that framework as a matter of routine administrative work, the same way every new nation does, and Texas aircraft, airports, and pilots would operate under the same internationally recognized standards as everyone else. The system that moves people between countries is mature, global, and built precisely so a flight from one nation to another is ordinary. Service between Texas and the US runs on an air-services agreement Commercial flights between any two countries operate under a bilateral air-services agreement, and the open, liberalized version is called an Open Skies agreement, which removes government limits on routes, how many flights, how many seats, and what fares airlines can offer. The United States already maintains Open Skies agreements with well over 125 partners around the world, because more flying is good for the US economy. Texas, with two of the busiest airports on the continent and an economy deeply tied to the United States, would be negotiating from real strength for exactly that kind of open arrangement. The result Texans would actually notice: the same airlines flying the same routes between Texas and th…

What happens to the FAA and air traffic control?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas would run its own civil-aviation authority and its own air traffic control, coordinated with the United States and the rest of the world the way every country's system already coordinates. Air traffic control is not a uniquely American function; it is a standard function every nation performs, and they all hand aircraft off to each other across borders every day. The planes keep flying on the same routes under the same global standards. Air traffic control is something every country does, and they all connect The single most important fact here is that air traffic control already works across borders. No country controls the whole sky. Each nation runs the airspace over its own territory and hands aircraft off to the next country's controllers at the boundary, cleanly, thousands of times a day. A flight from Europe to the United States passes through several countries' airspace before an American controller ever speaks to it. An independent Texas would run Texas airspace and hand off to US controllers at the border exactly as Canada and Mexico do now. The hand-off is the everyday normal of global aviation, not a problem to be solved. Texas would stand up its own aviation authority, built to global standards Every sovereign nation has a civil-aviation authority, the FAA's counterpart. Canada has one, the United Kingdom has one, every flying nation has one. An independent Texas would have its own, operating under the same ICAO standards that bind every member country, so Texas-certified aircraft, airports, and controllers are recognized worldwide. This is routine nation-state machinery, not a moonshot. Exactly how Texas organizes that authority is a decision for the future Texas government; what is certain is that the function is standard, well-defined, and performed by every country that has airplanes. Safety certifications cross borders by agreement, and that system already exists Here is the part that reassures pilots and airlines. The FAA already signs bilat…

What happens to TSA at Texas airports?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas would run security at its own airports, to international standards, the way every country runs its own airport security. TSA is the United States' domestic screening agency; it does not operate at airports in other countries, and it would not need to operate in an independent Texas. Texas screens its own passengers, the United States screens its own, and flights between the two are covered by the same international security framework that already governs flights between every pair of countries. Airport security is a national function everywhere, and Texas would handle its own Every country provides security at its own airports. When you fly out of London, Toronto, or Mexico City, you are screened by that country's people under that country's authority, not by TSA. An independent Texas would do the same at Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, and the rest, running its own airport security operation. This is not a gap independence creates; it is a standard function Texas would perform, the way it already runs state law enforcement and emergency services. Who provides the screening changes from a federal agency to a Texas one. The screening itself continues. There is a global security standard, and everyone flies to it Aviation security is not improvised country by country. The international community sets shared aviation-security standards through ICAO, known as Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention, adopted back in 1974, and member nations build their airport security to meet them. An independent Texas would secure its airports to those same internationally recognized standards, which is exactly what makes a flight from one country to another acceptable on both ends. The standard is global; Texas would meet it like everyone else. This is how flights to the US are already secured from abroad, without TSA on foreign soil Here is the detail that answers the worry directly. Flights already depart for the United States from airports all over the world where TSA runs no …

Would Texas driver's licenses and IDs still be accepted in the U.S.?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, for driving, the way every country's licenses are accepted across borders, and there is a treaty the United States already belongs to that says so. A Texas driver's license would let a Texan drive in the United States the same way a Canadian or British license lets a visitor drive there now. The one place an ID does more than prove you can drive, boarding a US flight, is already a solved question with familiar answers. Driver's licenses cross borders by treaty, and the US is a party to it This is settled international machinery. The United States is one of 103 countries party to the 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic, under which signatory nations recognize one another's driving permits. That is why a tourist can land in the United States and legally drive on a license from home. An independent Texas would be a party to the same kind of arrangement, so a Texas license is honored for driving in the United States, and a US license is honored in Texas. International recognition of driver's licenses is not a favor anyone has to grant. It is an established treaty system the United States already participates in. Visitors already drive in the US on foreign licenses every day Forget the theory for a moment and look at practice. Foreign visitors drive in the United States constantly, on their own country's licenses, often paired with an International Driving Permit, which is simply a standardized translation of a home-country license that the same 1949 convention created. Rental counters, police, and state DMVs already deal with foreign licenses as a matter of routine. A Texas license would slot into that everyday reality. Nothing about it would be unusual, because the United States already accepts licenses from every country it has road-traffic relations with. Texas already issues secure IDs at the scale a nation needs Texas is not starting from scratch on credentials. The state already issues driver's licenses and ID cards to tens of millions of people, with secu…

What happens to passenger rail and freight rail?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The trains keep running, and the freight network barely notices the border, because the railroads that matter most to Texas are privately owned and already run trains across international lines every day. Passenger service continues through the same kind of cross-border cooperation that runs trains between countries elsewhere. Freight, which is the part of rail that actually drives the Texas economy, is owned and operated by private companies whose tracks already cross into Mexico and Canada. Freight rail is privately owned, and it already crosses borders This is the heart of it. America's freight railroads overwhelmingly own, build, maintain, and pay for their own track, roughly 140,000 miles of it, with little government money. These are private companies, and they already run freight trains across the US-Mexico and US-Canada borders constantly, because goods do not stop at a line on a map. An independent Texas does not need to nationalize, rebuild, or untangle the freight network. The same private railroads keep owning their Texas track and keep running the same trains across the border, because that is their business and it is enormously profitable. Cross-border freight rail is not a hypothetical for an independent Texas; it is the daily normal of North American railroading. The freight network is built for international operation already Because the major railroads operate in the United States, Mexico, and Canada at once, the rail system is already engineered to work across sovereign borders, with customs handled at crossing points and interchange between carriers as routine practice. A Texas-US rail border would be one more crossing in a network full of them. The trade that moves by rail, part of the more than $300 billion a year in two-way Texas-Mexico commerce alone, gives every railroad and both governments a powerful interest in keeping the freight moving. Rail is one of the least disrupted pieces of independence precisely because it was never organized ar…

Would there be customs checks when driving out of Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: There would be a border to cross, the way there is when you drive from the United States into Canada today, and the realistic picture is a smooth, fast crossing, not a wall. The exact posture is something the two countries negotiate, and every incentive points toward keeping it easy. People and goods drive across friendly international borders every day with minimal friction, and that is the model for the Texas-US line. A border crossing is not the same as a barrier The word "customs" makes people picture long stops and heavy inspection. Look at how a friendly border actually works. Driving from the United States into Canada means slowing at a port of entry, a brief check, and continuing on. The live answer on the post-independence border walks through this in detail using the long US-Canada line, where towns share libraries and kids cross daily for school. A crossing between an independent Texas and the United States would work the same way: a managed port of entry on a friendly border, not a checkpoint designed to stop traffic. The border exists; the friction is a choice, and neither side has a reason to choose a hard one. The economics force the crossing to stay efficient This is the strongest guarantee. The Texas-US relationship is one of the most economically integrated on earth, with goods and people moving constantly. Both governments have an overwhelming interest in keeping crossings fast, because a slow border taxes both economies. The same deep integration that opponents call a reason Texas "cannot" leave is in fact the reason the border stays efficient after it does: too much commerce depends on it for either side to gum it up. Keeping the lanes moving is in everyone's direct financial interest. Trusted-traveler and streamlined-crossing programs already exist If you want to see how easy a managed crossing can be, look at the programs already running on US borders. NEXUS on the northern border and SENTRI and Global Entry elsewhere give pre-screened travele…

Would Texas license plates still be valid elsewhere?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. License plates are recognized across international borders by treaty, and the United States already belongs to the treaty that does it. A Texas plate would be honored when driving in the United States the same way a Mexican or Canadian plate is honored there now, and a Texas plate would carry around the world the way any country's plate does. You can already drive a foreign-plated car across a border. Independence does not change that. Vehicle registration crosses borders by treaty, and the US is in it Here is the mechanism. The United States is a party to the 1949 Geneva Convention on Road Traffic, under which signatory countries recognize one another's vehicle registrations. A car registered in one signatory country may be driven in the others, displaying its plate along with a distinguishing sign for its country of registration. That is the legal plumbing behind every foreign-plated car you have ever seen on an American road. An independent Texas would be part of the same kind of arrangement, so a Texas plate is recognized for driving in the United States, and US plates are recognized in Texas. Cross-border recognition of plates is not something anyone has to invent for Texas; it is an established treaty the United States already honors. You already see foreign plates on American roads every day Step back from the legalities and look around. Cars with Mexican and Canadian plates drive on US highways constantly, and US-plated cars drive in both neighboring countries. Nobody re-registers their vehicle to cross a border for a trip. A Texas plate would join that ordinary reality, recognized on the road the way every neighboring country's plates already are. The everyday proof that this works is parked in border-town lots and rolling down the Interstates right now. Texas already runs vehicle registration at national scale Texas does not need to build a registration system; it runs one of the largest in the world already. The state registers tens of millions of ve…

What happens to federal research facilities in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They stay in Texas, staffed by Texans, doing the same work. The research happens here because the talent, the universities, and the industry are here, and none of that moves when sovereignty changes. If anything, the labs gain a government that treats them as a priority instead of one line in a fifty-state budget. The buildings, the people, and the expertise are already in Texas A research facility is not a thing Washington can pack up and carry away. It is a campus, a workforce, and decades of accumulated knowledge, rooted in place. Texas already hosts a deep research base that runs on Texas talent and Texas universities. Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio is one of the largest applied science centers in the country, with thousands of scientists and engineers and a research budget approaching a billion dollars a year. The University of Texas and Texas A&M systems anchor world-class laboratories. The people who do this work live here, and their work stays where they are. Most research already runs on contracts, not on a flag Modern research is overwhelmingly organized through contracts and grants, not through who governs the zip code. Federally funded research is performed under agreements that any sponsor, foreign or domestic, can enter. The Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, for instance, is a federally funded research center that operates on Southwest Research Institute's grounds under sponsorship from a federal agency. That is a contract relationship, and contract relationships cross borders every day. An independent Texas would keep the work flowing the same way: continue the agreements that serve both sides, and let Texas institutions compete for international research funding the way leading labs everywhere already do. Science is the most borderless enterprise there is Research does not respect national lines and never has. Scientists collaborate across every border on Earth, funded by agencies from many nations at once. A laboratory in Te…

How would Texas handle the functions the FCC used to cover?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same way every other country on Earth already handles them: with its own national regulator, operating inside the international framework that coordinates spectrum across borders. The FCC is not unique. Every country has one of its own, and an independent Texas would too. Every country runs its own spectrum regulator There is nothing exotic about regulating the airwaves. The radio spectrum is coordinated worldwide by the International Telecommunication Union, whose Radio Regulations are a treaty updated every few years at the World Radiocommunication Conference. Within that framework, each country licenses its own spectrum through its own national regulator. The United States uses the FCC. The United Kingdom uses Ofcom. China uses its Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Each one builds its national frequency plan from the same international template. An independent Texas would establish its own regulator and join the ITU, the same as everyone else. The international layer is what makes phones and satellites work, and Texas would simply join it Spectrum has to be coordinated across borders so signals do not collide and satellites can reach the ground. That coordination is exactly what the ITU exists to provide. Membership is open to nations, and a new nation joins as a party in its own right. Once Texas is a member, Texas spectrum is coordinated with its neighbors and with the world through the same treaty machinery every other country uses. Your phone keeps working. Your satellite TV keeps working. The cross-border plumbing was never American property. It is an international system Texas would be part of. The hard part is already built in Texas Spectrum regulation is not just rule-writing. It is engineering, monitoring, licensing, and enforcement, and Texas already has the universities, the telecom industry, and the engineering talent to staff all of it. The state is home to major carriers, equipment makers, and one of the deepest technology workfor…

What happens to federal cybersecurity infrastructure in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas would run its own national cyber defense, the same as every serious country does, and it would cooperate with allies against threats that cross every border. Cybersecurity is one area where independence is a clear upgrade, because a smaller, focused agency answering directly to Texas can move faster than a distant federal one. Every capable nation runs its own cyber agency The federal cyber-defense agency, CISA, was only created in 2018, and it is headquartered in Virginia, not Texas. Other nations run their own equivalents: the United Kingdom has its National Cyber Security Centre, and countries across Europe and beyond operate their own national computer emergency response teams. There is a well-worn template for what a national cyber agency does, who staffs it, and how it coordinates with the rest of the country. An independent Texas would stand up its own, built on that proven model. Cyber threats cross borders, so the work is cooperative by design No country defends its networks alone, because attackers operate internationally and so must defenders. CISA itself works through partnerships with allied nations' agencies, because a threat aimed at Texas, the United States, and Europe is best met together. An independent Texas would join those same cooperative arrangements as a partner in its own right, sharing threat intelligence with allies the way every modern cyber agency does. Independence does not unplug Texas from the alliance against cybercrime. It gives Texas its own seat in it. Texas already has the talent and the targets to protect Texas is not starting from scratch. The state already protects its own networks, runs its own information-security operations across state government, and hosts a large private cybersecurity industry, major data centers, and a deep technology workforce. The expertise to defend Texas systems is already employed in Texas, in state agencies, in industry, and in the universities that train the next generation. A Texas cyber a…

What happens to the U.S. Postal Service in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The mail keeps moving. On the morning after a vote, things continue as they have until they don't, and mail delivery is the clearest example. The carriers, the routes, the post offices, and the sorting facilities are all physically in Texas, and a transition agreement keeps them running while a Texas postal service is organized. Day one looks like the day before Independence is a process, not a switch thrown overnight. There is a negotiation and a transition, and during it existing services keep operating while the details are settled. Mail is among the most routine of those services. The post offices on Texas corners, the carriers who drive Texas routes, and the workers in Texas sorting centers all live and work here. Nothing about a vote empties those buildings or grounds those trucks. The mail gets delivered, the same as the day before, while Texas stands up its own postal operations. International mail runs on a treaty Texas would join Here is the part that surprises people: mail already crosses borders through a single global system, and joining it is straightforward. The Universal Postal Union is a United Nations agency with 192 member countries. Each member runs its own postal service while agreeing to common terms, so a letter can travel from almost any country to almost any other. Crucially, every member delivers incoming foreign mail with the same care as its own domestic mail. An independent Texas would join the UPU as a member in its own right, and from that moment Texas mail connects to the entire world through the same machinery the United States, Mexico, and every other country already use. Texas would run its own postal service, the way 192 countries do A national postal service is one of the most ordinary functions a country performs. Nearly two hundred nations run their own, from the largest economies to the smallest islands. Texas, with a larger economy than most of them, is more than capable of operating its own mail system, whether as a public s…

Would Texas have its own postal service?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, and it is one of the easiest pieces of independence to picture, because the infrastructure already exists inside Texas and nearly two hundred countries already run their own. The only real questions are how Texas chooses to organize it and what name goes on the truck. The network is already here A postal service is buildings, routes, vehicles, and people, and all of them are already on the ground in Texas. Every post office, every sorting facility, every mail route, and every postal worker that serves Texas is physically here today. Standing up a Texas postal service is not a matter of building a network from nothing. It is a matter of organizing one that already covers all 254 counties. That is why the transition can keep the mail moving while the new structure is settled. Running the mail is normal nation business Operating a postal service is one of the most common things a country does. The Universal Postal Union, the United Nations body that ties the world's mail together, has 192 member nations, each running its own service and each connected to all the others. Tiny island nations do it. Enormous economies do it. Texas, which would rank among the largest economies on Earth, is more than capable. Membership in the UPU is how Texas mail would reach the rest of the world, with each member delivering incoming foreign mail just like its own. Texas can choose the model that fits Independence lets Texas decide how to run the mail rather than inheriting one fixed structure. It could operate as a government service, as a self-funding chartered corporation the way many national posts do, or in partnership with the private carriers that already move much of Texas freight and parcels. A Texas service could lean on the state's logistics strengths, set its own rates, and answer to Texans. The precise model is a decision for the future Texas government, and we will not invent its rate card or its org chart. The point is that Texas would not lack for options or capabilit…

What happens to patents and intellectual property held by Texans?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Your intellectual property stays yours, and your U.S. patents stay valid in the United States. Patents do not evaporate when a border moves. They are property, they are territorial, and the world runs a well-established system for protecting inventions across many countries at once. An independent Texas would join it, and Texas inventors would gain a Texas patent of their own on top of the protection they already hold. A U.S. patent is property, and it stays valid where it was granted A patent is a property right, and a granted U.S. patent remains a granted U.S. patent regardless of what happens to Texas's status. If you are a Texan holding a U.S. patent, you still hold it the morning after a vote, and it is still enforceable in the United States under U.S. law. The same is true of your trademarks and copyrights. A change in Texas's sovereignty does not reach into the U.S. patent office and cancel what it has already issued. Your inventions, your brands, and your creative work remain your property throughout. Patents are territorial, which is why the world built a system to handle this Here is the key fact most people do not know: patents have always been country-by-country. There is no such thing as a single worldwide patent. Each country grants and enforces its own, which means inventors have always had to protect their work across multiple jurisdictions, and the world built treaties to make that manageable. The Paris Convention, in force since 1883 and administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, has 181 member countries; it lets an inventor who files first in one member country claim that early filing date in the others. The Patent Cooperation Treaty lets an inventor file a single international application recognized by over 150 countries. Texas inventors already live in this multi-country system. Independence simply adds Texas to the map of countries they file in. New nations keep their place in these treaties, routinely When a new nation comes…

How would Texas regulate aviation and aerospace?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: With its own civil-aviation authority, operating inside the global aviation system that already lets planes fly safely between every country on Earth. Air traffic control, safety standards, and cross-border flights are governed by an international framework Texas would join. This is settled, everyday infrastructure, and the book lists air traffic control among the issues "common to all independent nations" that are "handled in virtually the same way." International aviation already runs on a treaty, not on a single government Every flight that crosses a border does so under one global framework. The Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago in 1944, created the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency now numbering 193 member states with more than twelve thousand shared standards. That convention affirms that every nation has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory, and that every member runs air-navigation services over its own territory. Planes already fly seamlessly from country to country because of this system, not in spite of borders. An independent Texas would join ICAO and slot directly into the framework that makes global aviation work. Texas would run its own civil-aviation authority and its own airspace Inside the ICAO framework, each country operates its own civil-aviation authority and controls its own airspace. An independent Texas would establish a Texas authority to certify aircraft and operators, oversee safety, and manage Texas airspace and air traffic control, exactly as every nation does. The controllers, the airport personnel, the inspectors, and the engineers who keep Texas aviation running are already here. Cross-border flights would continue under air-service agreements, the standard bilateral and open-skies arrangements that already govern how airlines fly between nations. Your flight to another country is a treaty matter, and treaties are exactly what a sovereign…

What happens to defense and aerospace contractors based in Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: They keep building, they keep employing Texans, and they gain a second major customer instead of losing their first. Texas is one of the most important defense and aerospace manufacturing centers in the world, and that work stays exactly where the factories, the workers, and the engineering are: in Texas. The factories and the jobs are physically in Texas A defense plant cannot be relocated by a change of flag. Air Force Plant 4 in Fort Worth, where Lockheed Martin builds the F-16 and the F-35, employs about 17,000 people and is one of the largest employers in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro. Bell Textron is headquartered in Fort Worth and is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a new aircraft factory there. Around them sits an aerospace ecosystem of roughly 675 companies and about 95,000 jobs. Those buildings, production lines, and skilled workers are in Texas. Independence does not move a single rivet of it. Defense firms already sell to many nations at once Selling defense and aerospace products across borders is the everyday business of these companies. The F-35 built in Fort Worth flies for the United States and for a long roster of allied nations that buy it. Major defense contractors already operate internationally, selling to dozens of governments under export agreements. An independent Texas would simply be one more sovereign customer and one more sovereign host, a situation these firms manage constantly. The work does not depend on Texas and the United States sharing one government. It depends on the products being good and the contracts being signed, and both would continue. Texas gains a customer; it does not lose one Here is the part the worry misses. An independent Texas would stand up its own defense forces and its own space program, and it would buy from the world-class manufacturers already operating inside its borders. A Texas military procuring aircraft and equipment from Fort Worth is a new, major, in-country customer for these firms, on top …

How would an independent Texas secure its water supply?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The same way it does today, and with more control, not less. Water in Texas is overwhelmingly governed by Texas already. Independence changes the label on a handful of agreements without changing the water itself. Texas already manages its own water The institutions that plan, allocate, and protect Texas water are state institutions. The Texas Water Development Board produces the State Water Plan and finances water projects. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality administers water rights and quality. Groundwater conservation districts manage aquifers locally. River authorities manage the basins. None of that depends on Washington, and none of it disappears at independence. The day-to-day machinery of Texas water is built and run in Texas. Shared rivers are managed by agreement, the way they already are Some Texas rivers cross borders, and those are governed by agreements rather than by ownership. Inside the union, Texas already operates under interstate compacts for the rivers it shares with its neighbors, including the Rio Grande, Pecos, Canadian, Red, and Sabine. These are negotiated agreements that divide the water between states. On independence, agreements between U.S. states simply become agreements between countries. The substance of who gets what does not have to change. Only the legal category does, from interstate compact to international treaty, which is exactly how neighboring nations all over the world share rivers. The 1944 Water Treaty with Mexico is an asset, not a problem The Rio Grande and the Texas-Mexico water relationship are governed by the 1944 treaty on the waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and the Rio Grande, administered by the binational International Boundary and Water Commission. It is the agreement under which Mexico delivers Rio Grande water to the United States, on the order of 350,000 acre-feet a year averaged over five-year cycles, and Texas is the principal beneficiary on the U.S. side. Boundary and water treaties ar…

What happens to NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Johnson Space Center is one of the crown jewels of human spaceflight, and it is not going anywhere. It sits in Houston, it is staffed and supported by Texans, and an independent Texas would keep it working through the same kind of partnership that already runs the world's space programs. Space is the most collaborative enterprise on Earth Modern spaceflight is built on international partnership. The International Space Station is operated jointly by the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, and the nations of the European Space Agency, sovereign countries pooling facilities and crews. Mission Control in Houston already coordinates daily with partners around the globe. The idea that a federal facility can only function if everyone around it shares one government is contradicted by how the space program actually works every single day. An independent Texas would negotiate continued operation A facility like Johnson would be addressed in the transition negotiations, and both sides have every reason to keep it running. The most likely outcomes are continued joint operation under an agreement between Texas and the United States, a long-term lease, or transfer to Texas with a cooperative partnership, the same menu of options the live military-base question describes. Shutting down a world-class center, scattering its workforce, and walking away from decades of investment would serve no one. Keeping it working serves both nations. Texas is already a space power in its own right Texas does not come to this conversation empty-handed. It is home to SpaceX's Starbase on the Gulf Coast, Blue Origin's operations in West Texas, and a deep aerospace workforce. And the state has moved aggressively to lead. In 2023 the Legislature passed House Bill 3447, creating the Texas Space Commission and a $350 million program: $150 million for a fund to grow the industry, and $200 million to build new space-research facilities right next to Johnson Space Center, with Texas A&M leading the wor…

How difficult will it be for Texas to transition from a state in the union to an independent nation?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Independence is not a single act embodied in a referendum. Independence is a state of being. The referendum is the first step in the process, an expression of political will that kicks off the process of becoming independent. It is, however, an important step. Such an expression of political will must be respected. It demands action. However, that action must be balanced with care and caution as Texas enters the next phase, negotiation and transition. There should be one single aim for relations with the United States in the immediate aftermath of Texit, minimizing disruption. While those opposed to Texit would love to think that disruption cannot be avoided or even mitigated as Texas leaves the Union, they are dead wrong. In fact, the tools necessary to effect a speedy, efficient, and minimally disruptive Texit are already at our disposal. Before discussing what specific measures could or should be taken after a referendum, it's important to take stock of these tools and examine how 195 independent, self-governing nation-states already operate, especially regarding one another. Modern, self-governing, Western-style nation-states typically use four mechanisms to conduct the business of state. Fundamental issues of governance are addressed in a constitution that, if it's already in existence and contains a method to do so, can be changed through amendments. In the case of Texas, the existing State constitution is already in the form of a republic with a form that is virtually identical to that of an independent nation-state. Nations, at least those that are republics, have legislative bodies that makes laws under the authorization of the aforementioned constitution. The executive branch of the government can execute administrative actions that affect the operations of its various departments and agencies and set the rules for how the laws are executed. The final set of tools in the arsenal are international agreements that come in either the form of bilateral agreeme…

Will Texans need a passport to travel to the United States after TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Negotiating travel between the United States and an independent Texas should be relatively easy since there is already an example of how the United States handles regular travel between itself and a contiguous foreign country. All we have to do is look south toward Mexico. Starting in 2014, the number of people legally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border topped one million daily. Passports aren't even required, as the U.S. government allows Mexican citizens to use "Border Crossing Cards" to enter the United States from Mexico "by land, or by pleasure vessel or ferry." There is a very good reason that motivates the federal government to lower the barriers to travel between contiguous countries and itself. It's good for the economy. Noe Garcia, president of the Border Trade Alliance, singled out the economic motivator. "Legal border crossings at the dozens of ports of entries located along the U.S.-Mexican border significantly benefit both the U.S. and Mexican economies, which is why the numbers continue to rise." However, anyone concerned about the use of passports to travel from State to State within the United States should hope they don't live in one of handful of States that haven't implemented the federal guidelines in 2005's REAL ID Act. Starting in January of 2018, residents of Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington will need a passport to board any flight, domestic or international, according to new TSA guidelines. However, the States not listed have state-issued IDs that are compliant with the TSA guidelines. In addition, government-issued Border Crossing Cards and Global Entry Cards can be used. This is all to point out that travel agreements between self-governing independent nations are common, as is the desire of nations to ease travel restrictions between those countries while maintaining high standards for security. A great example of this is the federal Visa Waiver program that allows the citi…

How Can A Post-TEXIT Border Work With The United States?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Supporter or skeptic, you have probably wondered how a border between an independent Texas and the rest of the United States would work. Some say that it will be complicated and difficult to manage, while fewer say that it simply wouldn't be feasible. However, if you want to see exactly how easy it would be, all you have to do is look to the north. Right above the U.S. is Canada, along with the border that keeps the two countries separated. This example alone is enough to show how a border between Texas and the United States could work. The border between the U.S. and Canada is officially known as the International Boundary. It is the longest border between two countries globally, spanning 5,525 miles. The border that exists on land comprises two sections: Canada's southern border, which continues to the U.S, and Canada's western border, with Alaska to its west. When it comes to maintaining and marking the massively long boundary, the task is left to the bi-national International Boundary Commission. Issues regarding the boundary's waters are given to the International Joint Commission. However, the agencies currently responsible for arranging the legal passage between the Canada-United States border are the CBP (U.S Customs and Border Protection) and CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency). While everything is handled in detail on the legal side of things, here are a few little-known facts about the international border that will surprise you. Along the 49th parallel of the border, there is a 20-foot divide between each countries' forests. The border also has a "no-touch zone" that separates the two. There are a few exceptions to this zone. One of those is Derby Line in Vermont and the other is Stanstead in Quebec. Vermont and Stanstead are separated at the border of Derby Line with a line of flowerpots. There is even a library built on both Vermont and Canadian soil, with the main entrance located in Derby Line. While there is no entrance from Canada, patrons can ent…

Will the federal government use military force to stop TEXIT?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: One cannot reasonably assume that the policy of the federal government from the mid-19th century would be the policy of the federal government two decades into the 21st. There is no current federal policy regarding a State leaving the Union. However, there is current federal policy regarding states and territories leaving currently established political and economic institutions. Those policies involve neutrality or the use of military action in support of self-determination. Imagine the scenario. Fifteen million Texans have gone to the polls and voted in a free, fair, and open referendum, conducted under the laws of the State of Texas, and have chosen, by a majority vote, to leave the Union and assert Texas' status as a free and independent self-governing nation-state. Historically, around the world, voter turnout for independence referenda is 85 to 90 percent. Taking the low end, that would mean that 12.75 million Texans would cast their vote in the referendum. Figuring the lowest possible threshold for an independence victory, approximately 6.4 million Texans would vote in favor of independence. If the federal government opts for a military solution, how would it handle the 6.4 million Texans who voted in favor of independence? Prison? Extermination? What would the justification be for any actions taken against Texans whose sole crime was voting for self-determination in a fair, free, and open referendum? When exactly would this military intervention occur? Would they do it before a vote on Texit to prevent the people having their say? Would they wait until after the results of the vote were tallied and the results announced in favor of independence? Or would they wait until after Texas began the process of extracting itself from the federal system and began asserting its role as a nation among nations? Under close scrutiny, it becomes apparent that the federal government will not move to stop Texit once it's been decided by the people of Texas and they most cert…

Will an independent Texas maintain embassies in other countries?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas will operate in the same manner as other independent, self-governing nations. We will have our own ambassadors, embassies, trade missions, and consulates around the world.

Would the United Nations admit Texas as a member?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Almost certainly yes, in time, and the path is well worn. UN membership is not how a country becomes a country, and it is not the first thing a new nation needs. But Texas would qualify on the merits the day it declares, and the institution exists to admit exactly the kind of stable, functioning, peaceful state Texas already is. Membership is not what makes you a country First, clear up a common confusion. A seat at the United Nations does not create a nation, and the lack of one does not unmake it. Switzerland governed itself for centuries and did not join the UN until 2002. A country exists when it has a people, a territory, a government, and the capacity to deal with other states, and it conducts diplomacy, signs treaties, and trades whether or not it holds a particular membership card. Texas would be a country on the strength of those facts. UN membership is the formal welcome that follows, not the thing that confers existence. How admission actually works The procedure is set out in Article 4 of the UN Charter. Membership is open to "peace-loving states" that accept the Charter's obligations and are able and willing to carry them out. Admission is then effected by a vote of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The General Assembly decides by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. So there are two gates: a recommendation from the Security Council, and a two-thirds vote of the wider Assembly. Texas clears the substantive bar easily Read the standard again: a peace-loving state, able and willing to keep international commitments. That describes Texas precisely. More than 30 million people, a defined territory, a functioning constitutional government, and an economy already woven into global trade. A Texas that arrives at independence through a peaceful, lawful, democratic vote is the textbook "peace-loving state." On the question the Charter actually asks, there is no serious case against Texas. The honest part: t…

How does a brand-new country get recognized in the first place?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Recognition is a deliberate, government-to-government process, and it rests on a principle that works in Texas's favor: a state exists because it meets the criteria of a state, not because anyone grants it permission. Recognition confirms a fact on the ground. It does not invent one. The legal foundation: you exist because you function International law settled the basic question almost a century ago. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 lists what makes a state a state: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter relations with other states. Article 3 of that same convention then says it plainly: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." That is the declaratory theory of statehood, and it is the prevailing view in international law. A country that meets the criteria is a country, recognized or not. Recognition is acknowledgment, not creation There is an older, weaker view, the constitutive theory, which holds that a state only exists once others recognize it. The world has largely moved past it, for an obvious reason: it would mean a people's very existence as a nation could be vetoed by outsiders who simply refused to look. The settled modern position is the declaratory one. Recognition is other governments acknowledging a reality, formalizing relations, and getting on with business. It is a handshake, not a birth certificate. How it happens in practice Recognition is extended one government at a time. A country issues a formal statement recognizing the new state, and from there the two establish diplomatic relations, exchange ambassadors, and open embassies. None of this runs through a single global switch. It is a series of bilateral decisions, each made by a government weighing its own interests. That is why a new nation works the phones and the capitals: every recognition is its own negotiation, and they accumulate. There is a difference between recognizing a state and recogn…

Would the United States itself recognize an independent Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Washington's recognition is the most important early piece, and Washington's own interests point toward giving it. A negotiated, recognized separation is better for the United States than the alternative on every axis that matters: trade, the border, stability, and its standing in the world. This is the recognition that unlocks the rest Of all the relationships a new Texas would build, the one with Washington carries the most weight. It shapes the border, the trade relationship, the security arrangement, and the speed of recognition everywhere else. So it deserves a direct answer, and the direct answer is that the practical course, the one nations almost always choose, is to recognize reality and negotiate the terms. Refusing recognition costs Washington more than granting it Walk through what a refusal would actually do. The United States and Texas share the deepest economic relationship imaginable, an integrated border, energy flows, supply chains, and hundreds of billions in commerce. Refusing to recognize a peaceful, democratic vote would not make Texas disappear. It would freeze that relationship, disrupt Washington's own economy, unsettle the border it wants calm, and isolate Washington internationally as the party defying a free people's vote. That is a great deal of self-inflicted pain in exchange for nothing. Washington has already set the precedent it would be breaking This is the part opponents never want to discuss. The United States does not actually hold the position that a region can never leave a larger state. When Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, the United States recognized it the very next day and championed its statehood. When the International Court of Justice later examined the matter, it held that declaring independence breaks no rule of international law. So the United States is already on record, by its own action, that a people declaring independence is legitimate and worth recognizing. To deny Texas the courtesy it extende…

Which international organizations would Texas join?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: The ones a functioning nation needs to trade, fly, ship, and cooperate with its neighbors, and Texas would move on them quickly. Joining international bodies is routine administrative work that every new country does, not a gauntlet, and most of these organizations exist precisely to bring sovereign states into common systems. Start close to home: the Organization of American States A natural early step, and one the movement has named, is the Organization of American States. Its charter, signed at Bogota in 1948, commits its members to peace and security in the hemisphere, "the pacific settlement of disputes," and "common action in the event of aggression." Its membership rule is simple: "All American States that ratify the present Charter are Members of the Organization." For a new nation in the Americas, the OAS functions as a cooperation and non-aggression framework with its neighbors, exactly the kind of standing a Texas would want from the start. The bodies that keep the country running internationally Beyond the OAS, a short list of technical organizations does the unglamorous work that lets a country operate across borders. The International Civil Aviation Organization sets the rules that let your flights land in other countries; its membership is open to sovereign states, and joining is how an independent Texas plugs its airports into the global aviation system. The International Maritime Organization does the equivalent for shipping, which matters enormously for a state with the busiest ports in the union. The Universal Postal Union connects national mail systems so a letter crosses borders. These are intergovernmental clubs of states, and a new state joins them as a matter of course. The trade system To trade on stable, predictable terms with the wider world, a country accedes to the World Trade Organization. We cover the mechanics in the trade-agreements answer, but the short version is that the WTO is open to "any State or separate customs territory poss…

How would Texas handle existing U.S. treaties?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: In an orderly, well-precedented way, the same way every new nation has. International law has developed specific rules for what happens to treaties when a state becomes independent, and the practical result for Texas is continuity where it counts, with the freedom to choose elsewhere. There is an established body of law for exactly this This is not uncharted territory. The question of what happens to a predecessor state's treaties when a new state emerges is the subject of its own international convention, the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, opened in 1978. Dozens of nations have navigated this transition, from the breakup of the Soviet Union to the splits in central Europe, and the law and the practice are well developed. Texas would step into a process the world has run many times. Boundary and territorial treaties carry over automatically The most important category is the most stable. Under the 1978 convention, a succession of states "does not as such affect a boundary established by a treaty," nor the rights and obligations relating to a boundary regime, and the same holds for other territorial arrangements. The International Court of Justice has treated this as a rule of customary international law. In plain terms, the treaties that fix borders and govern shared territorial resources do not evaporate when sovereignty changes. They pass to the successor state. For Texas, that means the framework governing the Rio Grande and the Texas-Mexico boundary continues, with Texas stepping in as a party in its own right. For most other treaties, the tools are continuity and choice Outside the boundary category, a new state has practical, well-used options. It can succeed to a treaty, declaring that it continues to be bound. It can newly accede to a treaty in its own name. Or, for agreements that do not serve its interests, it can decline. The common pattern is a transition period in which existing arrangements continue while the new stat…

Would Texas join or negotiate into a North American trade deal?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas would secure stable trade terms with its largest partners, and it holds extraordinary leverage to do it. Whether that comes through joining the existing North American agreement, striking direct deals, or operating under the global trade rules already in place, Texas is the one economy in this hemisphere that no one can afford to leave out. Be precise about the existing deal The trade agreement governing North America today is the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which took effect on 1 July 2020 and replaced NAFTA. Its parties are the United States, Mexico, and Canada. We will be straight about its mechanics: the agreement as written does not contain a standing clause that lets a new country simply opt in. Adding a member would require the agreement of all three existing parties. An accession mechanism for other countries has been floated as a possible topic for the agreement's scheduled review, but it is a discussion, not a settled door. So Texas joining that specific agreement is a negotiation, not a formality, and we will not pretend it is a switch Texas can flip. The leverage runs in Texas's favor Now the part that matters. Texas is not a small economy begging for terms. It is the world's 8th-largest economy and the single most important trading partner of both the United States and Mexico in this picture. Texas's two-way trade with Mexico alone runs over $300 billion a year by TNM's analysis of state trade data, larger than all trade between the United States and the United Kingdom. The other parties have a powerful interest in keeping that commerce flowing on stable terms. A trade negotiation in which Texas sits on one side and its three biggest customers and suppliers sit on the other is not a negotiation Texas approaches from weakness. The fallback is already solid: world trade rules Even if a North American arrangement took time to settle, Texas would not be trading in a vacuum. It would accede to the World Trade Organization, whose terms are op…

What would Texas's relationship with Mexico look like?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: A relationship between neighbors with deep, mutual interests in trade, a managed border, and shared water, conducted directly for the first time rather than through Washington. The ties are already enormous. Independence gives Texas its own voice in managing them. The economic relationship is already one of the largest on earth Texas and Mexico are not strangers who would be meeting at independence. Texas's two-way trade with Mexico runs over $300 billion a year by TNM's analysis of state trade data, a flow larger than all trade between the United States and the United Kingdom. Mexico is among Texas's most important commercial partners, and Texas is one of Mexico's. That much shared prosperity creates a powerful, built-in incentive on both sides to keep the relationship stable, friendly, and open. Two neighbors who do that much business together do not go looking for conflict. Texas would speak for itself, directly Today, the United States government negotiates with Mexico on the matters that touch Texas most: the border, trade, migration, and water. Texas, the state that actually shares the border and the river, is a back-seat passenger in those talks. As an independent nation, Texas would deal with Mexico directly, government to government, on the issues Texans live with every day. For the first time, the people most affected by the Texas-Mexico relationship would be the ones at the table managing it. The border becomes a Texas decision A core promise of independence is control of the border. As a sovereign nation, Texas would set its own border and immigration policy and manage its own ports of entry, in cooperation with Mexico on the practical mechanics the way neighboring countries everywhere do. We do not assume any particular commitment from the Mexican government here; that is theirs to make. What changes for Texas is authority: the decisions about who and what crosses, and how, would be made in Texas, by Texans, rather than set in Washington for the whole u…

Would Texas need its own foreign policy and diplomatic corps?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, and building one is ordinary nation-state work that Texas is unusually well positioned to do. Every independent country runs its own foreign affairs, the institutions are well understood, and Texas already has both the global relationships and the homegrown talent to staff them. Foreign affairs is a standard function, not a mystery A nation's foreign policy and diplomatic service are no more exotic than its treasury or its courts. Every one of the world's nearly 200 countries maintains one, in forms ranging from large to lean. The job is well defined: represent the country abroad, conduct relations with other governments, negotiate treaties and trade, run embassies and consulates, issue passports, and serve citizens overseas. This is established institutional terrain, and Texas would be building something the rest of the world has already built many times over. Texas already has the standing of a global player Texas does not come to this empty-handed. It is the world's 8th-largest economy, a top energy producer, and a state that already does business on every continent. Foreign governments, companies, and investors already deal with Texas. The relationships that a diplomatic corps formalizes are, in large part, relationships Texas already has in substance. The task is to give them official form, not to conjure them from nothing. The institutional seed already exists The movement's own framework points to the practical starting point. Securing independence includes reopening the Texas embassy in London, a nod to the fact that the Republic of Texas once maintained diplomatic missions abroad, and issuing a Texas passport. On the home side, the existing role of the Texas Secretary of State can be expanded to take on international relations, and treaty-making authority restored to the Texas Constitution. In other words, Texas would grow its diplomatic service out of institutions it already has, rather than invent a department from scratch. There is no shortage of pe…

Could Texas form its own alliances?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. A sovereign Texas chooses its own partners, and the most natural and likely relationship is a close, cooperative one with the United States. What changes is that Texas would enter alliances by its own choice, in its own interest, rather than inherit Washington's. Sovereignty means choosing your own friends The whole point of independence is that decisions about Texas get made by Texas. Foreign partnerships are no exception. An independent Texas would be free to form the security and diplomatic relationships that serve Texans, the way every sovereign nation does. That is a feature of independence, not a complication of it: the ability to align with partners who share Texas's interests, on terms Texas agrees to, rather than being bound by commitments made in Washington for reasons that may have nothing to do with Texas. The most likely alliance is with the United States Start with the obvious. The natural security partner for an independent Texas is the United States: a contiguous neighbor with deep shared interests, an integrated economy, and every reason to want a stable, friendly nation on its southern flank. The most probable path to Texas's strategic security is a mutual-defense arrangement with the United States rather than going it alone. That kind of partnership between allied nations is the norm around the world, and it provides for the most serious contingencies without Texas needing to build for every threat by itself. Cooperative defense is how the modern world actually works Shared defense among sovereign allies is ordinary, not exotic. Nations routinely enter mutual-defense pacts and status-of-forces agreements that allow allied militaries to cooperate, share facilities, and coordinate, all without surrendering sovereignty. The United States itself maintains defense relationships and bases with dozens of countries that are emphatically not part of the United States. An independent Texas slotting into that same kind of cooperative arrangement is the …

How long does international recognition usually take?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: There is no fixed clock, and we will not invent one. Recognition can move very fast for a stable, peacefully created nation, and the historical record shows new countries being recognized in days. What speeds it up is exactly what Texas brings: a peaceful process, a functioning state, and an economy the world cannot ignore. Honest answer first: it varies Recognition runs on a case-by-case basis, because each foreign government decides on its own timing and its own interests. So no honest answer puts a single number on it. What we can do is look at how it has actually gone for new nations, and what makes the difference between fast and slow. When it goes well, it goes fast The modern record has examples of remarkable speed. When South Sudan became independent in 2011, more than 25 countries recognized it within a single day, including all five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the United Nations admitted it as its 193rd member just five days after independence. Montenegro became a UN member within weeks of its 2006 independence. These were peaceful, negotiated, internationally accepted separations, and recognition followed almost immediately. That is the template a peaceful Texas would aim to follow. Groundwork before the vote shortens the wait Speed is not luck. It comes from preparation. New nations that recognize the importance of the process build relationships with key governments and international bodies before independence is final, so that recognition follows the vote quickly rather than slowly. A Texas that has cultivated its trading partners and natural allies in advance arrives at independence with friends ready to act, rather than starting the diplomatic work cold. What makes Texas a fast case The factors that accelerate recognition all favor Texas. A peaceful, lawful, democratic process gives foreign governments an easy yes. A stable, functioning state with no contested government removes the hardest question. And sheer economic weight pu…

What happens if some countries recognize Texas and others refuse?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas functions as a nation regardless, because under international law a state exists by meeting the criteria, not by collecting unanimous approval. Partial recognition is common, it is workable, and over time self-interest tends to close the gap. Recognition does not have to be unanimous to be real This is the heart of it. A country is not a country only once every other government agrees. The declaratory theory of statehood, the prevailing view in international law and written into Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention, holds that "the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." A state that meets the criteria, a population, a territory, a government, and the capacity to conduct relations, is a state. Recognition formalizes relationships; it does not switch existence on and off. So a Texas recognized by many and not yet by a few is still, in law and in fact, a nation. Partial recognition is a normal condition, not a crisis Plenty of states in the world today are recognized by large numbers of countries and not by certain others, and they govern, trade, and conduct diplomacy all the same. Recognition is decided one government at a time, and governments weigh their own politics and interests, so a perfectly even result is rare. What matters is reaching the threshold where enough key states and the major international institutions deal with you as a country. Past that point, a holdout's refusal is a statement about the holdout, not a veto on your nationhood. The functioning nation accumulates recognition over time Recognition is not frozen at the moment of independence. It builds. As a new nation governs effectively, honors its commitments, and trades reliably, more governments find it in their interest to formalize relations, and earlier refusals soften. Self-interest is patient but persistent: the longer Texas operates as a stable, prosperous country, the weaker the case for any government to keep pretending otherwise. The…

Would Texas have a seat at global summits?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, as an independent nation Texas would represent itself at the international gatherings where the world's business gets done, and on the economic merits it would arrive as a heavyweight, not an afterthought. Today Texas has no seat anywhere; Washington speaks for it. Independence puts a Texas chair at the table. Right now, Texas has no voice at the table Start with the status quo. At every global summit, every trade negotiation, every gathering of nations, Texas is represented by the United States, which speaks for fifty states at once. Texas's specific interests, its energy, its trade, its border, are one input among many, filtered through Washington's priorities. As things stand, the world's 8th-largest economy has no chair of its own anywhere on earth. Independence changes that fundamental fact. Sovereign nations represent themselves International summits are gatherings of sovereign states. A nation attends because it is a nation. An independent Texas would represent itself at the bodies it joins and the gatherings it is invited to, speaking with its own voice on the matters that affect Texans. The forums vary, hemispheric organizations like the OAS, the trade system, the technical bodies that govern aviation and shipping, and the broader diplomatic circuit, but the principle is constant: a sovereign Texas speaks for Texas. On economic weight, Texas is no minor guest Some of the most consequential global gatherings are organized around economic size, the meetings where the world's largest economies coordinate. Texas would not be a small voice in that company. It is the 8th-largest economy on the planet, larger than most of the countries already in the room, and a top global energy producer at a moment when energy sits at the center of world affairs. Whether and how Texas takes part in any particular forum is a sovereign choice for the future Texas government, but the economic credentials that earn a serious hearing are credentials Texas already has. Energy giv…

How would Texas handle international air, sea, and trade agreements?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Through the same international systems every other nation uses, and Texas would plug into them quickly because it already runs the airports, ports, and trade volumes of a major economy. Air travel, shipping, and trade all operate on established global frameworks open to sovereign states, and joining them is routine. These systems are global, and they are built for nations Air travel, maritime shipping, and international trade do not run on bilateral favors. They run on worldwide frameworks that nations join. There is an international body for civil aviation, one for shipping, one for postal exchange, and a global system for trade. Each is designed to bring sovereign states into common rules so that planes can cross borders, ships can call at foreign ports, and goods can move on predictable terms. An independent Texas joins these systems the way every country does, and from there its aircraft, vessels, and exports operate globally under rules everyone follows. Aviation: joining the global system keeps Texas flying International flights work because countries adhere to the framework set by the International Civil Aviation Organization, constituted under the Chicago Convention of 1944, whose membership is open to sovereign states. By joining, Texas adopts the shared standards that let its airlines land abroad and foreign carriers serve Texas. Air-service arrangements between countries, the agreements that govern which carriers fly which routes, are standard instruments that nations negotiate all the time. Texas, with major international airports already operating, would be formalizing connections it already has, not building air links from zero. The seas: a port powerhouse joins the maritime order Texas is not a marginal maritime nation. It has eight of the union's top 25 deepwater ports, and the Port of Houston is the largest in the country by foreign tonnage. Those ports already handle global shipping every day. As a sovereign nation, Texas would join the Internation…

Would other countries recognize an independent Texas?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Recognition is something a new nation earns through a deliberate process, and Texas begins that process from a stronger position than almost any aspiring nation in modern history. Texas already meets the legal definition of a state International law has a working test for what makes a country a country, set out in the Montevideo Convention of 1933: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter relations with other states. Texas satisfies all four today, and not marginally. It has more than 30 million people, a defined territory of over a quarter-million square miles, a fully functioning government, and an economy that already does business with the world. Many nations that hold seats at the United Nations meet that test far less convincingly than Texas does. Recognition is a process, and it starts before the vote New nations are not recognized by accident. They lay the groundwork: diplomatic outreach, relationships with key governments and international bodies, and the quiet work of making the case abroad. That work can and should begin well before independence is final, so that recognition follows the vote quickly rather than slowly. A new Texas would pursue recognition methodically, the way successful independence efforts always have. The economic reality pulls recognition forward Here is what makes Texas different from a small or poor breakaway region. Texas has the world's eighth-largest economy, around $2.77 trillion, larger than that of most countries already sitting in the United Nations. It is a top global energy producer and exports to economies on every continent. Nations recognize the country that supplies their energy, buys their goods, and anchors their supply chains. The world does not ignore the eighth-largest economy on the planet. Self-interest alone ensures that trading partners move to formalize relations with an independent Texas, because the alternative is to be cut out. The United States has reason to…

Will Texas have its own team in the Olympics?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Absolutely. In fact, Texas will likely be one of the strongest competitors in the Olympics. If you look at the performance of Texas athletes in the 2016 Rio Olympics and compare it with the performance of all other countries, only two other countries outperformed Texas athletes in gold medals, the United States and Great Britain. Texas Olympians racked up 26 gold medals by themselves. The U.S. hauled in 46 golds, and Great Britain picked up 27. China also collected a Texas-equaling 26. Even if you factor in silver and bronze medals, Texas tied for fifth (with Germany, at 42 total medals each) in the country medal count by itself. Although slipping in international ranking in the 2024 Paris Olympics, Texas still achieved a respectable seventh place, with 44 total medals. Texas tied with Australia in gold medals, sharing fourth place with 18 gold medals. Texas's total gold medal count was almost half the amount that Team USA won.

Will college sports teams still be able to play in the NCAA?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: When considering whether Texas college sports teams could continue participating in the NCAA after independence, it's important to highlight that NCAA membership isn't tied to statehood. The NCAA does not restrict membership to schools within U.S. states. For instance, Simon Fraser University in Canada has been an NCAA member since 2010, which proves that non-U.S. institutions can compete under the NCAA umbrella. Beyond Canada, there are other examples of non-U.S. teams that have competed in the NCAA, further reinforcing that statehood is not a requirement for participation. The University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez competes in NCAA Division II, and Mexican universities have also taken part in past NCAA events. This precedent suggests that Texas universities could still retain their NCAA membership, regardless of whether Texas is a U.S. state or an independent nation. Texas schools could also benefit from the expanded flexibility that independence might provide in shaping their athletic programs. With recent NCAA rule changes, student-athletes now enjoy more health coverage, better mental health support, and increased opportunities related to name, image, and likeness (NIL). An independent Texas may have even more leeway to offer innovative solutions for student-athletes that align with Texas' values and priorities. Given the existing framework and precedents, Texas universities would likely be able to continue competing in NCAA sports after independence. Independence could even create new opportunities for Texas institutions to strengthen their athletic programs and better support their student-athletes.

Will Texas professional sports teams still play in their respective leagues?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: An unusually common question is whether Texas professional sports teams will still play in their respective leagues. Major League Baseball already allows non-U.S. teams with the Toronto Blue Jays, the National Hockey League does it with teams in both Canada and the United States, and the National Football League has recently discussed expanding into Mexico and the U.K. That will be their decision. But the money points one way: Texas teams will still be playing in their respective leagues post-Texit.

How would independence affect the film, music, and entertainment industries here?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It would pour fuel on a fire that is already burning. Texas culture is one of the state's greatest exports, and the entertainment business runs on talent, locations, and money, all three of which Texas has in abundance. Culture crosses borders effortlessly, and an independent Texas would back its creative industries on purpose. Texas culture already travels the world Texas music, film, and storytelling already reach every corner of the planet, and they do it without needing permission from Washington. Country, blues, conjunto, hip-hop, and Texas rock are global. Austin calls itself the Live Music Capital of the World and means it. Texas-made films and the festivals that launch them draw audiences worldwide. Entertainment is the most borderless product there is: a song, a film, a show streams everywhere the moment it ships. Independence does not wall any of that off. Texas culture is already a passport-free export, and it would stay one. The money is already moving back to Texas This is not a hopeful projection. It is current policy. In 2025 Texas committed 1.5 billion dollars over the next decade to draw film, television, and other productions to the state, with grants worth up to nearly a third of what a production spends here, on the condition that the work and the jobs are Texan. Productions are already applying. That is a state deciding, with real money, to build a homegrown entertainment industry. An independent Texas would set those incentives entirely on its own terms, keep more of the revenue Texans generate to fund them, and compete for global productions as a nation, not as one state inside a federal system. The talent and the crews live here An entertainment industry is people: musicians, actors, directors, writers, camera crews, sound engineers, and the venues and studios they work in. Texas has all of it, and the workforce is growing as the productions arrive. None of that talent moves because of a change in sovereignty. The studios in Austin, the stage…

What happens to Texas's cultural identity?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: It gets stronger, because for the first time in 180 years it would stand on its own rather than as a colorful subset of someone else's. Texas already has the most distinct cultural identity of any state in the union. Independence does not change who Texans are. It lets Texas be fully itself. Texas identity is already national in everything but name No other state comes close to the cultural self-definition Texas already has. Texas has its own flag flown with a devotion bordering on reverence, its own pledge, its own anthem, its own mythology of the Alamo and San Jacinto, and a history as an independent nation that no other state can claim. Texas schoolchildren learn Texas history as its own subject. The book put the cultural truth plainly: "Everything that America aspired to be, Texas achieved," and "Texas is more American than America." That identity is not borrowed from Washington. It was here first, and it runs deep. Independence is restoration, not reinvention Texas spent nine years as a nation among nations, with its own presidents, congress, army, and treaties, before it joined the union in 1845. A Texas cultural identity is not something the movement would have to manufacture. It is something Texas already lived and never lost. Independence is the act of reclaiming a national identity Texas exercised before, not inventing a new one. The character is already formed. The flag already flies. What changes is that it would no longer need an asterisk. A culture confident enough to belong to everyone Texas cultural identity has never been about one kind of Texan. It is the blend that makes the place unmistakable: the cattle country and the Gulf coast, the Hill Country and the border, Tejano and country and blues and gospel, the rancher and the engineer and the first-generation Texan. That identity is strong precisely because it is wide. An independent Texas would carry that forward as a national culture that belongs to every Texan, the way the case for independence …

Would there be a Texas anthem?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Texas already has one. "Texas, Our Texas" has been the official state anthem since 1929, and it was written to sound like the anthem of a nation. An independent Texas would not need to commission a song. It would simply sing the one Texans have been singing for nearly a century, now as the anthem of a country. The anthem is already written, and already official Texans do not have to imagine a future anthem, because the song exists and has for generations. "Texas, Our Texas," by William J. Marsh and Gladys Yoakum Wright, was adopted as the official state song by the Texas Legislature in 1929, chosen through a statewide competition. Its words already carry the spirit of a nation: it salutes the "freeborn single star" and calls out the Alamo and San Jacinto by name. This is not a tune that needs to grow into the role. It was built for it. It was always meant to sound like a national anthem The song has long been treated as more than a state ditty. As the book notes, "Texas, Our Texas" has served as the de facto national anthem of Texas, sung with the gravity of an anthem at ceremonies and gatherings across the state. Texans already stand for it. The only thing independence changes is the title that sits above it: from state anthem to the anthem of the Republic. The melody, the words, and the meaning stay exactly as they are. The decision belongs to Texans, and the answer is obvious Formally adopting a national anthem would be a decision for the government Texans elect, and we will not put words in its mouth. But the practical answer writes itself. A song that has carried Texas pride for nearly a hundred years, that already names the battles that made Texas, and that Texans already treat as their anthem is the natural choice. If a future Texas ever revisited the question, it would be choosing from a position of cultural wealth, not starting from a blank page. An anthem is identity you can hear A national anthem is one of the simplest, most powerful symbols a country has…

What happens to the Texas flag and state symbols?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Nothing happens to them except a promotion. The Lone Star flag, already one of the most recognized banners on Earth, would fly as the flag of a nation. Every Texas symbol Texans love stays exactly as it is. Independence does not retire the flag. It raises it. The flag is already a national flag in all but title The Lone Star flag was adopted in 1839, when Texas was an independent republic. It was designed to be the flag of a nation, and it flew over one for years before Texas joined the union. That is its origin. Texans fly it today with a pride no other state shows its banner, often beside no other flag at all. Independence does not change the flag. It returns the flag to the status it was created for: the standard of a sovereign Texas. The single star that gives the state its nickname was always meant to stand on its own. Every symbol Texans love stays put The flag is the headline, but it is not alone. The state seal, the state motto, the bluebonnet, the mockingbird, the Alamo as a shrine, the San Jacinto Monument standing taller than the Washington Monument, the "Come and Take It" banner: all of it stays. These are Texas symbols, created by Texans, owned by Texas. None of them depends on Texas being a state in the union, and none of them changes when Texas becomes a nation. The symbols of Texas identity carry straight through, intact. A flag the world already knows Most new nations have to introduce their flag to the world and teach people what it means. Texas has the opposite problem, which is no problem at all. The Lone Star is recognized across the globe, on flagpoles, on products, on belt buckles, in films. It already means Texas to people who have never set foot here. That instant recognition is a gift to a new nation, and Texas would carry it into independence already earned. The flag would not need a debut. It would just need a taller pole. Symbols built for a republic, returning to one There is a fitting symmetry here. The flag, the seal, the monuments, a…

How would independence change my daily life?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: For most Texans, on most days, far less than you would expect. You would wake up in the same house, drive the same roads, work the same job, bank at the same bank, and shop at the same stores. The change is at the top, in who governs Texas, not at the bottom, in the texture of an ordinary day. The honest headline is that the thing most people notice is the flag, not their routine. Your morning does not change Start with the first hour of a normal day. Your alarm goes off, the power is on, the water runs, the coffee maker works. The electricity comes from the Texas grid, run by Texans, the same as the day before. Your phone connects to the same network. Your kids get on the same school bus to the same Texas public school, taught by the same teachers, because Texas already runs its schools through the Texas Education Agency and roughly 1,200 local districts. None of the machinery of an ordinary Texas morning is operated from Washington, so none of it changes hands when Texas governs itself. Your money and your job stay put Your paycheck still lands in the same account, at a bank that is most likely already chartered and regulated right here in Texas. Your debit and credit cards still work, because card networks are global and run across every border on earth already. Keep the dollar in circulation through the transition, which is the smart and likely path, and there is no currency to convert and no new price tag at the register. Your employer is still your employer, because the energy companies, manufacturers, hospitals, ranches, and tech firms that actually do the hiring are anchored to Texas, not to a flag. The deeper money answers live in the economic case, but the daily reality is continuity. Your taxes get simpler, not heavier Here is a change you might actually welcome. Texas funds itself with no personal income tax, and that does not change at independence. The arithmetic of the case is that Texans already pay enough, to two governments, to fund one government …

Would my property rights change?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. Your property is yours before independence and yours after. Your house, your land, your truck, your business, your savings: a change in which government Texas answers to does not transfer ownership of anything you own. This is not a hopeful guess. It is a settled principle of international law, and the Texas Constitution protects property rights more strongly than most. What you own, you keep The deed to your home, the title to your vehicle, the ownership of your business, the balance in your accounts: all of it stays in your name through a change of sovereignty. Independence operates at the level of which government governs Texas. It does not reach down into your ownership of your own things. There is no version of Texas independence in which Texans wake up owning less than they did the day before. The entire premise of the movement is that Texans should control what is theirs, starting with what is already theirs. International law settles this, and it is not close This is one of the most established rules in the law of how nations change hands. When sovereignty changes, private property rights and private contracts survive. Legal scholars call it the doctrine of acquired rights, and the principle is that the legal order of the predecessor does not vanish overnight, so lawfully held private rights remain, as a matter of principle, unaffected. It has been affirmed in international arbitration, including the Lighthouses case between France and Greece, where the new sovereign was held to private rights granted under the old one. When territory has changed hands in the modern era, ordinary people have kept their homes, their land, and their belongings. That is the rule, not the exception. The Texas Constitution already guards your property Texans do not rely on Washington to protect what they own, and never have. The Texas Constitution opens with a Bill of Rights that protects private property, including strong protections against the taking of property without ad…

Would my professional license still be valid?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Your professional license stays valid, because most licenses in Texas are already issued by Texas, not Washington. For the work you do day to day, your license is a Texas license now, and independence does not touch it. For credentials that cross borders, the world already has a well-worn system for recognizing qualifications between countries, and Texas would use it. Most licenses are already Texas licenses This is the part that settles the question for the large majority of licensed Texans. Your license to practice is almost certainly issued by a Texas board, under Texas law. Doctors are licensed by the Texas Medical Board. Nurses by the Texas Board of Nursing. Lawyers by the State Bar of Texas. Engineers by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. Teachers, electricians, plumbers, cosmetologists, real estate agents, accountants: all licensed through Texas agencies. Washington does not issue these credentials and does not administer these professions. The authority that grants and renews your license is already in Austin, so independence does not invalidate it. It keeps doing exactly what it does now. Your right to work in Texas does not depend on Washington Because the licensing is Texan, your ability to earn a living in your profession inside Texas is not exposed to a change in sovereignty at all. The board that licensed you continues. Your renewal continues. Your continuing-education requirements continue. The patients, clients, students, and customers you serve are here. Nothing in independence stands between a licensed Texan and the work they are licensed to do in Texas. Cross-border practice is a solved problem, used every day The only place a question even arises is practicing in another country, and here the world built the answer decades ago. Professionals routinely have their qualifications recognized across national borders through mutual recognition agreements, arrangements that let someone qualified in one country practice in…

Would my mortgage or car loan change?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. Your mortgage and your car loan keep running on exactly the terms you signed. The rate does not reset, the balance does not jump, and the monthly payment does not change. A loan is a private contract, independence does not rewrite private contracts, and keeping the dollar in circulation means there is not even a currency question to worry about. A loan is a contract, and the terms travel with it Your mortgage and your auto loan are binding private agreements: a principal balance, an interest rate, a payment schedule, and a payoff date, all spelled out and signed. A change in which government Texas answers to does not reach inside that contract and alter its terms. This is the same settled principle of international law that protects your property: lawful private contracts survive a change of sovereignty and remain, as a matter of principle, unaffected. Your rate is the rate on your note. Your balance is the balance on your note. Your payment is what you agreed to pay. None of it moves because Texas governs itself. Keeping the dollar keeps your payment identical Here is the practical key, and it is the most important sentence in this answer. Your loan is written in dollars, and an independent Texas can keep the dollar in circulation through the transition and for as long as it serves Texans. Several sovereign nations use the U.S. dollar as their everyday money with no trouble at all. As long as the dollar stays in use, there is no conversion on your loan, no redenomination, and no exchange-rate question. A dollar-denominated mortgage stays a dollar-denominated mortgage. The number you pay each month is the same number it is today. Who you pay can change hands without your terms changing Loans get bought, sold, and transferred between servicers constantly under the current system, and your terms never change when they do. Millions of mortgages change servicers every year, and the only thing the borrower notices is a new address to send the payment to. If your loan…

Is my money safe during the transition?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. Your money stays safe, stays yours, and stays accessible the whole way through. Independence is a negotiated process, not a switch that flips overnight, and keeping money and banking working smoothly is a first-order priority for both sides. The transition is built so the thing you notice is the flag, not your balance. A vote starts a process, it does not freeze anything The single biggest misunderstanding about independence is that it happens in one dramatic instant that catches everyone's finances off guard. It does not. A referendum is the starting gun, not the finish line. What follows is a negotiated transition, conducted the way every modern separation has been conducted, in which existing arrangements keep running while the details are worked out. There is no morning when accounts freeze, cards stop, or savings reset, because that is not how a transition works. Continuity is the default state, not the exception. Your accounts stay open, because the money is yours and the bank is mostly Texan already The money in your accounts is your property, held under a contract with your bank, and that does not change when Texas changes how it governs itself. The deeper banking answers cover this in full, but the short version is reassuring: most Texas banks are already chartered and regulated by the State of Texas, through the Texas Department of Banking, which oversees more than half the banks operating in the state. The big national and online banks do not pack up and leave a market of 30 million customers and the world's eighth-largest economy either. Your account stays open, your direct deposit still lands, and your balance is still your balance. Your cards, payments, and access keep working Day-to-day, your access to your own money does not skip a beat. Your debit and credit cards keep working, because card networks are global by design and already run across every border on earth. Keep the dollar in circulation through the transition, which is the smart and li…

What is the single biggest way independence would touch my life?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: That the decisions shaping your life would be made by a government that actually answers to you. Everything else, the passport, the border crossing, the flag, is downstream of that one change. The single biggest difference is not a thing you would hold in your hand. It is the distance between you and the people who govern you closing, almost to nothing. Today the biggest decisions about your life are made far away Start with the honest picture of now. The money you earn is taxed by a government 1,500 miles away that spends it on priorities you did not set and a debt you never voted for. The value of the dollars in your pocket is decided in Washington, and it has been shrinking for a century. The rules that shape your healthcare, your business, your land, and your industry are written for fifty states at once, then applied to Texas whether Texas agrees or not. You get 38 votes out of 435 in one chamber and 2 out of 100 in the other. On the decisions that matter most, you are outnumbered by design and too far away to be heard. Independence closes that distance The one change that contains all the others is this: government comes home. Decisions about Texas get made in Texas, by people Texans elect and can hold accountable, close enough to feel the consequences of getting it wrong. That is not a slogan. It is the practical difference between a rule you can influence and a rule that simply arrives. Self-government means the people making the calls are accountable to the people living with them. For most Texans, that is the deepest way independence would touch a life, even if it is the least flashy. The most concrete version of it is your money staying home If you want the single change you are most likely to feel in dollars, it is this. Texans send hundreds of billions of dollars a year to Washington, including about $72 billion a year just in interest on a federal debt Texas never chose, plus far more in fresh federal borrowing, and get back a dollar that loses value e…

Will my taxes go up if Texas becomes independent?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No, they would not have to, and the honest case points toward paying less, not more. Texas funds itself today with no personal income tax, and that does not change at independence. You already pay enough, to two governments The whole point of the numbers is that Texans already pay enough, to Washington and Austin combined, to fund a single Texas government with room to spare. There is no funding hole that a new tax would have to fill, so the scare story that you would suddenly owe more does not hold up. The biggest bill you carry is the one you would shed The most expensive part of what Texans pay now is the money that leaves the state for Washington, including interest on a federal debt Texas never voted for. That is the part independence ends. Keeping that money home is exactly why the math runs in your favor. Your tax structure stays familiar Texas keeps the model it already runs: no personal income tax, with the sales tax doing most of the work. The constitutional ban on a personal income tax stays right where Texans put it. The bottom line Your taxes do not have to go up, and the realistic conversation after independence is about lowering the burden, not raising it. The fuller breakdown is in the economy answers.

Will I still get my Social Security check?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes. You paid in, you are owed, and your check keeps coming. Texas takes a no-surrender position on benefits Texans earned. It is your money, and it follows you Social Security is an earned benefit you pre-paid through a lifetime of payroll taxes, not a favor Washington can withdraw. United States citizens already receive their Social Security checks while living all over the world, and Texans stay citizens through any transition. The mechanism already exists The tool that keeps benefits flowing across a border is the totalization agreement, and the United States already runs these with more than two dozen countries. An independent Texas would use the same standard tool, no new invention required. Texas could carry it from strength Texas already pays billions of dollars a year more into Social Security than its retirees draw out, and the benefits Washington owes Texans are one of the strongest claims Texas brings to the negotiating table. The bottom line Your Social Security check is protected. The full mechanism, including how it is netted at the table, is laid out in the deeper answers.

Would my gun rights change?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Your right to keep and bear arms would be protected, the same as it is now, under the Texas Constitution. Independence does not weaken it, and it removes a layer of federal rules that Texans have never set. Your rights are already written into the Texas Constitution Texans do not depend on Washington for the right to keep and bear arms. The Texas Bill of Rights protects it directly, and those protections are already in force, applying to every Texan, untouched by independence. The federal layer is the part that changes The gun rules made furthest from Texas are federal rules. An independent Texas would set its own firearms policy, answerable to Texas voters, rather than having it set in Washington for fifty states at once. The bottom line Your gun rights are protected by a Texas Constitution that already guards them, and independence puts firearms policy in Texan hands. See the dedicated carry answer for specifics.

Would I have to become a Texas citizen, and would I lose anything?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Citizenship in an independent Texas would follow from living here, and it would not cost you what you already have. There is no loyalty test and no penalty written into the result of a vote. Citizenship follows residence A Texan who lives in Texas would be a citizen of an independent Texas. It does not hinge on how you voted in a referendum, and it does not require you to give up the life you have built. Your earned benefits and property come with you Becoming a Texas citizen does not strip the things that are already yours. Your property stays yours, and the federal benefits you earned, like Social Security, are protected and portable, handled through the standard cross-border tools nations use. The bottom line You would become a Texas citizen by living here, you would keep what you have earned and own, and there is no penalty for how anyone voted. The dedicated citizenship answer has the details.

Could I still travel to see family in other states?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Yes, of course. You would still visit family across the line, the same way people cross between neighboring countries with close ties every day. The crossing would run on an agreed border arrangement built to keep it smooth. Crossing a friendly border is routine Neighboring nations with deep family and economic ties keep their borders easy to cross. Over time you would carry a Texas passport or travel document, and the Texas-U.S. crossing would be designed to be as seamless as possible for families and commerce. The relationship is built to stay close A negotiated, peaceful separation keeps Texas and the United States closely connected, because both sides want trade flowing and the crossing calm. Visiting relatives, going to a wedding, taking a trip, all of it continues. The bottom line You can still see your family in other states. The fuller answer on passports and the border crossing walks through how it would work.

Will my federal benefits stop the day after a vote?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: No. Nobody's benefits stop the morning after a vote, because a vote starts a negotiated process, not a cutoff. Continuity is the entire design. A vote opens negotiation, it does not flip a switch A referendum is the starting gun. What follows is a negotiated transition in which existing arrangements keep running while the details are settled. Benefits keep being paid through that period. Most of the delivery never leaves Texas anyway Programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and unemployment insurance are already administered by Texas agencies, and the earned federal benefits paid from Washington, like Social Security, already reach across borders through standard tools. There is far less to hand off than the scare stories imply. The bottom line Your federal benefits do not stop on day one. The transition is built to keep them flowing, and the dedicated answer explains exactly how.

What happens to my family's healthcare?
type: Question
accepted answer: Answer
  text: Your family's healthcare keeps running, because it is already delivered by Texans, in Texas, under Texas medical boards. Independence changes who sets the policy, not who provides the care. The care is already here Your hospitals, doctors, nurses, and clinics are in Texas, licensed by Texas boards. Washington does not deliver medical care in Texas. It funds and regulates parts of it from a distance, and independence puts that slice under the same roof as the system Texas already runs. Earned benefits are protected, coverage continues For Texans on Medicare, the earned benefit you paid for is protected, and the care is delivered here in Texas. For families on Medicaid, which Texas already administers and funds in large part, coverage continues through the transition. No senior, and no Texan on Medicaid, loses access in the handoff. The bottom line Your family keeps its doctors, its hospitals, and its coverage. Independence changes the management, not the medicine. The full healthcare answer has the detail.