Would Texas sign a mutual-defense treaty with the United States?

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, governs the practical legal questions: who has criminal and civil jurisdiction over service members, how personnel enter and exit, taxes, mail, employment of local nationals. The NATO Status of Forces Agreement has been the working template since 1951. Texas and the United States would negotiate one of these, the same as dozens of friendly nations have, and the result would look entirely ordinary.

This is leverage, not dependence

A mutual-defense treaty is not Texas asking for protection it cannot provide itself. Texas would bring a serious military to the table, more than 200,000 people already in uniform, roughly 72 billion dollars a year in defense activity already inside the state, and a defense-industrial base the United States relies on. The relationship runs both ways. Washington has strong reasons to keep its bases in Texas, to keep buying what Texas builds, and to keep its southern neighbor friendly and stable rather than alienated. That mutual interest is what makes a fair treaty likely.

It does not lock Texas into Washington's wars

A sensible Texas would write the treaty narrowly, so that it covers commonly agreed defense concerns and not an open-ended obligation to join every conflict the United States enters. The founding instinct here is the old American one: friendship and honest trade with all, entangling alliances with none. A mutual-defense pact scoped to shared, defensive interests honors that. Texas would set the terms as an equal, because after independence that is exactly what it is.

The bottom line

A mutual-defense treaty with the United States is the likeliest and most sensible security arrangement for an independent Texas, built on shared threats and mutual interest, scoped to defense rather than to Washington's wars, and negotiated by Texas as an equal nation. It is what neighbors who trust each other do.