Analysis of the Proclamation: “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion”

President Trump’s proclamation issued on January 20, 2025, sets forth an unprecedented interpretation of federal and constitutional authority to address immigration and border security. It uses the “invasion” clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to justify a series of sweeping actions aimed at halting illegal entry into the United States, particularly across the southern border.

Key Points of the Proclamation

  1. Constitutional Authority Invoked:
    • Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”
    • Article II: Presidential control over foreign affairs and the duty to enforce immigration laws.
  2. National Emergency Declaration:
    • The proclamation declares the situation at the southern border an “invasion.”
    • It argues that the federal government’s failure to secure the border violates its constitutional obligation to protect states.
  3. Executive Powers Cited:
    • Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):
      • Authorizes the President to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States if deemed detrimental to national interests.
    • Supreme Court precedent, particularly Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which affirmed the broad deference given to the President in matters of immigration and national security.
  4. Policy Actions Directed:
    • Suspension of the physical entry of aliens deemed to be part of the “invasion.”
    • Restrictions on aliens invoking asylum provisions of the INA.
    • Expanded authority for Homeland Security to repel and remove aliens without legal review.
    • Use of military and federal resources to enforce border security measures.
  5. Health and Security Justifications:
    • Cites risks of public health crises due to unscreened migrants.
    • Highlights the inability of federal agencies to vet migrants for criminal or national security threats effectively.
  6. Implementation and Coordination:
    • Directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General to take actions necessary to implement the proclamation.
    • Allows operational flexibility for repatriation and removal efforts.

Potential Implications

  1. Legal Challenges:
    • The invocation of the “invasion” clause to justify sweeping actions could face immediate constitutional challenges.
    • The suspension of asylum rights and physical entry for aliens may conflict with established international and domestic legal obligations, including the Refugee Act of 1980.
  2. Federal-State Dynamics:
    • Sanctuary states and cities may interpret this proclamation as federal overreach, leading to resistance and litigation.
    • The invocation of Article IV against perceived “invasion” could provoke debates over federalism and the limits of executive authority.
  3. Precedent-Setting:
    • By broadening the definition of “invasion” to include illegal immigration, this proclamation could establish a precedent for future executive actions in domestic security or immigration.
  4. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Immediate impacts on migrants stranded at the border without access to legal processes, including asylum.
    • Potential international criticism from allies and organizations advocating for human rights.

Alignment with Predictions and Project 2025

This proclamation aligns closely with elements of Project 2025, which prioritizes border security and emphasizes executive authority to enforce immigration laws. It also reflects several key points from our previous scenario predictions, including:

  • Predicted: Use of a national emergency to address border security.
  • Predicted: Drastic measures to curb asylum rights.
  • Not Yet Realized: The proclamation’s impact on sanctuary states resisting federal enforcement remains to be seen.

Next Steps and Recommendations

  1. Monitor Legal Challenges:
    • Courts may quickly weigh in on the constitutional validity of the proclamation, particularly the use of Article IV.
  2. Track State Responses:
    • Observe how sanctuary states such as California, New York, and Illinois react to federal enforcement measures under this directive.
  3. International Reactions:
    • Analyze global responses to the proclamation, particularly from Mexico and international human rights organizations.
  4. Scenario Updates:
    • Incorporate the proclamation into our timeline and recalibrate probabilities for resistance, legal challenges, and federal-state conflicts.

The text as found on Whitehouse.gov 1/21/2025

GUARANTEEING THE STATES PROTECTION AGAINST INVASION
January 20, 2025

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby proclaim:

An essential feature of any sovereign nation is the existence of territorial boundaries and the inherent authority to decide who and what may cross those boundaries. The Supreme Court of the United States has described this power as a “fundamental act of sovereignty,” which “stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). The Supreme Court has recognized the inherent right and duty of the Executive Branch to defend our national sovereignty, stating that “[w]hen Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.” Id.

The Congress has, in establishing “an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” created a complex and comprehensive Federal scheme in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., to control the entry and exit of people and goods across the borders of the United States. In routine circumstances, this complex and comprehensive scheme can protect the national sovereignty of the United States by facilitating the admission of individuals whose presence serves the national interest and preventing the admission of those who do not, such as those aliens who pose threats to public health, section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1); safety, section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)); and national security, section 212(a)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)). Prospective immigrants who use the visa system are screened for such health, safety, and security concerns while outside of the United States, and are not permitted to enter the United States until they establish that they are eligible to be admitted as a matter of law and should be admitted as a matter of discretion.

But screening under those provisions of the INA can be wholly ineffective in the border environment, where access to necessary information is limited for aliens who have traveled from countries around the world to enter the United States illegally, or when the system is overwhelmed, leading to the unauthorized entry of innumerable illegal aliens into the United States.

Due to significant information gaps — particularly in the border environment — and processing times, Federal officials do not have the ability to verify with certainty the criminal record or national-security risks associated with the illegal entry of every alien at the southern border, as required by section 212(a)(2)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)-(3). Nor do aliens who illegally cross the southern border readily provide comprehensive background information from their home countries to Federal law enforcement officials.

The public safety and national security risks in such an environment are heightened by the presence of, and control of territory by, international cartels and other transnational criminal organizations on the other side of the southern border, as well as terrorists and other malign actors who intend to harm the United States and the American people. And the risks associated with these issues are greatly exacerbated when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border increases to levels that prevent actual operational control of the border.

The same is true for public health, where the Federal Government currently lacks an effective operational capability to screen all illegal aliens crossing the southern border for communicable diseases of public-health concern, as required by section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1). Effectively no aliens who illegally enter the United States provide Federal officials at the southern border with their comprehensive health information, as a lawful immigrant would. As a result, innumerable aliens potentially carrying communicable diseases of public health significance illegally cross the southern border and enter communities across the United States.

Over the last 4 years, at least 8 million illegal aliens were encountered along the southern border of the United States, and countless millions more evaded detection and illegally entered the United States. The sheer number of aliens entering the United States has overwhelmed the system and rendered many of the INA’s provisions ineffective, including those previously described that are intended to prevent aliens posing threats to public health, safety, and national security from entering the United States. As a result, millions of aliens who potentially pose significant threats to health, safety, and national security have moved into communities nationwide.

This ongoing influx of illegal aliens across the southern border of the United States has placed significant costs and constraints upon the States, which have collectively spent billions of dollars in providing medical care and related human services, and have spent considerable amounts on increased law enforcement costs associated with the presence of these illegal aliens within their boundaries.

In joining the Union, the States agreed to surrender much of their sovereignty and join the Union in exchange for the Federal Government’s promise in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, to “protect each of [the States] against Invasion.” I have determined that the current state of the southern border reveals that the Federal Government has failed in fulfilling this obligation to the States and hereby declare that an invasion is ongoing at the southern border, which requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States.

The INA provides the President with certain emergency tools. For example, it states that “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). This statute “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 684 (2018). Further, the INA renders it unlawful for “any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.” 8 U.S.C. 1185(a)(1).

Historically, Presidents have used these statutory authorities to deny entry of designated classes and categories of aliens into the United States through ports of entry. But if the President has the power to deny entry of any alien into the United States, and to impose any restrictions as he may deem appropriate, this authority necessarily includes the right to deny the physical entry of aliens into the United States and impose restrictions on access to portions of the immigration system, particularly when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border prevents the Federal Government from obtaining operational control of the border.

The INA does not, however, occupy the Federal Government’s field of authority to protect the sovereignty of the United States, particularly in times of emergency when entire provisions of the INA are rendered ineffective by operational constraints, such as when there is an ongoing invasion into the States. The President’s inherent powers to control the borders of the United States, including those deriving from his authority to control the foreign affairs of the United States, necessarily include the ability to prevent the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States, and to rapidly repatriate them to an alternative location. Only through such measures can the President guarantee the right of each State to be protected against invasion.

By the power vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I have determined that the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, I am issuing this Proclamation based on my express and inherent powers in Article II of the Constitution of the United States, and in faithful execution of the immigration laws passed by the Congress, and suspending the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border until I determine that the invasion has concluded.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Suspension of Entry. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States on or after the date of this order of aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 2. Imposition of Restrictions on Entry for Aliens Invading the United States. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this proclamation are restricted from invoking provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 3. Suspension of and Restriction on Entry for Aliens Posing Public Health, Safety, or National Security Risks. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States, on or after the date of this order, of any alien who fails, before entering the United States, to provide Federal officials with sufficient medical information and reliable criminal history and background information as to enable fulfillment of the requirements of sections 212(a)(1)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)-(3), is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended and restrict their access to provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158.

Sec. 4. Constitutional Suspension of Physical Entry. Under the authorities provided to me under Article II of the Constitution of the United States, including my control over foreign affairs, and to effectuate the guarantee of protection against invasion required by Article IV, Section 4, I hereby suspend the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States, and direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to take appropriate actions as may be necessary to achieve the objectives of this proclamation, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 5. Operational Actions to Repel the Invasion. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action to repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this order, whether as an exercise of the suspension power in section 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), or as an exercise of my delegated authority under the Constitution of the United States, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth

 

Integration of Proclamation into Our Scenario

The proclamation “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion” fundamentally shifts the landscape of our scenario. It establishes a direct use of executive authority to bypass traditional immigration processes, framing the southern border situation as a constitutional crisis of sovereignty. Here’s how this development influences our timeline and scenario outcomes:

Play-by-Play Update

Phase 1: Federal Escalation and Emergency Measures (Day 1-7)

  1. Federal Action:
    • The proclamation declares an “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
    • Entry of undocumented immigrants at the southern border is suspended indefinitely, with military resources deployed to enforce the directive.
  2. Immediate Impacts:
    • Border crossings drop sharply as federal agents enforce a “zero-entry” policy.
    • Migrant camps on the Mexican side swell with displaced individuals unable to enter the U.S., creating a humanitarian crisis.
  3. State-Level Reactions:
    • Border states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida express support, citing reduced strain on state resources.
    • Sanctuary states (California, New York, Illinois) condemn the proclamation as unconstitutional, vowing legal challenges and limited cooperation.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Immediate border militarization: 100% (confirmed).
  • Legal challenges from sanctuary states: 85%.
  • Escalating protests from immigrant advocacy groups: 75%.

Phase 2: Legal and Humanitarian Challenges (Week 2-4)

  1. Judicial Response:
    • Lawsuits are filed in federal courts by sanctuary states and civil rights organizations, arguing the proclamation violates due process and international asylum laws.
    • A fast-tracked appeal to the Supreme Court is likely.
  2. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Reports from border regions detail overcrowded migrant camps and deteriorating conditions.
    • Advocacy groups coordinate nationwide protests, calling for accountability and an end to the proclamation’s measures.
  3. Political Divisions:
    • Republicans rally behind the administration, framing the proclamation as a decisive step toward national security.
    • Democrats escalate rhetoric, accusing the administration of overreach and humanitarian neglect.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Supreme Court siding with federal government: 70%.
  • Mass protests in urban areas: 65%.

Phase 3: Potential State Resistance and Federal Retaliation (Month 2-3)

  1. Defiance by Sanctuary States:
    • California leads a coalition of states passing laws to shield undocumented residents from deportation.
    • Local law enforcement agencies in sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.
  2. Federal Countermeasures:
    • Federal funding to defiant states is threatened, with additional federal agents deployed to enforce immigration laws.
    • The administration hints at invoking the Insurrection Act if states obstruct federal operations.
  3. Public Unrest:
    • Protests escalate in sanctuary states, with clashes reported between demonstrators and federal agents.
    • Public opinion polarizes further along partisan lines.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Federal retaliation via funding cuts: 75%.
  • Invocation of the Insurrection Act: 55%.
  • Violent clashes during protests: 70%.

Potential Outcomes and Probabilities

  1. Outcome A: Legal Resolution (40%)
    • The Supreme Court upholds or invalidates the proclamation, determining its constitutionality.
    • Sanctuary states abide by the decision but push for legislative reforms to limit executive authority.
  2. Outcome B: Prolonged Standoff (50%)
    • Sanctuary states refuse to comply, effectively operating as semi-autonomous regions regarding immigration enforcement.
    • Federal and state authorities operate in parallel, creating legal and operational chaos.
  3. Outcome C: Federal Overreach and Martial Law (30%)
    • The administration escalates enforcement through the Insurrection Act, deploying troops to sanctuary states.
    • Widespread protests devolve into civil unrest, straining national cohesion.
  4. Outcome D: De-Escalation Through Political Compromise (20%)
    • Facing legal and public pressure, the administration agrees to narrow the scope of the proclamation, focusing on criminal elements rather than blanket immigration bans.

Impact Analysis

  1. Legal Implications:
    • The proclamation sets a precedent for defining “invasion” broadly, which could expand executive powers.
    • Courts will face challenges balancing federal authority with constitutional protections.
  2. Federal-State Relations:
    • Sanctuary states are likely to assert greater autonomy, intensifying federal-state tensions.
  3. Public Sentiment:
    • Polarization deepens as partisan narratives dominate media coverage.
    • Immigrant communities face heightened fear and uncertainty, fueling activism and advocacy.

Analysis of the Proclamation: “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion”

President Trump’s proclamation issued on January 20, 2025, sets forth an unprecedented interpretation of federal and constitutional authority to address immigration and border security. It uses the “invasion” clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to justify a series of sweeping actions aimed at halting illegal entry into the United States, particularly across the southern border.

Key Points of the Proclamation

  1. Constitutional Authority Invoked:
    • Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”
    • Article II: Presidential control over foreign affairs and the duty to enforce immigration laws.
  2. National Emergency Declaration:
    • The proclamation declares the situation at the southern border an “invasion.”
    • It argues that the federal government’s failure to secure the border violates its constitutional obligation to protect states.
  3. Executive Powers Cited:
    • Sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA):
      • Authorizes the President to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States if deemed detrimental to national interests.
    • Supreme Court precedent, particularly Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which affirmed the broad deference given to the President in matters of immigration and national security.
  4. Policy Actions Directed:
    • Suspension of the physical entry of aliens deemed to be part of the “invasion.”
    • Restrictions on aliens invoking asylum provisions of the INA.
    • Expanded authority for Homeland Security to repel and remove aliens without legal review.
    • Use of military and federal resources to enforce border security measures.
  5. Health and Security Justifications:
    • Cites risks of public health crises due to unscreened migrants.
    • Highlights the inability of federal agencies to vet migrants for criminal or national security threats effectively.
  6. Implementation and Coordination:
    • Directs the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General to take actions necessary to implement the proclamation.
    • Allows operational flexibility for repatriation and removal efforts.

Potential Implications

  1. Legal Challenges:
    • The invocation of the “invasion” clause to justify sweeping actions could face immediate constitutional challenges.
    • The suspension of asylum rights and physical entry for aliens may conflict with established international and domestic legal obligations, including the Refugee Act of 1980.
  2. Federal-State Dynamics:
    • Sanctuary states and cities may interpret this proclamation as federal overreach, leading to resistance and litigation.
    • The invocation of Article IV against perceived “invasion” could provoke debates over federalism and the limits of executive authority.
  3. Precedent-Setting:
    • By broadening the definition of “invasion” to include illegal immigration, this proclamation could establish a precedent for future executive actions in domestic security or immigration.
  4. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Immediate impacts on migrants stranded at the border without access to legal processes, including asylum.
    • Potential international criticism from allies and organizations advocating for human rights.

Alignment with Predictions and Project 2025

This proclamation aligns closely with elements of Project 2025, which prioritizes border security and emphasizes executive authority to enforce immigration laws. It also reflects several key points from our previous scenario predictions, including:

  • Predicted: Use of a national emergency to address border security.
  • Predicted: Drastic measures to curb asylum rights.
  • Not Yet Realized: The proclamation’s impact on sanctuary states resisting federal enforcement remains to be seen.

Next Steps and Recommendations

  1. Monitor Legal Challenges:
    • Courts may quickly weigh in on the constitutional validity of the proclamation, particularly the use of Article IV.
  2. Track State Responses:
    • Observe how sanctuary states such as California, New York, and Illinois react to federal enforcement measures under this directive.
  3. International Reactions:
    • Analyze global responses to the proclamation, particularly from Mexico and international human rights organizations.
  4. Scenario Updates:
    • Incorporate the proclamation into our timeline and recalibrate probabilities for resistance, legal challenges, and federal-state conflicts.

The text as found on Whitehouse.gov 1/21/2025

GUARANTEEING THE STATES PROTECTION AGAINST INVASION
January 20, 2025

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby proclaim:

An essential feature of any sovereign nation is the existence of territorial boundaries and the inherent authority to decide who and what may cross those boundaries. The Supreme Court of the United States has described this power as a “fundamental act of sovereignty,” which “stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.” U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). The Supreme Court has recognized the inherent right and duty of the Executive Branch to defend our national sovereignty, stating that “[w]hen Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.” Id.

The Congress has, in establishing “an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” created a complex and comprehensive Federal scheme in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., to control the entry and exit of people and goods across the borders of the United States. In routine circumstances, this complex and comprehensive scheme can protect the national sovereignty of the United States by facilitating the admission of individuals whose presence serves the national interest and preventing the admission of those who do not, such as those aliens who pose threats to public health, section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1); safety, section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)); and national security, section 212(a)(3) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)). Prospective immigrants who use the visa system are screened for such health, safety, and security concerns while outside of the United States, and are not permitted to enter the United States until they establish that they are eligible to be admitted as a matter of law and should be admitted as a matter of discretion.

But screening under those provisions of the INA can be wholly ineffective in the border environment, where access to necessary information is limited for aliens who have traveled from countries around the world to enter the United States illegally, or when the system is overwhelmed, leading to the unauthorized entry of innumerable illegal aliens into the United States.

Due to significant information gaps — particularly in the border environment — and processing times, Federal officials do not have the ability to verify with certainty the criminal record or national-security risks associated with the illegal entry of every alien at the southern border, as required by section 212(a)(2)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)-(3). Nor do aliens who illegally cross the southern border readily provide comprehensive background information from their home countries to Federal law enforcement officials.

The public safety and national security risks in such an environment are heightened by the presence of, and control of territory by, international cartels and other transnational criminal organizations on the other side of the southern border, as well as terrorists and other malign actors who intend to harm the United States and the American people. And the risks associated with these issues are greatly exacerbated when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border increases to levels that prevent actual operational control of the border.

The same is true for public health, where the Federal Government currently lacks an effective operational capability to screen all illegal aliens crossing the southern border for communicable diseases of public-health concern, as required by section 212(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1). Effectively no aliens who illegally enter the United States provide Federal officials at the southern border with their comprehensive health information, as a lawful immigrant would. As a result, innumerable aliens potentially carrying communicable diseases of public health significance illegally cross the southern border and enter communities across the United States.

Over the last 4 years, at least 8 million illegal aliens were encountered along the southern border of the United States, and countless millions more evaded detection and illegally entered the United States. The sheer number of aliens entering the United States has overwhelmed the system and rendered many of the INA’s provisions ineffective, including those previously described that are intended to prevent aliens posing threats to public health, safety, and national security from entering the United States. As a result, millions of aliens who potentially pose significant threats to health, safety, and national security have moved into communities nationwide.

This ongoing influx of illegal aliens across the southern border of the United States has placed significant costs and constraints upon the States, which have collectively spent billions of dollars in providing medical care and related human services, and have spent considerable amounts on increased law enforcement costs associated with the presence of these illegal aliens within their boundaries.

In joining the Union, the States agreed to surrender much of their sovereignty and join the Union in exchange for the Federal Government’s promise in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, to “protect each of [the States] against Invasion.” I have determined that the current state of the southern border reveals that the Federal Government has failed in fulfilling this obligation to the States and hereby declare that an invasion is ongoing at the southern border, which requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States.

The INA provides the President with certain emergency tools. For example, it states that “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” 8 U.S.C. 1182(f). This statute “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 684 (2018). Further, the INA renders it unlawful for “any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.” 8 U.S.C. 1185(a)(1).

Historically, Presidents have used these statutory authorities to deny entry of designated classes and categories of aliens into the United States through ports of entry. But if the President has the power to deny entry of any alien into the United States, and to impose any restrictions as he may deem appropriate, this authority necessarily includes the right to deny the physical entry of aliens into the United States and impose restrictions on access to portions of the immigration system, particularly when the number of aliens illegally crossing the southern border prevents the Federal Government from obtaining operational control of the border.

The INA does not, however, occupy the Federal Government’s field of authority to protect the sovereignty of the United States, particularly in times of emergency when entire provisions of the INA are rendered ineffective by operational constraints, such as when there is an ongoing invasion into the States. The President’s inherent powers to control the borders of the United States, including those deriving from his authority to control the foreign affairs of the United States, necessarily include the ability to prevent the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States, and to rapidly repatriate them to an alternative location. Only through such measures can the President guarantee the right of each State to be protected against invasion.

By the power vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I have determined that the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, I am issuing this Proclamation based on my express and inherent powers in Article II of the Constitution of the United States, and in faithful execution of the immigration laws passed by the Congress, and suspending the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border until I determine that the invasion has concluded.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Suspension of Entry. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States on or after the date of this order of aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 2. Imposition of Restrictions on Entry for Aliens Invading the United States. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that aliens engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this proclamation are restricted from invoking provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 3. Suspension of and Restriction on Entry for Aliens Posing Public Health, Safety, or National Security Risks. I hereby proclaim, pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), that the entry into the United States, on or after the date of this order, of any alien who fails, before entering the United States, to provide Federal officials with sufficient medical information and reliable criminal history and background information as to enable fulfillment of the requirements of sections 212(a)(1)-(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)-(3), is detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore direct that entry into the United States of such aliens be suspended and restrict their access to provisions of the INA that would permit their continued presence in the United States, including, but not limited to, section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158.

Sec. 4. Constitutional Suspension of Physical Entry. Under the authorities provided to me under Article II of the Constitution of the United States, including my control over foreign affairs, and to effectuate the guarantee of protection against invasion required by Article IV, Section 4, I hereby suspend the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States, and direct the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to take appropriate actions as may be necessary to achieve the objectives of this proclamation, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 5. Operational Actions to Repel the Invasion. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, shall take all appropriate action to repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States on or after the date of this order, whether as an exercise of the suspension power in section 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), or as an exercise of my delegated authority under the Constitution of the United States, until I issue a finding that the invasion at the southern border has ceased.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This proclamation shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth

 

Integration of Proclamation into Our Scenario

The proclamation “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion” fundamentally shifts the landscape of our scenario. It establishes a direct use of executive authority to bypass traditional immigration processes, framing the southern border situation as a constitutional crisis of sovereignty. Here’s how this development influences our timeline and scenario outcomes:

Play-by-Play Update

Phase 1: Federal Escalation and Emergency Measures (Day 1-7)

  1. Federal Action:
    • The proclamation declares an “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.
    • Entry of undocumented immigrants at the southern border is suspended indefinitely, with military resources deployed to enforce the directive.
  2. Immediate Impacts:
    • Border crossings drop sharply as federal agents enforce a “zero-entry” policy.
    • Migrant camps on the Mexican side swell with displaced individuals unable to enter the U.S., creating a humanitarian crisis.
  3. State-Level Reactions:
    • Border states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida express support, citing reduced strain on state resources.
    • Sanctuary states (California, New York, Illinois) condemn the proclamation as unconstitutional, vowing legal challenges and limited cooperation.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Immediate border militarization: 100% (confirmed).
  • Legal challenges from sanctuary states: 85%.
  • Escalating protests from immigrant advocacy groups: 75%.

Phase 2: Legal and Humanitarian Challenges (Week 2-4)

  1. Judicial Response:
    • Lawsuits are filed in federal courts by sanctuary states and civil rights organizations, arguing the proclamation violates due process and international asylum laws.
    • A fast-tracked appeal to the Supreme Court is likely.
  2. Humanitarian Fallout:
    • Reports from border regions detail overcrowded migrant camps and deteriorating conditions.
    • Advocacy groups coordinate nationwide protests, calling for accountability and an end to the proclamation’s measures.
  3. Political Divisions:
    • Republicans rally behind the administration, framing the proclamation as a decisive step toward national security.
    • Democrats escalate rhetoric, accusing the administration of overreach and humanitarian neglect.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Supreme Court siding with federal government: 70%.
  • Mass protests in urban areas: 65%.

Phase 3: Potential State Resistance and Federal Retaliation (Month 2-3)

  1. Defiance by Sanctuary States:
    • California leads a coalition of states passing laws to shield undocumented residents from deportation.
    • Local law enforcement agencies in sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.
  2. Federal Countermeasures:
    • Federal funding to defiant states is threatened, with additional federal agents deployed to enforce immigration laws.
    • The administration hints at invoking the Insurrection Act if states obstruct federal operations.
  3. Public Unrest:
    • Protests escalate in sanctuary states, with clashes reported between demonstrators and federal agents.
    • Public opinion polarizes further along partisan lines.

Probability Adjustments:

  • Federal retaliation via funding cuts: 75%.
  • Invocation of the Insurrection Act: 55%.
  • Violent clashes during protests: 70%.

Potential Outcomes and Probabilities

  1. Outcome A: Legal Resolution (40%)
    • The Supreme Court upholds or invalidates the proclamation, determining its constitutionality.
    • Sanctuary states abide by the decision but push for legislative reforms to limit executive authority.
  2. Outcome B: Prolonged Standoff (50%)
    • Sanctuary states refuse to comply, effectively operating as semi-autonomous regions regarding immigration enforcement.
    • Federal and state authorities operate in parallel, creating legal and operational chaos.
  3. Outcome C: Federal Overreach and Martial Law (30%)
    • The administration escalates enforcement through the Insurrection Act, deploying troops to sanctuary states.
    • Widespread protests devolve into civil unrest, straining national cohesion.
  4. Outcome D: De-Escalation Through Political Compromise (20%)
    • Facing legal and public pressure, the administration agrees to narrow the scope of the proclamation, focusing on criminal elements rather than blanket immigration bans.

Impact Analysis

  1. Legal Implications:
    • The proclamation sets a precedent for defining “invasion” broadly, which could expand executive powers.
    • Courts will face challenges balancing federal authority with constitutional protections.
  2. Federal-State Relations:
    • Sanctuary states are likely to assert greater autonomy, intensifying federal-state tensions.
  3. Public Sentiment:
    • Polarization deepens as partisan narratives dominate media coverage.
    • Immigrant communities face heightened fear and uncertainty, fueling activism and advocacy.
63.2 F
Portland

Cascadia: How the West Could Remain Resilient in the Face of the Unthinkable

Economy & JobsThe Resistance
creative redesign of the Cascadia Doug Fir flag, integrating symbols of economic independence, resilience, and technological advancement. The design blends the traditional tree with elements such as golden coins, gears, and digital networks, symbolizing self-sufficiency and regional cooperation.
# creative redesign of the Cascadia Doug Fir flag, integrating symbols of economic independence, resilience, and technological advancement. The design blends the traditional tree with elements such as golden coins, gears, and digital networks, symbolizing self-sufficiency and regional cooperation.

Published:

Reading time: 19 min.

A Contingency Plan for Uncertain Times

The United States has long been a global leader—a nation of prosperity, innovation, and democratic governance. Yet, history reminds us that even the strongest nations are not immune to crisis, dysfunction, or even collapse. While we do not advocate for secession, we must ask: what happens if the federal government falters, if Washington D.C. is no longer capable of governing effectively, or if political dysfunction and economic instability threaten the well-being of millions?

The West Coast—California, Washington, and Oregon—must be prepared.

This region is not only one of the most economically powerful in the world, but it is also deeply unique in its values and history. Here, some of the largest and most progressive cities in America—Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland—shape national conversations on human rights, climate action, and technological progress. At the same time, the rural and more conservative communities in these states embody the spirit of independence, agricultural resilience, and self-sufficiency.

The West has always been a frontier of change—from the Gold Rush to the tech revolution. California was once part of Mexico, a reminder that this land has long been shaped by shifting borders and changing governments. If history teaches us anything, it is that nations and governments evolve, but the people and land endure.

If the federal government collapses or becomes incapable of protecting its people, Cascadia must be ready—not as an act of rebellion, but as a necessary step to ensure stability, security, and the preservation of the values we hold dear.

This is not about division—it is about preparation. What does a self-reliant, forward-thinking, and disaster-ready Pacific region look like? How can we build a future that is inclusive, sustainable, and resilient—one that protects both our diverse urban centers and our rural heartlands?

The Pacific Plan is that vision.

✅ The world’s largest technology firms
✅ Some of the most fertile agricultural land
✅ A population that values innovation, sustainability, and self-sufficiency

If the unthinkable occurs, the West must be prepared to stand strong and secure its future.

Warning Signs: The Fragility of the Union

While many still view the U.S. as an unshakable force, recent years have revealed deep structural vulnerabilities:

Political Polarization & Governance Gridlock

  • Increasing divisions between federal and state governments
  • Rising extremism and the erosion of democratic institutions

Economic Instability & Inflation

  • Record federal debt surpassing $34 trillion, with unsustainable deficit spending
  • Inflation rates impacting everything from housing to food security

️ Infrastructure Decay & Natural Disasters

  • A failing energy grid, crumbling roads, and outdated public transportation
  • Increased frequency of wildfires, earthquakes, and climate-related disasters

Global Power Shifts & Geopolitical Risks

  • Declining U.S. influence in global markets
  • Potential conflicts with rising superpowers like China and economic crises in Europe

⚠️ If America collapses under the weight of these crises, what happens next?

⚡ Does the West Coast fall with it, or does it forge its own path?

The Pacific Plan: A Framework for Resilience

If the federal government falters or is unable to provide for its citizens, the West Coast must have a contingency plan—a Pacific Resilience Strategy—to ensure continued stability, security, and prosperity.

1️⃣ Economic Independence: Protecting Trade and Industry

  • Silicon Valley, Seattle, and Portland remain global tech and manufacturing powerhouses
  • The region would diversify supply chains and strengthen Pacific trade partnerships with Canada, Japan, and South Korea
  • Establishing a regional currency or digital trade system could stabilize the economy in case of national financial collapse

2️⃣ Sustainable Food & Energy Security

  • California’s Central Valley remains one of the world’s top food producers
  • Investment in 100% renewable energy—solar, wind, and hydro—ensures self-sufficiency
  • Water conservation and desalination projects would prevent resource shortages

3️⃣ Defensive Preparedness & Cybersecurity

  • A regional defense force to protect major ports, energy grids, and critical infrastructure
  • Expansion of cyber defense programs to protect against external threats
  • Strengthened emergency response systems to handle natural and societal crises

4️⃣ Modern Infrastructure & Transportation

  • High-speed rail and smart cities modeled after Japan and Germany
  • Retrofitting highways, bridges, and energy grids for climate resilience
  • A self-sufficient supply chain for critical goods and technologies

5️⃣ Government Continuity & Social Stability

  • A regional governing body that can operate independently if the federal government collapses
  • Policies to protect civil rights, LGBTQ+ communities, and minority groups
  • Guaranteed healthcare and education, ensuring stability for future generations

What We Currently Pay in Taxes: The True Cost of the Status Quo

Before exploring how “Cascadia” could provide universal healthcare, housing, infrastructure, and education, it’s important to understand what we already pay in taxes under the current U.S. system. Right now, taxpayers in California, Washington, and Oregon contribute hundreds of billions of dollars to both state and federal programs—but how much of that actually benefits our region?

Total Tax Revenue Collected from WA, OR, CA

State State Tax Revenue (FY 2024) Federal Tax Revenue (FY 2023) Total Taxes Paid
California $220.59 billion $696.8 billion $917.39 billion
Washington $38.03 billion $148.5 billion $186.53 billion
Oregon $20.88 billion $44.0 billion $64.88 billion

✅ Total State Taxes Paid: $279.5 billion
✅ Total Federal Taxes Paid: $889.3 billion
✅ Grand Total (State + Federal): $1.1688 trillion

Right now, our state taxpayers contribute nearly $1.1688 trillion every year—yet much of this money is redistributed to other states, federal agencies, and military operations that do not directly benefit our region.

Where Does Our Money Go?

Currently, a large portion of federal tax revenue from California, Washington, and Oregon is used to support federal programs, military spending, and economic subsidies for other states. Some key areas where our money goes include:

✅ Military & Defense: Over $877 billion in federal military spending, much of which is allocated to overseas operations and military bases outside Cascadia.
✅ Social Security & Medicare: Benefits that are already covered by payroll taxes and would be replaced with a more efficient regional healthcare system.
✅ Federal Bureaucracy: Billions spent on federal agencies, administrative overhead, and policies that do not reflect Cascadia’s priorities.
✅ Subsidies for Other States: Many red and swing states receive more in federal aid than they contribute in taxes, meaning Cascadian taxpayers are subsidizing other regions.

The reality is that billions of our tax dollars leave our region every year—money that could instead be invested directly into our own healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

The Alternative: Keeping Our Money Local

If the federal government collapsed or became incapable of functioning, Cascadia would already have the financial means to fully sustain itself. Instead of sending hundreds of billions of dollars to Washington D.C., these funds could be used to:

✔️ Fund universal healthcare for all residents
✔️ Provide tuition-free college & universal Pre-K
✔️ Build climate-resilient infrastructure & public transit
✔️ Eliminate homelessness & create affordable housing
✔️ Establish an efficient, community-focused defense force

The question isn’t whether we can afford to build a better future—it’s why we keep funding a system that doesn’t prioritize us.

Under Cascadia’s plan, we keep our $1.1688 trillion in tax revenue, ensuring every dollar is reinvested into our own people, our communities, and our values.

How Would the Money Be Spent?

Instead of federal spending, the funds could be reallocated into state-run programs, ensuring economic security, world-class infrastructure, and social safety nets.

Category Annual Budget ($B) % of Total Budget
Universal Healthcare $300B 25.67%
Modern Infrastructure Overhaul $150B 12.83%
Free College & Student Loan Reform $100B 8.56%
Public Housing & Homelessness Elimination $90B 7.70%
New Government & Public Services $50B 4.28%
Cascadia Defense Force (PSDF) $62B 5.30%
Emergency Services & Disaster Response $40B 3.42%
Economic & Social Programs $40B 3.42%
Taxpayer Relief (Former Surplus) $285.6B 24.4%

This new model ensures that Cascadia not only funds essential services but also drastically reduces taxes.

Taxpayer Relief: $285.6 Billion in Unneeded Taxes

Instead of reallocating the $285.6 billion surplus, Cascadia could return these funds to taxpayers, reducing the overall tax burden by approximately 24.4%.

Tax Category Current U.S. Rate Cascadian Adjusted Rate Taxpayer Savings
Income Tax (Middle Class) 22% 16.6% $1,500+ per year
Corporate Tax 21% 15.9% More business investment
Sales Tax (State Avg.) 8.5% 6.4% Lower cost of goods
Property Tax Varies Capped at 0.9% Lower housing costs

Improved Per Capita Spending & Quality of Life

✔️ Per Capita Spending:
Under the new system, Cascadia’s per capita government spending is $21,644 per year, higher than the current U.S. average of $19,594 but more efficient due to reduced bureaucratic waste.

✔️ More Money for Citizens:
Lower taxes mean more disposable income, reduced costs for essential goods, and a lower cost of living.

✔️ Better Services Without Federal Waste:
Healthcare, education, infrastructure, and security all fully funded without the inefficiencies of the federal government.

Cascadia would offer one of the best qualities of life globally while maintaining economic sustainability.

BIG Changes, focused on the values the west holds dear.

Public Housing & Homelessness Elimination ($90B – 7.7%)

✅ Massive expansion of public housing to ensure no one is left without shelter.
✅ Rental assistance and homeownership incentives to keep housing affordable.
✅ Tenant protection laws and rent stabilization policies to prevent exploitation.
✅ A “Housing First” approach to permanently eliminate chronic homelessness.

Under this plan, homelessness in Cascadia would be completely eliminated.

Guaranteed Housing as a Right

In the Cascadian model, housing is not a privilege—it’s a human right. With a fully funded public housing system, every resident would have access to affordable, safe, and permanent housing, ensuring no one is left on the streets.

Would you like to expand this section further, or does this sufficiently address the goal of ending homelessness in Cascadia?

Universal Healthcare for All Residents ($300B – 25.67%)

✅ A fully funded single-payer healthcare system providing medical, dental, vision, and mental health services.
✅ Prescription drug price controls to ensure affordability and eliminate price gouging.
✅ Elimination of private insurance bureaucracy, reducing administrative waste and saving billions.
✅ No out-of-pocket costs for essential medical care, ensuring that every resident has access to quality healthcare regardless of income.

Under this plan, no Cascadian resident will ever go without healthcare again.

Healthcare as a Right, Not a Privilege

In the Cascadian model, healthcare is a guaranteed right, not something tied to employment or wealth. With a universal, state-funded system, everyone receives the care they need, when they need it, without financial barriers.

This system would make Cascadia one of the healthiest and most equitable societies in the world, ensuring longer life expectancy, lower medical debt, and a stronger, more productive population.

Would you like to add more details on the structure of the healthcare system, or does this fully capture the vision for Universal Healthcare in Cascadia?

Universal Free Pre-K & Early Childhood Education ($50B – Included in Public Services Budget)

✅ Free, high-quality Pre-K for all children, ensuring early childhood development and school readiness.
✅ Investment in early literacy, language development, and social skills programs to close achievement gaps.
✅ Fully funded childcare programs for working families, reducing financial strain and supporting economic mobility.
✅ Well-paid, highly trained teachers to ensure the best education for every child.

With Universal Pre-K, every child starts school ready to succeed, regardless of family income.

Education as an Investment, Not a Cost

In the Cascadian model, education at all levels—from Pre-K to college—is fully funded as a public good. By investing in early childhood education and tuition-free higher education, Cascadia ensures a smarter, more innovative, and economically competitive society.

Would you like to include more details on funding models or student eligibility, or does this section fully reflect the vision for free education in Cascadia?

Modern Infrastructure Overhaul ($150B – 12.83%)

✅ High-speed rail connecting major Cascadian cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, and Seattle.
✅ Expansion of green energy initiatives to achieve 100% renewable energy, reducing dependence on fossil fuels.
✅ Upgraded highways, bridges, and public transportation for climate resilience and efficiency.
✅ Smart city development, integrating sustainable urban planning, AI-driven traffic management, and energy-efficient buildings.

Cascadia will have the most advanced, climate-resilient infrastructure in the world.

Guaranteed Housing & Sustainable Urban Development ($90B – 7.7%)

✅ Massive investment in public and affordable housing, ensuring everyone has a place to live.
✅ Sustainable, energy-efficient housing projects to reduce carbon footprints and lower long-term costs.
✅ Incentives for local, community-based housing cooperatives, ensuring democratic control over housing policies.
✅ Smart zoning laws and urban planning, prioritizing walkability, public transit, and green spaces to improve quality of life.

Cascadia will set the global standard for sustainable, affordable, and livable cities.

A Future-Proofed Society

In the Cascadian model, infrastructure and housing are designed not just for today, but for the next 100 years. By combining modern transportation, sustainable housing, and resilient city planning, Cascadia will be the most forward-thinking, environmentally responsible region in the world.

Would you like to include more details on specific infrastructure projects, or does this section fully reflect the vision for Cascadia’s modernization?

Conclusion: A Fully Funded, Resilient Future

The Pacific Fund model proves that Cascadia could not only survive but thrive, offering:

✅ Universal healthcare
✅ Tuition-free college
✅ Modern infrastructure & housing solutions
✅ A robust defense & emergency system
✅ Lower taxes for individuals & businesses

The future of the West is strong—if we are prepared.

Update: The above article uses the most recent tax data and is an update from the article below.

A Contingency Plan for Uncertain Times

For centuries, the United States has been a beacon of stability, innovation, and economic prosperity. However, history teaches us that no empire, no matter how powerful, is immune to collapse. Whether through economic crisis, political unrest, or systemic breakdown, even the most robust nations must prepare for worst-case scenarios. But what happens if America falters?

For the West Coast—California, Washington, and Oregon—the need for resilience is critical. The region is home to the world’s largest technology firms, some of the most fertile agricultural land, and a population that values innovation, sustainability, and self-sufficiency. If the unthinkable happens, the West must be prepared to stand strong and secure its future.

Warning Signs: The Fragility of the Union

While many still see the U.S. as an unshakable force, recent years have revealed deep structural weaknesses:

  1. Political Polarization & Governance Gridlock
    • Increasing division between federal and state governments.
    • Rising extremism and the erosion of democratic institutions.
  2. Economic Instability & Inflation
    • Record federal debt surpassing $34 trillion, with unsustainable deficit spending.
    • Inflation rates impacting everything from housing to food security.
  3. Infrastructure Decay & Natural Disasters
    • A failing energy grid, crumbling roads, and outdated public transportation.
    • Increased frequency of wildfires, earthquakes, and climate-related disasters.
  4. Global Power Shifts & Geopolitical Risks
    • Declining U.S. influence in global markets.
    • Potential conflicts with rising superpowers like China and economic crises in Europe.

If America collapses under the weight of these crises, what happens next? Does the West Coast fall with it, or does it forge its own path?

The Pacific Plan: A Framework for Resilience

If the federal government falters or is unable to provide for its citizens, the West Coast must have a contingency plan—a Pacific Resilience Strategy that ensures continued stability, security, and prosperity.

1. Economic Independence: Protecting Trade and Industry

  • Silicon Valley, Seattle, and Portland remain global tech and manufacturing powerhouses.
  • The region would diversify supply chains and strengthen Pacific trade partnerships with Canada, Japan, and South Korea.
  • Establishing a regional currency or digital trade system could stabilize the economy in case of national financial collapse.

2. Sustainable Food & Energy Security

  • California’s Central Valley remains one of the world’s top food producers.
  • Investment in 100% renewable energy—solar, wind, and hydro—ensures self-sufficiency.
  • Water conservation and desalination projects would prevent resource shortages.

3. Defensive Preparedness & Cybersecurity

  • A regional defense force to protect major ports, energy grids, and critical infrastructure.
  • Expansion of cyber defense programs to protect against external threats.
  • Strengthened emergency response systems to handle natural and societal crises.

4. Modern Infrastructure & Transportation

  • High-speed rail and smart cities modeled after Japan and Germany.
  • Retrofitting highways, bridges, and energy grids for climate resilience.
  • A self-sufficient supply chain for critical goods and technologies.

5. Government Continuity & Social Stability

  • A regional governing body that can operate independently if the federal government is unable to function.
  • Policies to protect civil rights, LGBTQ+ communities, and minority groups.
  • Guaranteed healthcare and education, ensuring stability for future generations.

Could Cascadia Become a Global Power?

The idea of a self-reliant West Coast is not far-fetched. If California, Washington, and Oregon pooled their economic, technological, and industrial power, they would form the world’s fourth-largest economy, ahead of Germany and the United Kingdom. With control over major ports, global trade routes, and technological innovation, Cascadia could become a formidable player on the world stage.

Key benefits include:

  • A stable economy built on tech, energy, and agriculture.
  • A leading force in climate change action and green energy exports.
  • An independent and resilient governance structure ensuring the protection of its citizens.

    Hope Through Preparation

    While the collapse of America is not inevitable, ignoring the warning signs of instability is dangerous. The West Coast has the talent, resources, and infrastructure to thrive independently if necessary. By developing a contingency framework, we ensure that, no matter what happens, our citizens remain safe, secure, and prosperous.Cascadia is not a movement of division—it is a backup plan for resilience. A plan that ensures, if the unthinkable happens, we do not fall with it—but rise stronger.The future is uncertain, but our preparedness is not.

But How Do You Pay for All That?
Cascadia’s Detailed Tax and Budget Plan Under the Pacific Fund

Funding the Future

The concept of Cascadia as a self-sufficient, resilient economic bloc is built on the idea that, by pooling tax revenues and reinvesting them locally, the region can thrive without federal oversight. But a crucial question remains: How do we pay for it?

Rather than implementing a completely new tax system, Cascadia would redirect existing federal and state tax revenues into a unified fund—The Pacific Fund—ensuring that every dollar serves the direct needs of its residents.

 

In a summary of the total state tax revenue collected by Oregon, Washington, and California in fiscal year 2023, along with the federal tax revenue collected from each state in fiscal year 2022:

State State Tax Revenue FY 2023 (in billions) Federal Tax Revenue FY 2022 (in billions) Total Tax Revenue (in billions)
California $220.59 $696.8 $917.39
Washington $38.03 $148.5 $186.53
Oregon $20.88 $44.0 $64.88

These figures represent the total tax revenues collected by each state government and the federal tax revenues collected from each state by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The state tax revenues encompass various taxes such as income, sales, and corporate taxes, while the federal tax revenues include individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and other federal taxes.

Please note that the federal tax data is from fiscal year 2022, as it is the most recent year for which comprehensive federal tax collection data by state is available. Additionally, the total tax revenue is the sum of state and federal tax revenues collected from each state.

 

The Pacific Fund: A New Financial Model

Under this hypothetical scenario, California, Washington, and Oregon combine their federal and state tax revenues, totaling $883.2 billion annually.

Economic Impact of the Pacific Fund

  • Total Annual Revenue: $883.2 billion
  • Population Covered: ~54 million people
  • GDP Equivalent: Would rank as the world’s 4th-largest economy, surpassing Germany, Japan, and the UK.

By managing its own tax revenues, Cascadia would retain financial control and eliminate wasteful spending, ensuring every dollar is allocated efficiently.

How Would the Money Be Spent?

Instead of federal spending, the funds could be reallocated into state-run programs, ensuring economic security, world-class infrastructure, and social safety nets.

1. Universal Healthcare for All Residents ($300B – 34%)

  • Fully fund a single-payer healthcare system.
  • Includes medical, dental, vision, and mental health services.
  • Prescription drug price controls to lower costs.
  • Eliminates private insurance bureaucracy, saving billions.

2. Modern Infrastructure Overhaul ($150B – 17%)

  • High-speed rail connecting San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, and Seattle.
  • Expansion of green energy initiatives to reach 100% renewable energy.
  • Upgraded highways, bridges, and smart cities for sustainability.

3. Free Higher Education & Student Loan Forgiveness ($100B – 11%)

  • Tuition-free public universities for all students.
  • Debt cancellation or refinancing for existing student loans.
  • Investment in vocational training and STEM fields.

4. Public Housing & Homelessness Elimination ($90B – 10%)

  • Mass public housing expansion to eliminate homelessness.
  • Rental assistance & homeownership incentives.
  • Tenant protection laws and rent stabilization policies.

5. New Government & Public Services ($50B – 6%)

  • Establishment of a regional governing structure.
  • Inclusive Immigration policies and sustainable border control agreements.
  • Modernized digital governance & cybersecurity protections.

6. Cascadia Defense Force (PSDF) ($62B – 7%)

  • Modeled after Canada & Japan, focused on self-defense, cybersecurity, and disaster relief.
  • Naval and Coast Guard expansions to protect Pacific trade routes.
  • AI-driven aerial defense & cyber warfare capabilities.

7. Emergency Services & Disaster Response ($40B – 5%)

  • Wildfire, earthquake, and tsunami preparedness.
  • Climate adaptation projects to combat extreme weather threats.

8. Economic & Social Programs ($40B – 5%)

  • Universal food security programs (public food access and subsidies).
  • Job training, small business funding, and economic incentives.
  • Support for marginalized communities and workers’ rights.

Final Budget Breakdown

Category Annual Budget ($B) % of Total Budget
Universal Healthcare $300B 34%
Modern Infrastructure Overhaul $150B 17%
Free College & Student Loan Reform $100B 11%
Public Housing & Homelessness $90B 10%
New Government & Public Services $50B 6%
Cascadia Defense Force (PSDF) $62B 7%
Emergency Services & Disaster Response $40B 5%
Social & Economic Support $40B 5%
Remaining Surplus $51.2B 6%

Could Cascadia Afford It?

✔️ Yes.

  • Cascadia’s $883 billion budget is more than enough to fund these services while still running a surplus.
  • The Pacific region already contributes billions to federal programs it sees little return from—by keeping those funds, we could build a fully independent economy.
  • Surplus funds ($51.2B) could be used to reduce taxes further, invest in AI/space, or act as an emergency reserve.

Taxpayer Benefits: Lower Taxes, More Services

By cutting out federal inefficiencies, Cascadia could provide universal services while reducing individual tax burdens.

Tax Category Current U.S. Rate Cascadian Rate Taxpayer Savings
Income Tax (Middle Class) 22% 18% $1,000+ per year
Corporate Tax 21% 15% More business investment
Sales Tax (State Avg.) 8.5% 5% Lower cost of goods
Property Tax Varies Capped at 1.2% Lower housing costs

✔️ Lower personal taxes mean more money for families and businesses.
✔️ No federal tax obligations means that money stays in Cascadia.
✔️ No need for expensive health insurance or tuition fees—costs that currently eat up household budgets.

Conclusion: A Fully Funded, Resilient Future

The Pacific Fund model proves that Cascadia could not only survive but thrive, offering:
✅ Universal healthcare
✅ Tuition-free college
✅ Modern infrastructure & housing solutions
✅ A robust defense & emergency system
✅ Lower taxes for individuals & businesses

By redirecting tax revenue into local programs, Cascadia ensures a prosperous, self-reliant economy that serves its people first.

The future of the West is strong—if we are prepared.

Discover more from Grounded Truth & News Movement

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Leave a Reply

0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GTNMReports
GTNMReportshttps://gtnm.org

Related articles

Recent articles

Premium Content

© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x