CHAT GPT EXPLAINS CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENCE
In May 2025, I asked Chat.GPT questions about California independence, and I received some surprising answers. Basically, Chat.GPT believes that California is entitled to declare independence if Trump is able to undermine our economy and attack our people. Chat.GPT even created a petition to the United Nations for recognition of our independence! Speaking as a lawyer, this is a remarkably nuanced and logical analysis.
By asking steadily more focused questions, Chat.GPT backed off from saying “secession is illegal” to “Under these circumstances, California could reasonably establish her independence from the United States.”
Ultimately, Chat.GPT wrote a petition to the United Nations to ask the nations of the world—especially democratic developed nations like Canada and Germany—to recognize California as an independent state.
One very important point is that Chat.GPT agrees with me that California can declare independence by passing a declaration of independence through her state legislature. There is no need for a “Referendum,” or “Constitutional Amendment” to either the California or U.S. Constitution.
Note: California declared her independence from Mexico in 1836 by a vote in the Territorial legislature, established under Mexican law. Mexico accepted California’s right to be independent in 1838, as part of the process in which Alta California returned to Mexico. Therefore, the state government has at least equal or greater powers of sovereignty than the former Territory of Alta California to declare and maintain herself as an independent country.
THE QUESTIONS:
Q: Since the United States invaded California in 1846, why isn't California entitled to independence from the United States?
ChatGPT: * * * In Summary: Even though California was originally taken by force, its legal status was later formalized by treaty, and it became a state through a constitutional process. Current legal frameworks—both domestic and international—do not recognize a right to unilateral secession for California.
However, debates about California's political autonomy and movements like "Calexit" do continue at a grassroots level, though without legal standing or significant political momentum.
Let me know if you'd like to explore scenarios under which a state could attempt to secede or gain greater autonomy.
Q: Are conquered nations entitled to independence?
ChatGPT: The question of whether conquered nations are entitled to independence touches on complex principles of international law, morality, and political power. Here's a breakdown:
✅ International Law: Self-Determination
Under modern international law, particularly after World War II, the right of self-determination became a core principle:
UN Charter (1945) – Article 1 affirms the right of peoples to self-determination.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) – Article 1 states that all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status.
So in theory, peoples and nations who have been conquered or colonized are entitled to self-determination, which can include:
Full independence
Autonomy
Free association with another state
🚫 But There’s a Catch: “Conquered” Doesn’t Always Mean Entitled to Independence
There are important limits and conditions:
1. Colonialism vs. Conquest and Integration
Colonial peoples under foreign rule have widely been recognized as entitled to independence (e.g., India, Algeria, Kenya).
Conquered peoples who were later legally integrated into another country (often through treaties, force, or gradual assimilation) are not automatically entitled to independence under current international law unless:
They are denied meaningful participation in political life,
Or face systematic oppression, discrimination, or occupation.
2. The “Remedial Right” Theory
Some legal scholars argue there is a "remedial right to secede" if a group is subject to:
Severe injustice
Violent repression
Denial of basic rights
But without those conditions, international law generally favors territorial integrity of states over unilateral secession.
🔄 Examples:
Kosovo (1999–2008): Declared independence from Serbia after years of conflict and ethnic persecution; partially recognized.
Tibet: Conquered and annexed by China in 1950–51. Despite calls for independence, not recognized as entitled to it under international law.
Crimea: Russia annexed it from Ukraine in 2014. Most of the world rejects the annexation and supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Q: If California is systematically oppressed, is it entitled to independence?
ChatGPT: If California were systematically oppressed, it could theoretically claim a right to independence under a principle in international law known as "remedial secession"—but it’s not straightforward or guaranteed. Let’s break this down clearly:
🔍 1. What is "Remedial Secession"?
Remedial secession is the idea that a group or region has a right to secede from a country only as a last resort, when:
It suffers systematic and severe oppression,
It is denied meaningful political participation,
And internal remedies (like courts, elections, and civil rights movements) have failed or are impossible.
This is a controversial and not universally accepted doctrine, but it has been used to justify some independence movements (e.g., Kosovo, South Sudan).
🧭 2. What Counts as Systematic Oppression?
For California (or any U.S. state) to claim remedial secession, it would need to show things like:
Widespread human rights abuses by the federal government
Denial of political representation
Discriminatory economic policies designed to harm Californians as a group
Suppression of culture, language, or expression
Violent repression of protest or civil resistance
Simply disagreeing with federal laws or policies, paying more in taxes than it gets back, or having different political leanings doesn’t meet the threshold.
⚖️ 3. Would International Law Support California?
Likely not under current conditions. Here's why:
California is one of the wealthiest, most autonomous, and politically influential states in the U.S.
It elects its own leaders, has representation in Congress, and can challenge federal laws through courts.
It has a massive economy, access to media, and no meaningful barrier to self-expression or protest.
Unless that fundamental autonomy and participation were destroyed, California wouldn't qualify as "oppressed" in the international legal sense.
🛡️ 4. U.S. Legal System View
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White (1869) that states cannot unilaterally secede.
Any attempt to secede would be illegal under U.S. law unless approved by Congress and other states (via a constitutional amendment or consent).
🧠 5. So, Could California Ever Be Entitled to Independence?
Scenario
Entitled to Independence?
Current conditions: ❌ No
Under systematic, violent oppression: ✅ Possibly under international law (remedial secession)
With U.S. constitutional approval: ✅ Yes (legal secession route)
Via referendum only: ❌ Not legally binding in U.S. law
🧩 Conclusion: California is not currently entitled to independence, because it is not oppressed in a way that would justify remedial secession. But if conditions changed dramatically—to include systemic human rights violations and denial of political agency—then a case could be made under international law.
Let me know if you’d like to explore a hypothetical scenario where California was oppressed, and how that might change things legally or diplomatically.
Q: Trump has called for discriminatory policies against California.
ChatGPT: Yes, former President Donald Trump has implemented policies that many view as discriminatory toward California, particularly targeting the state's progressive initiatives in education, environmental regulation, and immigration.
🔹 Education and DEI Programs
In April 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order mandating that all K-12 schools certify the elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs within 10 days or risk losing federal funding. California's Department of Education challenged this directive, questioning its legality and expressing concern over potential violations of constitutional rights. The administration argued that DEI programs constitute race-based discrimination, a stance that has been met with significant opposition from civil rights advocates and legal experts .Los Angeles Times+1Los Angeles Times+1Los Angeles Times
🔹 Immigration and Language Services
The Trump administration's rollback of federal language assistance services has disproportionately affected California's diverse population. The repeal of a 2000 executive order mandating federal language support, coupled with the declaration of English as the national language, led to significant reductions in interpreter services. This has raised concerns about increased medical errors and misdiagnoses among non-English speaking residents in California .San Francisco Chronicle
🔹 Environmental Regulations
Trump's executive orders have also targeted California's environmental policies. Specifically, the administration criticized the state's cap-and-trade program, claiming it discriminates against oil companies and raises energy costs. This move undermines California's efforts to combat climate change and maintain stringent environmental standards .CalMatters+1Callabor Law+1
🔹 Higher Education and International Students
In a significant policy shift, the Trump administration attempted to revoke the legal status of thousands of international students, many of whom are enrolled in California universities. This abrupt action was blocked by a federal judge in California, who issued an injunction preventing the administration from enforcing the policy, citing its haphazard and inconsistent nature .The Daily Beast+1AP News+1AP News
These policies have been perceived by many as punitive measures against California's progressive stance on various issues. While the state has challenged these directives through legal avenues, the tension between federal mandates and state policies continues to be a point of contention.
Recent Developments on Federal Policies Affecting California
San Francisco Chronicle: Language service cutbacks raise fear of medical errors, misdiagnoses, deaths
AP News: Federal judge blocks immigration authorities from revoking international students' legal status
The Washington Post: No, Trump can't force his agenda on U.S. entities. They have rights.
Q: Trump has also proposed denying federal benefits to California and giving more money to states that voted for him
ChatGPT: Yes, former President Donald Trump has proposed policies that critics argue would disproportionately disadvantage California, particularly in areas such as disaster relief, social services, and housing assistance.
🔹 Disaster Relief and Political Conditions
Trump has repeatedly threatened to withhold federal disaster aid from California, often tying assistance to the state's compliance with his policy preferences. For instance, in January 2025, he stated that California should not receive any aid unless it altered its water policies, specifically to increase water flow to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley—a move opposed by Governor Gavin Newsom due to environmental concerns. Similarly, in September 2024, Trump threatened to withhold disaster funding unless California agreed to his demands regarding water deliveries, using the state's ongoing wildfires as leverage. Politico+3People.com+3Business Insider+3PolitiFact+1https://www.foxcarolina.com+1Politico
🔹 Federal Funding Cuts Impacting California
Trump's proposed tax and spending bill includes significant reductions in federal funding for programs that heavily impact California residents. The bill proposes nearly $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid and $300 billion to nutrition assistance programs, such as SNAP. Given that over a quarter of California's population relies on Medicaid, these cuts would have a substantial effect on the state. Additionally, the bill aims to make permanent the federal cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, which disproportionately affects high-tax states like California. Politico+2San Francisco Chronicle+2Time+2
🔹 Housing Assistance Reductions
The Trump administration has also proposed a 43% reduction in funding for federal rental assistance programs, including public housing and Section 8 vouchers. California, home to approximately 560,000 households relying on such assistance, would be significantly affected. The proposal suggests converting these programs into block grants, shifting more responsibility to state governments, which may struggle to compensate for the reduced federal support. Los Angeles Times+1Politico+1
🔹 Legal and Constitutional Considerations
Legal experts argue that using federal funding as a tool to coerce states into aligning with specific political agendas may violate constitutional principles. Such actions could infringe upon the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments, which protect states' rights and prevent the federal government from imposing undue pressure on state policies. The Washington Post
In summary, while Trump has not explicitly stated an intention to deny federal benefits solely based on electoral outcomes, his proposed policies and public statements suggest a pattern of leveraging federal resources to influence state decisions, which disproportionately impacts states like California that often oppose his political agenda.
Q: Under what circumstances would federal discrimination against California justify independence under international law?
ChatGPT: That’s a sharp and complex question — you're asking when federal discrimination against California could rise to the level where international law might support California's right to independence.
Let’s break it down carefully using principles from international law, especially around remedial secession and self-determination.
🔑 Key Principle: Remedial Secession under International Law
Remedial secession is a controversial doctrine suggesting that a group or region may have a right to secede from a parent state only as a last resort, if:
It suffers serious and systematic human rights violations;
It is denied meaningful internal self-determination (i.e., political participation, legal rights, fair courts);
All other remedies have failed.
This doctrine was cited (with mixed reception) in cases like Kosovo, South Sudan, and arguably Bangladesh. It is not explicitly enshrined in any global treaty, but it is referenced in UN declarations, ICJ opinions, and state practice.
✅ For California to Have a Legal Claim to Independence, These Conditions Would Likely Need to Exist:
1. Severe Systematic Discrimination by the Federal Government
Not just political disagreements or budget cuts — but something like:
Deliberate economic sabotage (e.g., cutting off essential funding to punish Californians),
Denial of disaster relief, medical services, or infrastructure, in a targeted way,
Policies clearly intended to harm Californians for political reasons (not just side effects).
2. Suppression of Political Agency
If California were:
Stripped of representation in Congress or the Electoral College,
Banned from participating in federal elections or policymaking,
Subjected to federal override of all state laws without recourse.
This would show a denial of internal self-determination.
3. Repression of Civil Rights and Freedoms
If federal authorities:
Used violence to suppress protests in California,
Imposed military rule or emergency powers without cause,
Criminalized speech, culture, or political affiliation unique to California.
That would suggest deeper structural oppression.
4. Exhaustion of Peaceful Remedies
If California:
Tried and failed to resolve these issues through courts, legislation, or constitutional amendment;
Sought autonomy or negotiation, and was denied or punished;
Had no peaceful legal means left to protect its rights.
Only then would secession be seen as a legitimate “last resort.”
⚖️ Would the International Community Recognize It?
Even if all the above were true, recognition is political, not just legal.
Some countries might recognize an independent California — especially if human rights violations were extreme and well-documented.
Others (especially the U.S. and its allies) would almost certainly oppose recognition, invoking the principle of territorial integrity.
International law tends to favor unity and stability over independence unless the oppression is so severe that staying in the parent state becomes untenable.
🧠 Summary Table:
Federal Action
Would It Justify Independence?
Policy disagreements (e.g., taxes, DEI bans) ❌ No
Targeted funding cuts to punish California ⚠️ Possibly, if sustained and extreme
Denial of disaster aid during crises ⚠️ Possibly, if systematic and politically motivated
Stripping political representation or autonomy ✅ Strong case under remedial secession
Violent repression or rights abuses ✅ Strong case
Exhausted all peaceful remedies ✅ Required for any legitimate claim
Let me know if you’d like to explore what a remedial secession petition or case at the UN might look like for California, or how it might compare to past independence movements.
Q: What would a remedial secession petition look like for California?
ChatGPT:
A remedial secession petition for California would be a formal declaration to the international community—especially the United Nations and major global powers—asserting that the state has no choice but to seek independence due to systematic oppression and denial of self-determination by the federal government of the United States.
It would not just be a political manifesto; it would be a legal and diplomatic argument, citing human rights law, UN principles, and evidence of failed remedies.
📝 STRUCTURE OF A REMEDIAL SECESSION PETITION (California)
1. Executive Summary / Declaration
We, the representatives of the people of California, hereby declare our intention to secede from the United States and form an independent and sovereign nation, in accordance with the principle of remedial secession under international law.
This decision is made with regret and gravity, but is necessitated by ongoing, deliberate, and systematic acts of discrimination and political repression by the federal government of the United States, which have rendered continued union intolerable.
2. Legal Basis
Cite international legal principles:
UN Charter, Article 1(2): Right of peoples to self-determination.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 1.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970): Declaration on Friendly Relations.
ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo (2010): No rule prohibiting declarations of independence.
Introduce the concept of remedial secession:
Where a people is subjected to systematic discrimination, denied political participation, and deprived of fundamental rights, and where all peaceful remedies have failed, secession becomes a legal and moral last resort.
3. Historical Context
Acknowledge California's legal entry into the U.S. (1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo / 1850 statehood).
Describe longstanding regional distinctiveness—economic, cultural, demographic, environmental.
Detail past tensions and political divergence (immigration, climate policy, civil rights).
4. Evidence of Systematic Oppression
Document and cite:
Discriminatory federal policies:
Threats to withhold disaster relief or Medicaid funding.
Removal of DEI programs, language access services, or education funds.
Economic coercion:
Disproportionate taxation (e.g., SALT cap) with reduced return on federal investment.
Targeted budget cuts in housing, healthcare, and public assistance.
Political disenfranchisement:
Proposals to penalize or disempower states based on electoral behavior.
Suppression of state autonomy:
Federal overrides of environmental regulations, public health measures, etc.
Include testimony from legal experts, human rights groups, state agencies.
5. Failure of Domestic Remedies
List all efforts to resolve the crisis through:
Legal avenues (e.g., lawsuits, injunctions against federal policies).
Federal appeals or negotiations.
Constitutional participation (via Congress, presidential elections).
State initiatives for autonomy or policy differentiation.
Emphasize that every peaceful and legal method has been exhausted or denied.
6. Request for Recognition
Formally request that the United Nations and its Member States:
Recognize California’s right to independence.
Acknowledge the legality of its declaration of independence.
Support peaceful transition, negotiation, and international membership.
7. Commitment to Peace and Democracy
Affirm California’s commitment to:
Human rights and rule of law
Democratic governance
Peaceful international relations
Protection of all residents, including minorities and dissenters
Offer to enter negotiations with the U.S. for a peaceful separation.
📄 Sample Opening Paragraph (Draft Language)
We, the undersigned representatives of the people of California, submit this petition to the international community to recognize our right to remedial secession from the United States of America. After years of sustained and targeted discrimination by the federal government, including the systematic denial of disaster relief, federal medical aid, and civil protections, and after exhausting every legal and political remedy available within the union, we assert that independence is our only remaining path to protect the democratic rights and dignity of Californians.
⚖️ What Happens Next?
Submission: Likely via California’s legislature or a constitutional convention.
UN Response: May be referred to the General Assembly or Security Council, depending on global support.
U.S. Response: Would likely reject the move as unconstitutional.
Global Reaction: Mixed—some states might recognize California; most would hesitate unless abuses were severe.
Would you like help drafting a full-length version of this petition? Or a mock version for a political fiction or academic project?
Q: Please draft a full length version of this petition
ChatGPT:
PETITION FOR REMEDIAL SECESSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Submitted to the International Community and the United Nations General Assembly
Preamble We, the undersigned representatives of the people of California, submit this petition to the international community, and in particular to the United Nations, to formally recognize the right of California to secede from the United States of America. This petition is made pursuant to the principle of remedial secession under international law. It is submitted after the exhaustion of all domestic remedies and in response to persistent and systematic violations of fundamental human rights, political repression, and economic coercion by the federal government of the United States.
I. Legal Basis for Remedial Secession
The right of peoples to self-determination is a cornerstone of international law, enshrined in:
Article 1(2) of the Charter of the United Nations;
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);
The 1970 UN General Assembly Declaration on Principles of International Law (Resolution 2625).
The doctrine of remedial secession recognizes that where a people is subject to prolonged and egregious violations of their rights, and where all peaceful efforts to achieve internal self-determination have failed, they may lawfully seek external self-determination through secession.
The International Court of Justice has affirmed in its Advisory Opinion on Kosovo (2010) that international law does not prohibit declarations of independence.
II. Historical and Political Context
California became part of the United States in 1848* and was granted statehood in 1850. Since then, it has developed a distinct identity as a multicultural, economically powerful, and politically progressive region.
Over the past decades, California has experienced increasing political and legal conflict with the federal government over immigration, environmental policy, healthcare, civil rights, and democratic norms.
The disparities between California's values and policies and those imposed by the federal government have become increasingly irreconcilable, culminating in overt and discriminatory actions targeting the state and its residents.
III. Evidence of Systematic Discrimination and Repression
Economic and Social Retaliation:
The federal government has threatened to and in some cases withheld disaster relief funds unless California complies with politically motivated federal demands.
Massive proposed cuts to Medicaid, housing assistance, and nutritional programs would disproportionately harm California, home to tens of millions of beneficiaries.
The continued cap on state and local tax deductions (SALT) punishes California taxpayers while subsidizing lower-tax states.
Civil and Political Violations:
The Trump administration issued an executive order mandating the elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in public schools, with noncompliance resulting in the loss of federal funding.
Federal language assistance programs have been gutted, creating life-threatening communication barriers in California’s hospitals and public services.
Attempts to rescind visas and deport international students disproportionately affected California’s universities.
Environmental and Legal Overreach:
Federal override of California’s environmental protections, including its cap-and-trade program, in direct contradiction to the state's democratic mandates.
Judicial and administrative efforts to nullify California’s laws on emissions, public health, and water management.
IV. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
California has pursued every legal and political avenue available within the U.S. federal system to address and reverse these injustices, including:
Filing lawsuits in federal court, many of which remain unresolved or have been dismissed on procedural grounds.
Passing state legislation and resolutions asserting the state's rights, which have been blocked or overridden.
Engaging in dialogue with federal authorities to no avail.
Despite these efforts, the federal government has escalated its retaliatory policies and demonstrated a consistent pattern of targeting California for its political beliefs, cultural values, and legal choices.
V. Request for Recognition and Support
We call upon the international community, and particularly the United Nations General Assembly, to:
Recognize California’s right to external self-determination pursuant to the principle of remedial secession;
Support California’s peaceful transition to sovereign statehood;
Encourage diplomatic and nonviolent negotiations between California and the United States.
We affirm California’s commitment to democratic governance, human rights, environmental sustainability, and peaceful international relations.
We pledge to protect the rights and safety of all residents, regardless of political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, or citizenship status, throughout this transition.
VI. Conclusion We do not take this step lightly. Independence is not our first choice, but the final remedy for a state that has been systematically marginalized, undermined, and denied its basic rights within the union. The people of California are entitled to live under a government that reflects their values and respects their dignity.
We respectfully submit this petition with the hope that justice, peace, and the rule of law will prevail.
Signed,
[Representatives of the People of California]
[Date]
[Location]
Answer in chat instead
Here is a full-length draft of a remedial secession petition for California, structured as a formal appeal to the international community. Let me know if you'd like to modify this into a more political, legal, or fictional format—or tailor it for a specific audience like the UN General Assembly or the International Court of Justice.
Note: California surrendered to the U.S. in January 1847 after waging war against U.S. troops for months, fighting battles from Los Angeles to present-day Escondido, California. Prior to the U.S. invasion in July 1846, California was at peace and had been effectively independent from Mexico since at least February 22, 1845. Therefore, the only title of the U.S. to Alta California is conquest, and the right of the people of California to independence is unextinguishable and inalienable.