There have been over 220 attempts to split California throughout history.
Many other states have had similar movements.
Right now, according to Paul, there are more than 15 other state-split movements actively following what NCS is doing.
Right now, according to Paul, there are more than 15 other state-split movements actively following what NCS is doing.
This is not just about one new state.
This is the beginning of a much larger transition.
This is the beginning of a much larger transition.
Paul has said he wants to move on to helping other states’ movements once NCS becomes the 51st state. That vision is big. It shows we are not working in isolation. What we do — or fail to do — right now will be studied by others for years to come.
Why This Period Matters So Much
We are living in a rare window.
We are not just trying to escape a broken California government.
We are attempting to build something new that could serve as a model for other states and future generations.
We are not just trying to escape a broken California government.
We are attempting to build something new that could serve as a model for other states and future generations.
This is why the foundational questions we are discussing are so critical:
- Will we truly restore power to the People at the county level?
- Will we protect county sovereignty and individual rights in the constitution itself?
- Or will we build another centralized state — just with a new capitol and different leadership?
If we get the foundation right now, other states can learn from our success.
If we repeat the same centralized model, other states will learn from our mistakes.
Overall Picture NCS (led by Paul Preston) is the most prominent and organized state-split movement in the U.S. right now.
It has received the most media attention and has inspired interest in other states. Paul has repeatedly said he plans to help other states once NCS succeeds, and he has mentioned growing interest from other states.
What Other States Are Watching/Listening
From the sources:
- Greater Idaho (Oregon counties trying to join Idaho)
This is the most active and advanced state-split effort besides NCS. It has already passed votes in several Oregon counties. NCS is sometimes cited as inspiration for the strategy of using the West Virginia model (seceding from an existing state). - Texas independence / Texit movement
Some Texas groups watch NCS for tactical ideas, but Texas is more focused on full independence or stronger states’ rights than a formal split. - Other scattered proposals
- North Colorado (Weld County area wanting to split)
- South California / various Southern California split ideas
- Occasional talk in Florida, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania about regional splits or greater local autonomy
However, most of these are small, early-stage, or dormant compared to NCS. They are not yet at the level of holding conventions, drafting constitutions, or having active legislative tracks like NCS.
On Rumble/AENN (Paul Preston’s channel)Paul frequently talks about NCS being a model for the country. He has said in recent shows that:
- Other states are “watching closely” and contacting him for advice.
- He intends to help other state-split movements after NCS achieves statehood.
- He frames NCS as the first domino in a larger restoration of local and state sovereignty
President Trump has repeatedly made high-profile, provocative statements about territorial expansion or control since returning to office in 2025.
Here’s a clear, factual summary of what he has said and done on each point mentioned (based on public statements and recent developments as of June 2026):
Canada as the 51st State
Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of Canada becoming the 51st state, especially during trade disputes and tariff threats.
- He has posted on Truth Social things like “51st State!” in response to Canadian economic news.
- He has said Canada would be “much better off” as part of the U.S. and has used it as leverage in USMCA renegotiations.
- Canadian leaders (including Mark Carney) have firmly rejected it, calling it “unimaginable.”
This is mostly rhetorical pressure rather than a serious annexation plan. It is Trump’s style of maximum leverage in trade negotiations.
Panama Canal
Trump has repeatedly said the U.S. was “ripped off” when it handed over the canal and has threatened to “take it back.”
- He has focused on Chinese influence in canal operations and high fees charged to U.S. shipping.
- There have been negotiations and tariff threats on countries involved, but no actual U.S. military seizure.
- The U.S. has pushed for greater security assurances and reduced Chinese involvement.
This is primarily about strategic control and economic leverage, not literal re-annexation.
Buying Greenland
Trump revived his 2019 interest in acquiring Greenland in 2025–2026.
- He has called it vital for national security and resources.
- He threatened tariffs on Denmark and European countries but later ruled out military force.
- Negotiations have focused on expanded U.S. military access and Arctic security rather than full purchase.
Greenland and Denmark have consistently said it is not for sale.
Cuba
Trump has tightened sanctions and talked about a “friendly takeover” or regime change.
- He has said Cuba is “going to be next” after Venezuela and has imposed new tariffs on countries supplying oil to Cuba.
- There have been negotiations with Cuban officials, but no serious proposal to make Cuba a U.S. state.
This is part of a broader “maximum pressure” campaign against the Cuban regime.
Strait of Hormuz
There has been a major 2026 crisis involving Iran, with threats to close the strait (a critical oil chokepoint).
- Trump has ordered U.S. Navy escorts for ships and pushed for reopening the strait.
- This is part of broader U.S.–Iran tensions and efforts to secure global energy flows.
What Does It All Mean?
Trump’s rhetoric is consistent with his “America First” style: using bold, provocative statements to gain leverage in trade, security, and foreign policy.
It is not a coherent plan for massive U.S. territorial expansion or a “great reset” type conspiracy.
It is more about:
- Reasserting U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
- Countering Chinese and Russian influence.
- Using economic pressure (tariffs, sanctions) as a primary tool.
- Projecting strength and keeping adversaries off balance.
These are negotiating tactics and power-projection moves, not literal annexation plans in most cases. History shows Trump often uses extreme language to force concessions.
At first glance, these statements can sound like expansionism. But when you look at Trump’s overall action plan and policies, a consistent theme emerges:
Trump wants nations (and states) to govern themselves — free from globalist control, excessive bureaucracy, and outside interference.
His “America First” approach is not about conquering other countries. It is about restoring sovereignty so that nations can make their own decisions, protect their own borders, and run their own affairs without being dictated to by international organizations, cartels, or centralized powers.
This is the same principle he has applied to U.S. states — reducing federal overreach and returning power to the states.
The Parallel for NCS
If Trump is fighting globally and nationally to restore sovereignty and self-governance, then NCS has the same opportunity — and responsibility — at the state and local level.
We cannot escape the centralized control of Sacramento only to build another centralized state that controls its counties from the top down.
Just as Trump wants nations to govern themselves, we should want counties and cities to govern themselves.
- Each county should have real constitutional sovereignty over its own land, resources, local economy, water management, building decisions, and local affairs.
- The state’s role should be limited to genuine coordination (major water systems, large-scale infrastructure, external relations) — not overriding local solutions or imposing one-size-fits-all mandates.
Bottom Line for NCS
My concern about centralized power vs local sovereignty is valid. Trump’s rhetoric on Canada, Panama, Greenland, and Cuba shows a pattern of wanting stronger U.S. (or allied) control over strategic assets.
Inside NCS, the parallel question is whether the new state will truly decentralize power to counties or simply create another centralized government.
We are right to document and question this.
The Iron Sharpens Iron Series as Historical Documentation
This is why I have been writing the Iron Sharpens Iron series.
It is not just personal opinion.
It is a living record of the debates, the silences, the groupthink, the foundational questions, and the choices being made during this pivotal time.
It is not just personal opinion.
It is a living record of the debates, the silences, the groupthink, the foundational questions, and the choices being made during this pivotal time.
Future movements will want to know:
- What was discussed?
- What was ignored?
- What was rushed?
- What was protected?
This is the whole idea why NCS was formed:
to restore power to the People at the lowest level possible, not just to create a new, better-managed centralized state.
Why This Matters Now
We are in a transitional period. Trump’s administration is dismantling centuries-old strongholds at the national and global level.
NCS has the rare chance to do the same at the state and county level.
If we get the foundation right — with explicit constitutional protections for county and city sovereignty, allodial title, and a clear definition of “We the People” — then NCS can become a true model for other states and future generations.
If we repeat the same centralized model, we will have missed the opportunity and simply built another version of the system we are trying to escape.
Let us learn from Trump’s vision of sovereign nations governing themselves.
Let us apply the same principle here: sovereign counties and cities governing themselves, with the state playing a limited, coordinating role.
That future really would be amazing — if we have the courage to choose a different path.