Gadsden Herald, February 11, 2025
In a stunning revelation that has rocked the political landscape, a confidential document has surfaced, exposing a covert agreement among 22 blue states, Washington D.C., and San Francisco. This agreement, effective as of November 14, 2024, was signed just days after the landslide victory of President Donald Trump, with the explicit aim of resisting his administration’s policy to end birthright citizenship. The document, which came to light through the efforts of @oversightpr, raises serious questions about the legality of such actions under the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, which prohibits states from entering into any agreement or compact with another state without the consent of Congress.
The agreement, titled “Common Interest Agreement,” outlines a strategy where these states, referred to as the “Parties,” have agreed to share privileged and confidential information to challenge what they term the “Common Interest Matter“—the potential end of birthright citizenship. This clandestine coalition has sparked a debate on whether their actions constitute treason or sedition, terms often misunderstood but critical in this context.
Treason, as defined by the U.S. Constitution, involves levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Sedition, on the other hand, involves inciting rebellion against the government, though it does not necessarily involve direct action against the state. The document in question does not suggest an armed uprising but rather a coordinated effort to undermine a federal policy, which might be interpreted as seditious under the broader legal interpretations.
Critics from the right, especially those aligned with MAGA and Trump supporters, argue that this agreement is a direct affront to the democratic process and the rule of law. They contend that by organizing to resist a policy of the duly elected President, these states are acting against the interests of the nation, prioritizing their political agenda over national unity and legal governance. The focus, they argue, should be on pressing issues like gas prices, grocery costs, and public safety, not on subverting federal law.
Supporters of the agreement might argue that they are exercising states’ rights to protect their citizens from what they perceive as harmful federal overreach. However, the absence of Congressional consent for such a compact places their actions in a legally dubious area. The Constitution is clear in its restrictions on states forming compacts without federal approval, aiming to prevent exactly this kind of scenario where states might band together to oppose national policy.
The timing of this agreement, mere days after a significant electoral shift, suggests a premeditated resistance rather than a reactionary measure. It points to a prioritization of political ideology over the welfare of their citizens, as highlighted by
@libsoftiktok in their X post. Instead of addressing immediate and tangible issues affecting everyday Americans, these states have chosen to engage in what could be seen as political warfare, potentially at the expense of national cohesion.
The implications of this agreement are profound. If left unchecked, it could set a precedent for states to openly defy federal policies they disagree with, leading to a fragmented governance structure where national policy becomes a patchwork of state resistances. This could undermine the federal system’s integrity, which relies on a balance between state autonomy and federal authority.
As this story unfolds, legal experts and political analysts will be watching closely. Will this be treated as a case of sedition, where states are inciting opposition against a federal policy? Or could it escalate to accusations of treason if interpreted as aiding in the subversion of national law? The Gadsden Herald will continue to follow this story, providing updates as more details emerge. One thing is clear: the actions of these blue states have brought to the forefront critical questions about loyalty, governance, and the very fabric of our union.
In these turbulent times, the priority of our leaders should be clear—to serve their citizens and uphold the Constitution, not to engage in political gamesmanship that could divide our nation further. The coming days will reveal how this situation will be addressed, but for now, the question remains: Treason or Sedition?
