Expert Issues Disturbing Civil War Warning and Predicts How the U.S. Would Split

 

In a sobering analysis that has stirred political and academic circles, Dr. Marcus Ellsworth, a renowned political scientist at Georgetown University, has issued a stark warning about the possibility of a second American civil conflict. Drawing from decades of research into political polarization, authoritarian drift, and the erosion of institutional trust, Ellsworth contends that the United States is entering a phase where fragmentation is not just conceivable—but probable—if current trends continue.

His newly published report, titled “The Fractured Union: Scenarios of American Disunity,” outlines multiple pathways through which the country could descend into large-scale internal conflict by the end of the decade. While he stops short of predicting full-scale warfare akin to the 1861–1865 Civil War, Ellsworth warns that a “slow civil fracture” is already unfolding.

The Seeds of Division

At the heart of Ellsworth’s thesis is the idea that political polarization has hardened into “existential tribalism.” He cites polling data showing that more than 40% of voters in each major party now view the opposing side not just as wrong, but as a fundamental threat to the country’s future.

“We have moved beyond the era of disagreement,” Ellsworth wrote in the report. “What we are seeing now is dehumanization—where compromise is not just difficult, but heretical.”

The report also points to declining faith in democratic institutions. A 2024 Gallup survey showed trust in Congress at an all-time low (7%), with the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice faring only marginally better. More troubling, a third of respondents indicated they would support their state seceding if their preferred political party consistently lost national elections.

Possible Breakup Scenarios

Ellsworth outlines three possible models of how the United States might fracture if a political or economic shock were to trigger national unrest:

1. The Regional Confederation Model

This scenario envisions a peaceful but legally fraught separation of the country into several regional blocs. The West Coast, led by California, could form the Pacific Federation, emphasizing environmental policy and progressive social values. The Northeast and parts of the Great Lakes region might unite as the Atlantic Compact, focused on global trade, high finance, and diplomacy.

Meanwhile, the South and parts of the Midwest could form a more conservative-leaning Heartland Republic, prioritizing religious liberty, fossil fuels, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

“It would look less like the 1860s and more like Brexit on steroids,” Ellsworth explained in a recent NPR interview.

2. The Balkanization Model

This darker outcome envisions a chaotic breakdown in federal authority, with states and even cities declaring de facto autonomy. Violent clashes between federal forces, militias, and rogue police units could erupt in areas where political loyalties are deeply split.

“In this version, the U.S. doesn’t fall apart all at once,” Ellsworth says. “It rots from the inside out. Federal mandates are ignored, governors defy the Supreme Court, and eventually the center cannot hold.”

Ellsworth draws parallels with Yugoslavia in the 1990s and Lebanon during its 15-year civil war. Urban-rural divides would sharpen into lines of conflict, and supply chains—especially for food, energy, and medical resources—could collapse regionally.

3. The Soft Secession Model

This is the scenario Ellsworth believes is already underway: a quiet unraveling, where states increasingly operate like independent nations in terms of policy, enforcement, and identity.

Recent examples include states refusing to comply with federal immigration laws, divergent abortion regulations, and contrasting approaches to gun control, climate change, and education curricula.

“Soft secession doesn’t require a formal declaration,” Ellsworth wrote. “It just requires enough states to stop playing by the same rules.”

What Could Trigger It?

When asked what might ignite such a civil fracture, Ellsworth points to several potential flashpoints:

• A contested 2028 presidential election, with disputed vote counts and multiple states submitting alternate slates of electors.

• An economic collapse driven by unsustainable national debt, inflation, and energy crises.

• A major domestic terror attack that polarizes public opinion and prompts emergency rule by a sitting president.

• A Supreme Court decision that triggers mass protests and government shutdowns.

"None of these scenarios require fantasy,” he warns. “They’re based on events that have either already occurred in miniature or are entirely plausible given current trajectories.”

Critics Push Back

Not everyone agrees with Ellsworth’s grim projections. Critics argue that the U.S., for all its internal strife, remains remarkably resilient.

Dr. Stephanie Ruiz, a sociologist at Stanford University, says Americans have a “long tradition of flirting with the apocalypse.”

“This country has survived assassinations, impeachments, depressions, and even a prior civil war,” Ruiz told The Atlantic. “We are deeply divided, yes—but that’s always been part of the American experiment.”

Still, she concedes that today's divisions are “more toxic and media-amplified than in recent memory.”

Is There a Way Back?

Ellsworth’s report ends not with prophecy, but with a plea.

“Rebuilding trust starts locally,” he writes. “We must reinvest in civic education, electoral integrity, and platforms that foster dialogue rather than rage. The alternative is not just ideological loss—it is territorial and human collapse.”

He proposes a National Civic Accord—a federal initiative that funds bipartisan state-level town halls, restores local journalism, and mandates civics education beginning in middle school.

“Time is running out,” Ellsworth concludes. “The longer we delay reconciliation, the harder it becomes to remember what united us in the first place.”

---