Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) is doubling down on her call for a “national divorce,” this time in direct response to the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Although Greene has floated the idea before, she now insists the tragic event proves the United States is beyond repair.
In a lengthy X post on Monday, Greene argued that Kirk’s death and the political reaction to it show that America is “too far gone and too far divided” to survive as one nation. Moreover, she wrote that conservatives cannot find common ground with liberals anymore.
“There is nothing left to talk about with the left. They hate us,” Greene declared. She accused her political opponents of celebrating Kirk’s assassination, claiming, “They assassinated our nice guy who actually talked to them peacefully debating ideas. Then millions on the left celebrated and made clear they want all of us dead.”
As a result, Greene concluded that America is unsafe for conservatives. “To be honest, I want a peaceful national divorce,” she added.
RELATED:Trump Supporter Struggles with Rising Costs, Internet Reacts
Greene’s History of the “National Divorce” Idea
Greene is not new to the phrase. In fact, she first invoked the concept in a 2023 X post, where she suggested separating red states and blue states to shrink the federal government. At that time, her idea immediately sparked alarm, since many saw it as resembling a soft version of civil war. Furthermore, critics warned that her rhetoric encouraged division and potentially dangerous political polarization.
Nevertheless, Greene has continued to repeat the proposal. She argues that conservatives would thrive in a system free from federal interference, while liberals could govern themselves according to their own priorities. On the other hand, opponents insist that breaking the country apart would destroy the economy, destabilize global alliances, and fuel even deeper hostility between citizens.
The Broader Political Divide
The reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death only underscores how bitter the divide has become. While conservatives view him as a peaceful debater of ideas, many liberals strongly opposed his activism. Meanwhile, Greene claims the celebration of his killing among some on the left demonstrates irreconcilable hatred.
At the same time, her words reflect a larger trend in American politics: the sense that compromise is impossible. Therefore, calls for radical solutions like secession gain traction, even though most experts warn such proposals would lead to chaos rather than peace.
In addition, Greene’s statements reveal how grief and anger can intensify existing divisions. Although she presents her proposal as “peaceful,” critics note that any attempt to split the country would involve conflict over resources, borders, and governance. Consequently, many argue that a “national divorce” is neither realistic nor safe.
What Comes Next?
For now, Greene shows no signs of backing down. She continues to frame herself as a defender of conservatives who feel abandoned by the federal government. Furthermore, her repeated use of the phrase “national divorce” ensures the concept stays in public debate.
However, political analysts emphasize that such rhetoric does not provide solutions to America’s real problems. Instead, it may inflame tensions at a moment when unity is already fragile. Therefore, the conversation sparked by Greene’s post highlights a growing question: can America find a way forward together, or will voices like Greene’s push the country further toward division?
