Zach asked a question that many Texans have wondered about: “How would an independent Texas manage to arm itself given that Washington will almost certainly attempt to squeeze an independent Texas using various means such as an arms embargo?”
This concern reflects the conditioning many of us have received—the belief that Texas somehow depends on Washington’s permission to defend itself. The reality tells a different story entirely.
The Bottom Line: An arms embargo against Texas would backfire spectacularly.
TNM President Daniel Miller has addressed this scenario directly, and his analysis shows why an arms embargo represents more of a threat to Washington than to Texas. The federal government would face three major obstacles that make such an embargo impractical and counterproductive.
Texas Already Manufactures Its Own Defense Equipment
Texas hosts some of the world’s largest defense manufacturing operations. Lockheed Martin employs more than 23,000 people across Texas, with major facilities in Fort Worth producing F-35 aircraft and in Grand Prairie manufacturing advanced missile systems. Bell Textron operates with 5,000-10,000 employees in Fort Worth, specializing in military rotorcraft and tiltrotor aircraft.
The state also houses L3Harris Technologies, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and dozens of other defense contractors. These companies possess the manufacturing capacity, skilled workforce, and technological expertise to supply an independent Texas military.
Unlike nations that must import all their defense equipment, Texas already produces advanced aircraft, precision weapons, electronic warfare systems, and aerospace components within its borders. An arms embargo would simply redirect existing production from federal contracts to Texas national defense.
International Law Works Against Embargo Attempts
Arms embargoes require international legitimacy to be effective. The United Nations imposes arms embargoes through Security Council resolutions targeting countries that threaten international peace and security. Current UN arms embargoes target nations engaged in armed conflict or systematic human rights violations.
Texas independence would occur through a peaceful, democratic referendum—the exact process Washington has promoted globally for decades. The federal government would struggle to convince the international community that peaceful self-determination constitutes a threat requiring sanctions.
Historical precedent supports this analysis. When countries separate peacefully, arms embargoes typically don’t apply to the new nation. The former Yugoslavia case involved active warfare, not democratic separation.
Economic Retaliation Cuts Both Ways
Miller emphasizes that any embargo attempt would trigger reciprocal economic consequences. Texas supplies roughly 40% of America’s refining capacity and significant portions of its natural gas, petrochemicals, and agricultural products. An arms embargo would justify Texas restricting energy exports to states supporting the embargo.
The math is simple: America needs Texas energy more than Texas needs federal weapons contracts. Winter heating bills in embargo-supporting states would create immediate political pressure to end such policies.
International partners would also resist participating in embargoes that could damage their own economic interests. Arms embargoes work best when they target economically isolated nations. Texas, as the world’s 9th largest economy, offers too many trade opportunities for other countries to ignore.
Military Personnel Understand State Sovereignty
Polling shows that approximately 55% of active-duty military personnel believe states have the right to withdraw from the union. This creates enforcement problems for any embargo policy that military personnel view as illegitimate.
Additionally, under international law, newly independent nations typically inherit military assets located within their territory. The Quebec referendum precedent demonstrates this principle—Canada began removing military assets before the vote because they understood Quebec would legally own them if independence passed.
The Real Question
Instead of asking how Texas would defend itself against an arms embargo, we should ask why Washington would attempt such a counterproductive policy. The answer reveals the federal government’s desperation to maintain control over a nation that no longer consents to be governed.
An independent Texas would possess the industrial capacity, international relationships, and legal standing to maintain robust defense capabilities. The arms embargo threat represents another example of federal conditioning designed to make Texans believe they cannot govern themselves.
The evidence suggests otherwise. Texas has the resources, manufacturing capacity, and international legitimacy to defend its independence effectively. Washington’s embargo threats reflect weakness, not strength.
