Trump Must Protect The Senate By Settling DC And Puerto Rico Statehood Once And For All

The future of the Senate hangs on a simple question that rarely receives the clarity it deserves. Will Republicans act now, while unified government still permits real reform, or will they wait until Democrats have the votes to rewrite the structure of the Union? This question is not abstract. It concerns two concrete political projects that Democrats have pursued for years, adding Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as new states. If that happens, four new Democratic senators emerge overnight. Nothing in American politics would shift power more permanently. The goal in this op-ed is to argue that preemption is possible. It requires two legislative moves: the retrocession of D.C. to Maryland and the repeal of the Jones Act for Puerto Rico. The first removes the pretext for D.C. statehood. The second gives Puerto Rico prosperity without statehood. Both eliminate the structural incentives behind the Democrats’ plan for Senate expansion. The reasoning that follows is simple. Problems of representation and economic stagnation admit solutions that stop short of creating new states. Republicans can secure the Senate, deliver fairness, and settle two festering constitutional questions at once.

To see why D.C. sits at the center of the statehood fight, imagine the District not as a political football but as a constitutional puzzle. The founders needed a neutral capital. They did not want the federal government dependent on any state. Madison put the point plainly in Federalist 43. A federal city protects independence by giving Congress exclusive authority over its seat of government. That idea still makes sense. Yet it creates a tension since residents of the District pay taxes and serve their country, but lack full voting representation. Democrats treat this tension as a warrant for statehood. The argument seems straightforward until one notices a middle path. Representation can be granted without creating a state. That is what retrocession does. When Congress returned Alexandria to Virginia in 1846, it created a clear precedent. A district can shrink by ordinary legislation with state consent. Nothing about this required a constitutional amendment. Courts did not object. The text of the Constitution did not block it. Retrocession today would leave a small federal core while returning residential neighborhoods to Maryland. Residents would receive instant representation. The capital would remain neutral. Congress would remain in control of the federal zone. The moral and constitutional case converges. D.C. residents gain full voting rights. The federal government keeps its independence. No new Senate seats are created. The only losers are political actors who treat the District as a partisan chess piece.

There is another consequence of retrocession that deserves explicit attention because it solves a structural problem that Republicans have faced for decades. If Congress eliminates the residential District by retrocession, the entire justification for a separate D.C. court system collapses. The D.C. courts exist because the District is treated as if it were a quasi-state with its own local judiciary. That arrangement has created an extraordinary concentration of prosecutorial and judicial power in a single jurisdiction that overwhelmingly aligns with one political party. Federal cases that could be tried elsewhere often end up funneled into D.C., and the result is predictable. The venue tilts the outcome. Retrocession removes this anomaly at the root. Once residential D.C. is absorbed into Maryland, local matters shift to Maryland courts, and the federal enclave retains only the judiciary required for federal functions. The partisan pipeline disappears. What remains is a neutral federal city rather than a legal weapon aimed at Republicans.

A puzzled reader may ask whether the 23rd Amendment disrupts this plan. The Amendment grants the District electoral votes. What happens when almost no one lives in the federal enclave? The answer is surprisingly simple. The Amendment awards electors to the District based on its residents. If the District has no permanent residents, the electors vanish in practice. Congress can later repeal the Amendment, but even if it remains technically in place, it cannot force electoral votes for an empty zone. The supposed problem dissolves. The moral problem dissolves as well. Retrocession respects the claim that citizens deserve representation. It rejects the claim that the capital should become a partisan stronghold. It solves a fairness issue while preventing a structural distortion of the Senate.

Maryland’s role often creates confusion. Would the state agree to absorb D.C.? Why would it want the responsibility? Here again clarity helps. Maryland gains over 700,000 new citizens and additional House seats. It gains tax revenue. It gains national prestige. Its political balance remains stable since these residents already vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Nothing dramatic changes inside the state. What does change is the national landscape, since the Democrats lose their strongest argument for D.C. statehood. Retrocession thus serves both local interests and national stability. Republicans benefit by removing the Senate threat. Democrats benefit by solving representation. The country benefits by restoring the founders’ model of a modest, neutral federal district. When one solution advances fairness and prevents constitutional instability, it deserves attention.

Now consider Puerto Rico. Here, the problem is not representation but economic stagnation. The Democrats’ solution is statehood, framed as a civil rights project. But the real engine behind this push is political arithmetic. Two more Senate seats, reliably Democratic, provide a structural advantage that cannot be undone. Republicans tend to resist, but resistance alone is never a strategy. An alternative is required. The most effective one is economic freedom. The Jones Act blocks that freedom. It requires Puerto Rico to ship goods on U.S. vessels, which drives up costs. Studies from the Cato Institute and the Foundation for Economic Education show price increases on basic goods, energy imports, and construction materials. Puerto Rico pays more for food and fuel than neighboring islands. It imports LNG from distant countries rather than from the mainland because no Jones Act-compliant LNG tankers exist. That fact alone reveals how distorted the market has become. Puerto Rico, an American territory, imports gas from Oman instead of Texas. If the goal is prosperity, this is irrational. If the goal is political leverage, it is understandable since economic dependency makes the case for statehood stronger every year.

Repealing the Jones Act for Puerto Rico changes the entire strategic picture. It reduces consumer costs, stimulates trade, attracts investment, and increases GDP. It gives Puerto Ricans the tools of prosperity rather than promises of federal support. Most importantly, it severs the causal connection between economic hardship and political demands for statehood. Once Puerto Rico gains the freedom to trade, ship, and develop on competitive terms, the rationale for statehood diminishes. One might ask whether such reform harms U.S. shipbuilders. The evidence suggests otherwise. The Jones Act has not preserved American shipbuilding. It has preserved a small cluster of companies that depend on regulatory protection. The broader economy suffers. Even the Congressional Research Service notes the declining number of compliant ships.

This is where a deeper strategic opportunity emerges. Puerto Rico can be granted the kind of commercial treatment that made Hong Kong an economic phenomenon for most of the twentieth century. A special tariff-free trading zone gives it global competitiveness overnight. Regulatory autonomy for commerce allows it to cut red tape, welcome capital, and operate as a genuine market jurisdiction. Exemption from the U.S. shipping cartel, once the Jones Act barrier is removed, lets it function as the only East Asia-style free trade city in the entire Western Hemisphere. A territory that suddenly becomes the Hong Kong of the Caribbean does not pine for statehood. It embraces the advantages that only autonomy and openness can provide. Once Puerto Rico experiences the prosperity that flows from this model, it would never willingly trade that freedom for the bureaucratic burdens and tax obligations that come with statehood. Repeal forces competition. It does not destroy an industry. It rescues an island economy that has been held in regulatory captivity for more than a century.

Combining these two reforms creates a single strategic achievement. Both D.C. and Puerto Rico gain the specific goods they seek: representation for one and economic vitality for the other. Both are freed from the political dead end of statehood campaigns. Both are integrated more firmly into the national fabric. And the Senate avoids a structural distortion that would permanently advantage one party. The reader might wonder whether such a plan is politically feasible before the midterms. The answer depends on clarity of purpose. President Trump has already shown a willingness to rethink old assumptions. He has the authority, the mandate, and the political freedom to break stale consensus. Retrocession requires ordinary legislation. Jones Act repeal requires statutory reform. Neither requires constitutional amendment. Both can be completed quickly with a focused Congress. The Republican Party has the power to settle two national debates that have lingered for generations. It simply needs the resolve to act.

Another objection sometimes arises. Why not let D.C. and Puerto Rico decide their own fate through local referenda? This question misunderstands the stakes. Statehood changes the structure of the federal government. It alters the Senate. It affects every state. When structural power is involved, national consent is required. Local votes cannot control federal design. Retrocession respects local interests because it grants representation. Jones Act repeal respects local interests because it grants prosperity. What neither permits is the conversion of representation or prosperity into a mechanism for permanent national advantage. Federalism requires balance, not opportunism. When one party attempts to use statehood to tilt the balance, the other has a duty to use lawful tools to prevent it. That is not aggression. It is self-defense.

A final worry concerns political optics. Will Republicans be painted as anti-D.C. or anti-Puerto Rico? Only if they fail to explain their intentions. Retrocession solves disenfranchisement. Jones Act repeal solves poverty. Both reflect respect for residents. Both expand freedom. Both limit federal overreach. These are principles that conservatives should articulate proudly. The real story is that Democrats have treated both DC and Puerto Rico as instruments in a national power game. Republicans can break that pattern by giving each what it actually needs. The capital needs constitutional clarity. Puerto Rico needs economic liberty. The nation needs a Senate that reflects states, not special pleading. If Republicans articulate the logic with precision, the politics become an advantage rather than a risk.

A disciplined thinker often asks what minimal change solves a maximal problem. Here the maximal problem is structural manipulation of the Senate. The minimal changes are retrocession and repeal. They are simple. They are constitutional. They are morally sound. They are effective. They restore the founders’ design without denying fairness to anyone. They prevent the creation of new states for partisan reasons while recognizing genuine grievances. They serve the national interest rather than the ambitions of a political party. No other plan achieves all of this with such economy.

Republicans must choose whether they intend to shape the future or merely react to it. If they do nothing, Democrats will eventually gain the votes to create two new states. If that occurs, the Senate’s balance cannot be restored. Every major conservative policy, from judicial appointments to immigration enforcement, becomes vulnerable. If Republicans act now, they can secure the Senate, correct constitutional anomalies, and liberate Puerto Rico from a century of regulatory chains. They can fix two long-standing problems and prevent a new one. That is the opportunity before them. They should seize it.

If you enjoy my work, please subscribe: https://x.com/amuse.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Trump’s New Prosecutor Receives Shocking Warning About Comey Trial