Current chatter would have you believe that President Trump wants Canada to become the fifty-first state. I hate to argue with the President, but that doesn’t pass the common sense test. First, looking at land mass, Canada is the second largest country in the world (after Russia) so making that a state is questionable at best. Then, Canada is already divided into ten provinces and three territories, so why not add ten states and three territories? (This would add twenty new US Senators; almost 29% of the new total!) This issue should be “dead on arrival”, but don’t be surprised if the President isn’t using this discussion as the opening salvo in some significant deal with our neighbor to the north.

Another option, Greenland, is possibly being considered by some. Greenland, currently part of Denmark, is geographically and strategically important. Defense treaties and economic investment would protect the free world’s interests in that geographical location. Certainly, agreements are needed. But, becoming a state? Of course a lot of people never thought Hawaii or Alaska would become states! Before you discount a “Greenland Purchase” review the history of the 1803 Louisiana Purchase. This is another “dead on arrival” issue.

Puerto Rico has been talked about becoming a state from time to time. There have been referendums in Puerto Rico – all favoring statehood – in 2012, 2017, 2020, and 2024. In 2024, 58% favored statehood, 30% favored independence, and 12% favored a “free association” with the United States. Statehood will take Congressional action where Democrats generally are in favor while Republicans generally oppose. With over 3,205,000 people it has a large enough population for statehood; but does it have an agricultural and/or industrial base large enough to support statehood? Concerns have been expressed about being Spanish speaking with a Latin American heritage. Questions have been asked about what Puerto Rico would bring to the Union? There are undoubtedly other considerations for Congress to contemplate. One is consider the impact on the House of Representatives with over 3,205,000 more citizens to represent!

The “elephant in the room” concerning the fifty-first state is Washington, D.C. To better understand today’s situation, a brief history lesson is needed. Washington, District of Columbia, dates from July 1790, and is established by the Constitution to be distinct and different from the states. George Washington picked the site on land ceded by both Maryland and Virginia amounting to ten miles square (100 square miles) and straddling the Potomac River. It was partially destroyed in the War of 1812. In 1847 Virginia retroceded its portion of the District leaving 61.1 square miles which it remains today. Originally, citizens of the District of Columbia didn’t have all the rights of those living in the states; but in 1964 gained the right to vote for President and in 1973 began voting for Mayor. Today they have a non-voting Member of Congress.

Politically speaking, the Democrat Party supports statehood for Washington, D.C., simply because they project it would add a voting member for their caucus in the House of Representatives and two votes in the Senate. Republicans, on the other hand, appear to be against for the same reasons and because it would take (or make) major changes to the Constitution which has stood the test of time for over two centuries.

Washington, D.C., like Puerto Rico, lacks the agricultural and/or industrial base to support statehood. Other considerations, along with aforementioned Constitutional concerns, include population and land mass. Washington, with a population of 681,683 is the 22nd largest city in the country. In comparison, there are 4 cities over 2 million and 9 cities over 1 million. If Washington was made a state, how many of the 21 cities with more population would then want statehood? Land mass, while maybe not so significant, must be considered too. Washington is the 124th largest city by land size. Four of the largest cities are in Alaska with Tribune, Kansas the fifth largest. Of interest, eight of the largest cities by population are also in the list of thirty largest cities by land mass. Washington (22nd largest by population & 124th largest by land mass) is not very significant in the great scheme of things!

A brief lesson in civics indicates the House of Representatives – as the name implies – represents the people while the Senate – at two per state – represents the states. Since the District is supposed to be distinct and different from the states, then a viable suggestion might be to make the Washington, D.C. non-voting member of Congress a voting member with all the rights and responsibilities of the other members of the House of Representatives. In comparison, there are six states small enough to only have one Representative and two states (Vermont & Wyoming) with a smaller population than Washington, D.C.

There is no justification to make Washington, D.C. a state with two Senators. There are Constitutional and common sense reasons not to.

What do Canada, Greenland, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C. have in common? None should be seriously considered for being the fifty-first state!

Study the issues and let your congressmen, both Representative and Senators, know your thoughts on the “fifty-first state”. This question is more than “yes” or “no” but what or where are we talking about and “why” or “why not”. They need to hear from “we the people”.