Editing 51st state

{{Short description|Proposals to admit a new state into the United States}}
{{for-multi|the New Model Army song|51st State (song)|the film|The 51st State{{!}}''The 51st State''}}
{{Use American English|date=February 2023}}
{{use mdy dates|date=February 2024}}
[[File:US insular areas.svg|thumb|upright=1.75|Map of the US and its territories{{legend|#336733|The [[U.S. state|50 states]] and the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]]}}
{{legend|#C000C0|Territory: incorporated, unorganized}}
{{legend|#FF9933|Territory: unincorporated with Commonwealth status}}
{{legend|#000080|Territory: unincorporated, organized}}
{{legend|#FF8080|Territory: unincorporated, unorganized}}
]]

"'''51st state'''" is a phrase used in the [[United States of America]] to refer to the idea of adding an additional state to the current 50-state Union. Proposals for a 51st state may include granting statehood to one of the U.S. territories or [[Washington, D.C.]], splitting an existing state, or annexing part or all of a sovereign country. 

The U.S. has not admitted any new states to the union since 1959, when both [[Alaska]] (on January 3, 1959) and [[Hawaii]] (on August 21, 1959) were admitted. Before that, no states had been admitted since [[Arizona]] in February 1912. Before [[Alaska]] and [[Hawaii]] became states of the United States in 1959, the equivalent expression was "the 49th state"; see, for example, the [[National Movement for the Establishment of a 49th State]], a 1930s movement that sought to create a primarily [[Black people|Black]] state in the [[Southern United States]].

In recent years, the term has been used most often in reference to [[District of Columbia statehood movement|Washington, D.C.]] and [[Puerto Rico statehood movement|Puerto Rico]], both of which have active statehood movements and voted for statehood in recent referendums: [[2016 Washington, D.C. statehood referendum|D.C. in 2016]] and [[2020 Puerto Rican status referendum|Puerto Rico in 2020]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Election-Statehood-Council-Seats-400275901.html|title=DC Voters Elect Gray to Council, Approve Statehood Measure|date=November 7, 2016 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161109221442/http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Election-Statehood-Council-Seats-400275901.html|archive-date=November 9, 2016|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/puerto-rico-votes-favor-statehood-island/story?id=74055630|title=Puerto Rico votes in favor of statehood. But what does it mean for the island?|work=ABC News|date=November 9, 2020|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201130192230/https://abcnews.go.com/US/puerto-rico-votes-favor-statehood-island/story?id=74055630|archive-date=November 30, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Decades-long debates surrounding D.C., Puerto Rico, and Guam statehood have been reignited. What's the best option?|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/30/statehood-dc-puerto-rico-and-guam-what-do-their-residents-want/7413044002/|access-date=2021-09-23|website=USA Today|language=en}}</ref> Their admission to the Union as states would require congressional approval.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://people.howstuffworks.com/new-state-in-us.htm|title=How do new states become part of the U.S.?|date=December 3, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170903073908/http://people.howstuffworks.com/new-state-in-us.htm|archive-date=September 3, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref> The two regions have different statuses within the U.S., with Puerto Rico as one of the five permanently inhabited [[Territories of the United States|U.S. territories]], while D.C. has unique status as a federal administrative district. The path to statehood for Puerto Rico in particular would have parallels to the admission process of most U.S. states outside of the original [[Thirteen Colonies|Thirteen British Colonies]], which started as territories before becoming states.

Since the [[2024 United States presidential election|2024 U.S. presidential election]], the phrase has frequently been invoked in reference to [[Canada]], as [[Donald Trump]] has used the phrase repeatedly while calling for the [[Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States#Proposals to annex Canada by President Donald Trump|U.S. annexation of Canada]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Weissert |first1=Will |title=Trump's remarks on Canada becoming the 51st state raise a lot of questions |url=https://apnews.com/article/how-canada-could-become-us-state-42360e10ded96c0046fd11eaaf55ab88 |website=AP News |access-date=5 March 2025 |language=en |date=13 February 2025}}</ref> The U.S. has annexed sovereign nations as states in the past, including [[Republic of Texas|Texas]] and [[Vermont Republic|Vermont]], though this has not happened in recent history.

Some U.S. states have experienced movements to split into two states, often due to strong political disagreements between different regions of a state. There is precedent for such state-splitting moves in U.S. history, such as the creation of [[Kentucky]] and [[West Virginia]] from [[Virginia]], though, again, there have been no such moves in more than a century.

The phrase can also be used as a [[slang]] term in reference to regions or sovereign nations around the world that are not actually considered prospects for U.S. annexation, but are considered to be aligned with U.S. culture or political or military interests. This slang may be used in either a positive sense, or in a [[pejorative]] sense similar to the term [[Americanization]].<ref>"Sverige var USAs 51a delstat" [http://www.journalisten.se/artikel/20463/eu-kritiserar-svensk-tv "EU kritiserar svensk TV"] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110929120239/http://www.journalisten.se/artikel/20463/eu-kritiserar-svensk-tv |date=September 29, 2011 }}, ''Journalisten'' {{in lang|sv}}</ref> 
{{TOC limit|4}}

==Legal requirements==
{{main|Admission to the Union}}
[[File:Statehood Process and Political Status of U.S. Territories - Brief Policy Background.pdf|thumb|right|This 2022 [[Congressional Research Service]] report examines the legal processes for admission to the Union.]]
[[Article Four of the United States Constitution|Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1]] of the [[United States Constitution]] authorizes [[United States Congress|Congress]] to admit new [[U.S. state|states]] into the United States (beyond the [[Thirteen Colonies|thirteen]] already in existence at the time the Constitution went [[Ratification of the US Constitution|into effect]] in 1788). Historically, most new states brought into being by Congress have been established from an [[Organized incorporated territories of the United States|organized incorporated territory]], created and governed by Congress.<ref>{{cite web| title=Property and Territory: Powers of Congress| url=http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-4/25-methods-of-disposing-property.html| publisher=Justia| location=Mountain View, California| access-date=June 14, 2017| url-status=live| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525020637/http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-4/25-methods-of-disposing-property.html| archive-date=May 25, 2017| df=mdy-all}}</ref> In some cases, an entire territory became a state; in others, some part of a territory became a state. As defined in a 1953 [[U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs]], the traditionally accepted requirements for statehood are:
* The inhabitants of the proposed new state are imbued with and are sympathetic toward the principles of democracy as exemplified in the [[American Constitution]].
* A majority of the electorate wish for statehood.
* The proposed new state has sufficient population and resources to support state government and carry its share of the cost of Federal Government.<ref>[https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal57-1345606 "Statehood Considered by Congress Since 1947."] In CQ Almanac 1957, 13th ed., 07-646-07-648. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1958. Retrieved June 14, 2017.</ref>

Although not a legal rule, historically having at least 60,000 free adult males was also a requirement for statehood. This was outlined in the Northwest Ordinance decreed in 1787 <ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/northwest-ordinance | title=Northwest Ordinance (1787) | date=May 17, 2021 }}</ref> when the United States was under the Articles of Confederation. Even though the USA no longer operates under this government, Congress has generally followed this guideline as states were added to the union.<ref name="study.com">[https://study.com/academy/lesson/statehood-definition-lesson-quiz.html]</ref>

In most cases, the organized government of a territory made known the sentiment of its population in favor of statehood, usually by referendum. Congress then directed that government to organize a [[constitutional convention (political meeting)|constitutional convention]] to write a [[State constitution (United States)|state constitution]]. Upon acceptance of that constitution by the people of the territory and then by Congress, a [[joint resolution]] would be adopted granting statehood. The President would then issue a proclamation adding a new state to the Union. While Congress, which has ultimate authority over the admission of new states, has usually followed this procedure, there have been occasions (because of unique, case-specific circumstances) when it did not.<ref>{{cite journal| last=Huddle| first=F. P.|year=1946| title=Admission of new states| journal=Editorial Research Reports| publisher=[[CQ Press]]| doi=10.4135/cqresrre1946032000| url=http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1946032000| access-date=June 14, 2017| url-status=live| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525065159/http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1946032000| archive-date=May 25, 2017| df=mdy-all| url-access=subscription}}</ref>

A simple majority in each House of Congress is required to pass statehood legislation; however, in the [[United States Senate]], the [[filibuster (United States Senate)|filibuster]] requires 60 votes to invoke [[cloture]]. Some statehood advocacy organizations have called for amending or abolishing the filibuster as a path to achieve statehood.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2020/6/22/21293168/dc-statehood-vote-filibuster-supreme-court-joe-biden|title=DC is closer to becoming a state now than it has ever been|first=Ian|last=Millhiser|date=26 June 2020|website=Vox}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.teenvogue.com/story/51-for-51-washington-dc-statehood|title=51 for 51 Is Lobbying Congress to Grant Statehood to Washington, D.C.|date=23 October 2020|first=Jameelah|last=Nasheed|website=Teen Vogue}}</ref> As with other legislation, the President can sign or [[veto]] statehood bills that pass, and Congress has the power to override a veto with a two-thirds majority; Nebraska is the only existing state admitted through a veto override.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/1015-Nebraska-statehood.aspx|title=First in the Midwest: How and why a U.S. president tried to stop Nebraska from becoming a state – and failed|first=Mike|last=McCabe|date=October 2015|website=The Council of State Governments|access-date=January 6, 2021|archive-date=November 30, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201130144247/https://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/1015-Nebraska-statehood.aspx|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Although Congress, with approval of the President, can add a state to the Union, they cannot make another State by splitting or merging two existing states, without the consent of the State (or States) legislatures involved.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/14/politics/puerto-rico-state-congress-white-house/index.html | title=Here's what would happen to US politics if Puerto Rico became a state &#124; CNN Politics | website=[[CNN]] | date=October 14, 2017 }}</ref>
{{blockquote|New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Centennial Edition, Interim Edition: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 26, 2013|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013.pdf|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office|access-date=April 5, 2016 |location=Washington, DC|pages=16–17 |year=2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140225114303/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013.pdf|archive-date=February 25, 2014|url-status=live}}</ref>}}

While States can join the United States,  once they do so it is illegal to leave.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/04/25/fact-check-civil-war-supreme-court-ruling-block-states-seceding-texas-civil-war/11472885002/ | title=Fact check: SCOTUS ruling, history contradict claim Texas has 'absolute legal right' to secede | website=[[USA Today]] }}</ref>

Once it becomes a State there are rules, it must for example write a State constitution and it must have sufficient financial and human resources to run its State government and support the Federal government.<ref name="study.com"/>

== U.S. flag ==
If a new U.S. state were to [[Admission to the Union|be admitted]], it would require a new design of the flag to accommodate an additional star for the 51st state.<ref>{{cite web|title=4 U.S. Code § 2 – Same; additional stars|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/2|access-date=January 20, 2017|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en}}</ref> However, according to the [[U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry]], an existing [[United States flag]] never becomes obsolete. In the event that a new state is added to the Union and a 51-star flag is approved, any previously approved American flag (such as the 50-star flag) may continue to be used and displayed until no longer serviceable.<ref>{{cite web|title='Top Ten' American Flag Myths|url=https://www.legion.org/flag/flagmyths|access-date=8 July 2019|publisher=The American Legion|archive-url=https://archive.today/20230104194841/https://www.legion.org/flag/flagmyths|archive-date=January 4, 2023}}</ref>

On June 13, 2022, Washington, D.C. Mayor [[Muriel Bowser]] ordered flags with 51 stars to be hung along Pennsylvania Avenue [[District of Columbia statehood movement|in support of D.C. being added as a 51st state]].<ref name=dcFlag>{{cite web |url=https://mayor.dc.gov/release/ahead-flag-day-mayor-bowser-directs-51-star-flags-displayed-along-pennsylvania-avenue |title=Ahead of Flag Day, Mayor Bowser Directs 51-Star Flags Displayed Along Pennsylvania Avenue |date=June 13, 2022 |access-date=June 4, 2024 |work=Government of the District of Columbia}}</ref> Similar displays have been designed and used as symbols by supporters of statehood in various areas.{{who else|date=June 2024}}
{{Gallery|title=United States flag variants with 51 stars or more|state=expanded|noborder=yes|height=90
|File:Flag of the United States (51 stars).svg
 |51 star variant
|File:Possible 52-star U.S. flag.svg
 | 52 star variant
| File:A possible flag of the United States of America displaying 53 stars.svg
 | 53 star variant
| File:Possible 54 star flag of the United States.png
 | 54 star variant
| File:55 Star American flag.svg
 | 55 star variant
 | alt4=
| File:56 Star US Flag.svg
 | 56 star variant
| File:Flag of the United States 60 Stars 9-8-9-8-9-8-9.svg
 | 60 star variant
}}

== U.S. Senate classes ==
Should a 51st state be admitted, it would receive [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate seats]] in [[Classes of United States senators|classes]] 1 and 2, at which point all three classes would have 34 senators.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/general/common/generic/NewCongress_faq.htm |title=Frequently Asked Questions about a New Congress |publisher=United States Senate}}</ref>

==From existing territories of the United States==

===District of Columbia===
{{Main|District of Columbia statehood movement}} {{See also|District of Columbia retrocession}}
[[File:Washington, D.C. locator map.svg|thumb|Washington, D.C. in red between Virginia and Maryland]]
The [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]] is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 of ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'', [[James Madison]] considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the [[United States Constitution]]. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes",<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm |title=The Federalist No. 43 |publisher=Constitution.org |date=October 18, 1998 |access-date=March 29, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120502012304/http://constitution.org/fed/federa43.htm |archive-date=May 2, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact.<ref>{{unfit|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20110413235705/http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/dc-statehood-not-without-a-constitutional-amendment D.C. Statehood: Not Without a Constitutional Amendment]}}, August 27, 1993, The Heritage Foundation.</ref> 
[[File:Washington, D.C. license plate, 2017.png|thumb|right|A 2017 license plate for [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
[[File:Flag of the District of Columbia.svg|thumb|Flag of Washington, D.C.]]
The District of Columbia residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use the slogan "Taxation without representation" to denote their lack of Congressional representation. The phrase is a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "[[no taxation without representation]]" omitting the initial "No", and is printed on newly issued [[Vehicle registration plates of Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia license plates]] (although a driver may choose to have the District of Columbia website address instead). President [[Bill Clinton]]'s [[Presidential state car (United States)|presidential limousine]] had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President [[George W. Bush]] had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=James |first=Randy |url=http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881791,00.html |title=A Brief History of Washington D.C |magazine=Time |date=February 26, 2009 |access-date=March 29, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120329060528/http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881791,00.html |archive-date=March 29, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> President [[Barack Obama]] had the license plates changed back to the protest style shortly before his second-term inauguration.<ref name="Craig">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/obama-to-use-dc-taxation-without-representation-license-plates/2013/01/15/f91b09ac-5f5b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html|title=Obama to use D.C. 'taxation without representation' license plates|last=Craig|first=Tim|date=January 15, 2013|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=January 16, 2013}}</ref> President [[Donald Trump]] eventually removed the license plate and signaled opposition to D.C. statehood.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://nypost.com/2019/12/28/white-house-removes-dcs-protest-license-plates-from-trumps-limo/|title=White House removes DC's protest license plates from Trump's limo|first=Jon|last=Levine|date=December 28, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/d-c-statehood-vote-make-history-house-s-about-all-n1232099|title=D.C. statehood vote to make history in the House – and that's about all|date=June 25, 2020 |publisher=NBC News}}</ref>

This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local [[Green Party of the United States|Green Party]] affiliate to form the [[D.C. Statehood Green Party]]. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the [[District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment]]. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an [[Popular initiative|initiative]] written and filed by [[J. Edward Guinan]] calling for a [[constitutional convention (political meeting)|constitutional convention]] for a new state.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Chocolate City: A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation's Capital|last=Chris Myers Asch |first=Derek Musgrove|publisher=UNC Press Books|year=2017|location=Chapel Hill NC|pages=417|isbn=9781469635873 |quote=|via=|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C2Y6DwAAQBAJ&q=chocolate+city+guinan&pg=PA417}}</ref> In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called [[District of Columbia statehood movement|New Columbia]]. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states [[ratification|ratified]] the amendment within the allowed seven-year span.

Another proposed option would be to have [[Maryland]], from which the D.C. land was ceded, [[District of Columbia retrocession|retake the District of Columbia]], as [[Virginia]] has already done for its [[Arlington County, Virginia|part]], while leaving the [[National Mall]], the [[United States Capitol]], the [[United States Supreme Court]], and the [[White House]] in a truncated District of Columbia.<ref name=richards>{{cite journal|last=Richards |first=Mark David |date=Spring–Summer 2004 |title=The Debates over the Retrocession of the District of Columbia, 1801–2004 |journal=Washington History |publisher=Historical Society of Washington, D.C. |url=http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/mdrretro062004.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090118053203/http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/mdrretro062004.pdf |archive-date=January 18, 2009 |df=mdy }}</ref> This would give residents of the District of Columbia the benefit of statehood while precluding the creation of a 51st state, but would require the consent of the [[Government of Maryland]].<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Delgadillo|first1=Natalie|last2=Kurzius|first2=Rachel|last3=Sadon|first3=Rachel|date=September 18, 2019|title=The Past, Present, And (Potential) Future Of D.C. Statehood, Explained|url=https://dcist.com/story/19/09/18/the-past-present-and-potential-future-of-d-c-statehood-explained/|access-date=June 26, 2020|website=DCist|language=en|archive-date=June 26, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200626171817/https://dcist.com/story/19/09/18/the-past-present-and-potential-future-of-d-c-statehood-explained/|url-status=live}}</ref>

====2016 statehood referendum====
{{main|2016 Washington, D.C., statehood referendum}}
{{Infobox multichoice referendum
| name = District of Columbia statehood referendum, 2016
| location = [[District of Columbia]]
| date = {{start date and age|2016|11|08}}
| width = 300px
| barwidth = 100px
| voting_system = [[majority|Simple majority]]
| part1_subject = Shall the voters of the District of Columbia advise the Council to approve or reject this proposal?
| part1_choice1 = Yes
| part1_choice1_color = green
| part1_percentage1 = 85.83
| part1_choice2 = No
| part1_choice2_color = red
| part1_percentage2 = 14.17
| results2_caption = There were 515,348 blank and invalidated ballots counted alongside the 1,363,854 ballots which indicated a choice for one of the non-territorial alternatives. Under Puerto Rico Law, these ballots are not considered cast votes and are therefore not reflected in the final tally.
}}
On April 15, 2016, District Mayor [[Muriel Bowser]] called for a citywide vote on whether the nation's capital should become the 51st state.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Austermuhle |first1=Martin |title=Mayor Wants Statehood Vote This Year By D.C. Residents |url=https://wamu.org/news/16/04/15/mayor_bowser_wants_vote_on_statehood_for_dc |publisher=WAMU 88.5 |access-date=15 April 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160418224452/http://wamu.org/news/16/04/15/mayor_bowser_wants_vote_on_statehood_for_dc |archive-date=April 18, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> This was followed by the release of a proposed State Constitution.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Giambrone |first1=Andrew |title=D.C. Statehood Commission Will Release Draft Constitution Next Friday |url=http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/blog/13070800/d-c-statehood-commission-will-release-draft-constitution-next-friday |newspaper=Washington City Paper |access-date=15 May 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160529070818/http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/blog/13070800/d-c-statehood-commission-will-release-draft-constitution-next-friday |archive-date=May 29, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> This Constitution would make the [[Mayor of the District of Columbia]] the Governor of the proposed state, while the members of the District Council would make up the proposed House of Delegates.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Kinney |first1=Jen |title=Welcome, New Columbia? D.C. Drafts 51st State Constitution |url=https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/welcome-new-columbia-dc-mayor-releases-draft-constitution-dc-51st-state |publisher=Next City |access-date=15 May 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160510110213/https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/welcome-new-columbia-dc-mayor-releases-draft-constitution-dc-51st-state |archive-date=May 10, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

On November 8, 2016, the voters of the District of Columbia voted overwhelmingly in favor of statehood, with 86% of voters voting to advise approving the proposal.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Election-Statehood-Council-Seats-400275901.html |title=DC Voters Elect Gray to Council, Approve Statehood Measure |date=November 8, 2016 |publisher=4 NBC Washington |access-date=November 9, 2016 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161109221442/http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Election-Statehood-Council-Seats-400275901.html |archive-date=November 9, 2016 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

While the name "New Columbia" has long been associated with the movement, the [[Council of the District of Columbia|City Council]] and community members chose the proposed state name to be the State of Columbia, or the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. The [[Maryland]] [[abolitionist]] [[Frederick Douglass]] was a D.C. resident and was chosen to be the proposed state's namesake alongside [[George Washington]] of [[Virginia]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://dcist.com/story/16/10/18/following-a-series-of/|title=Council Tosses 'New Columbia,' Changes Constitution To 'The State Of Washington D.C.'|access-date=July 3, 2020|archive-date=June 29, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200629141413/https://dcist.com/story/16/10/18/following-a-series-of/|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Federal enclave====

To fulfill Constitutional requirements of having a Federal District and to provide the benefits of statehood to the 700,000-plus residents of D.C., in the proposed State of Washington, D.C., boundaries would be delineated between the State of Washington, D.C., and a much smaller federal seat of government. This would ensure federal control of federal buildings. The National Mall, the White House, the national memorials, Cabinet buildings, judicial buildings, legislative buildings, and other government-related buildings, etc. would be housed within the much smaller federal seat of government. All residences in the State of Washington, D.C. would reside outside the seat of federal government, except for the White House. The proposed boundaries are based on precedents created through the 1902 [[McMillan Plan]] with a few modifications. The rest of the boundaries would remain the same.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 13, 2016 |title=TESTIMONY OF ERIC SHAW DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PLANNING BEFORE THE NEW COLUMBIA STATEHOOD COMMISSION |url=https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/Eric-Shaw-Boundary-Testimony-for-NCSC.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=October 18, 2016 |title=A RESOLUTION 21-621 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |url=https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/Constitution-of-the-State-of-Washington-DC.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=October 19, 2016 |title=Map-of-the-State-of-Washington-DC.pdf |url=https://statehood.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/statehood/publication/attachments/Map-of-the-State-of-Washington-DC.pdf}}</ref>

====Admission legislation====
On June 26, 2020, the [[United States House of Representatives]] voted 232–180 in favor of [[statehood]] for Washington, D.C.

Passage of [[DC Admission Act|this legislation]] in the Senate was unlikely while the Republican Party held a Senate majority, and President [[Donald Trump]] also promised to veto D.C. statehood.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/26/politics/dc-statehood-vote-house/index.html|title=House Democrats pass DC statehood bill Friday|author=Haley Byrd|publisher=CNN|date=June 26, 2020 }}</ref> The legislation was H.R. 51<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/51/text|title=H.R. 51: Washington, D.C. Admission Act|publisher=116th Congress|date=June 26, 2020|access-date=July 1, 2020}}</ref> in honor of D.C. potentially becoming the 51st state.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-set-vote-dc-statehood-create-washington-douglass/story?id=71461781|title=House votes to grant statehood to District of Columbia|website=ABC News}}</ref> However, after the [[2020 United States Senate elections|2020 Senate elections]], the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] had a Senate majority, meaning [[Joe Biden]]'s presidency might have opened the door for D.C. statehood.<ref>{{Cite web|title=With Democrats In Charge, Is DC Destined For Statehood?|url=https://wamu.org/story/21/01/07/dc-statehood-democrats-in-charge/|access-date=2021-01-09|publisher=WAMU|language=en}}</ref>

The vote was the first time D.C. ever had a vote for statehood pass any chamber of Congress: in 1993, D.C. statehood legislation was rejected in a US House floor vote by 153–277. Another problem is that because Maryland released the land to become D.C., it may have a claim on any land released by Congress to become a state.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/25/the-politics-and-history-of-the-d-c-statehood-vote/|title=The politics and history of the D.C. statehood vote|first=John|last=Hudak|date=June 25, 2020}}</ref>

On April 22, 2021, the United States House of Representatives voted 216–208 in favor of statehood for Washington, D.C.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dc-statehood-bill-house-vote-51st/|title=House approves bill that would admit Washington, D.C., as 51st state|publisher=[[CBS News]]|date=2021-04-22|access-date=2021-04-22}}</ref> A similar bill, S. 51, "A bill to provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union" was earlier introduced into the United States Senate.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/51|title=S.51 – 117th Congress (2021–2022): A bill to provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union.|first=Thomas R.|last=Carper|date=January 26, 2021|website=Congress.gov|archive-date=January 27, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210127224011/https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/51|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.localdvm.com/news/washington-dc/d-c-statehood-bill-reintroduced-in-congress/ |title=D.C. statehood bill reintroduced in Congress |last=Burnett |first=Rebecca |date=January 27, 2021 |publisher=WDVM |archive-date=February 3, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210203144100/https://www.localdvm.com/news/washington-dc/d-c-statehood-bill-reintroduced-in-congress/ |url-status=live }}</ref> On April 30, Democratic senator [[Joe Manchin]] came out against both bills, effectively dooming their passage.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/manchin-opposes-d-c-statehood-dealing-blow-democratic-priority-n1266039|title = Manchin opposes D.C. Statehood, dealing a blow to Democratic priority| publisher=NBC News|date=April 30, 2021|access-date=December 18, 2022|last1=Kapur|first1=Sahil|last2=Clark|first2=Dartunorro}}</ref> (See [[117th United States Congress]]) Senator Manchin said the way to make D.C. a State was by a constitutional amendment, which was the process for the voting rights with the 23 Amendment. He went further stated that the complications created by shrinking the Federal District to the National Mall with the 23rd Amendment should be addressed.<ref name="newsweek.com">{{cite web | url=https://www.newsweek.com/joe-manchin-says-dc-statehood-requires-amendment-while-his-state-took-another-path-1588008 | title=Joe Manchin Says D.C. Statehood Requires Amendment, but His State Did Not | website=[[Newsweek]] | date=April 30, 2021 }}</ref> While others disagreed, he thought that if had been approved it would end up in the Supreme Court.<ref name="newsweek.com"/>

=== Puerto Rico ===
{{main|Proposed political status for Puerto Rico}}
{{see also|Puerto Rico statehood movement|Puerto Rico political status plebiscites}}
[[File:Flag of Puerto Rico.svg|thumb|Flag of [[Puerto Rico]] ]]
[[Puerto Rico]] has been discussed as a potential 51st state of the United States. In 2019, H.R. 1965 – Puerto Rico Admission Act, 5% of the lower legislature were in support. The bill was passed on to the House Committee on Natural Resources.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1965/committees|title=Committees – H.R.1965 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Puerto Rico Admission Act|first=Darren|last=Soto|date=March 28, 2019|website=Congress.gov}}</ref>

In a [[2012 Puerto Rican status referendum|2012 status referendum]] a majority of voters, 54%, expressed dissatisfaction with the existing political relationship. In a separate question, 61% of voters supported statehood (excluding the 26% of voters who left this question blank)<!--, although 481,030 blank votes were cast in this election-->. On December 11, 2012, Puerto Rico's legislature resolved to request that the President and the U.S. Congress act on the results, end its territorial status and begin the process of admitting Puerto Rico to the Union as a state.<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20130320043957/http://www.puertoricoreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-concurrent-resolution.pdf ''The Senate and the House of Representative of Puerto Rico: Concurrent Resolution.'']}} Retrieved December 16, 2012.</ref> On January 4, 2017, Puerto Rico's new representative to Congress pushed a bill that would ratify statehood by 2025.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.newser.com/story/236427/bill-seeks-to-make-puerto-rico-51st-state-by-2025.html|title=Puerto Rico Just Made a Major Push for Statehood, With a Noted ETA|last=Gidman|first=Jenn|date=2017-01-05|work=Newser|access-date=2017-03-04|language=en-US|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170321100253/http://www.newser.com/story/236427/bill-seeks-to-make-puerto-rico-51st-state-by-2025.html|archive-date=March 21, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

On June 11, 2017, another non-binding referendum was held<ref name="Danica Coto">{{cite web | title=Puerto Rico gov approves referendum in quest for statehood | website=AP NEWS | date=3 February 2017 | url=https://apnews.com/eeec5f33ca0740198cceb511d8e64ce5 | access-date=10 May 2020 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200424204846/https://apnews.com/eeec5f33ca0740198cceb511d8e64ce5 | archive-date=April 24, 2020 | url-status=live }}</ref> where 97.7 percent voted for the statehood option.<ref name=Robles>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/us/puerto-ricans-vote-on-the-question-of-statehood.html|title=23% of Puerto Ricans Vote in Referendum, 97% of Them for Statehood|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|author=Frances Robles|date=June 11, 2017|access-date=June 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170929232512/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/us/puerto-ricans-vote-on-the-question-of-statehood.html?_r=0|archive-date=September 29, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> The turnout for this vote was 23 percent, a historical low as voter turnout in Puerto Rico usually hovers around 80%.<ref name=Robles/> The low turnout was attributed to a boycott led by the pro-status quo [[Popular Democratic Party (Puerto Rico)|PPD]] party.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caribbeanbusiness.com/pdp-to-boycott-status-referendum/|title=PDP to boycott status referendum|date=20 April 2017|access-date=June 11, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170929231755/http://caribbeanbusiness.com/pdp-to-boycott-status-referendum/|archive-date=September 29, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>

On June 27, 2018, the Puerto Rico Admission Act of 2018 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6246/text H.R. 6246] was introduced in the [[U.S. House]] with the purpose of responding to, and complying with, the democratic will of the United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico as expressed in the plebiscites held on November 6, 2012, and June 11, 2017, by setting forth the terms for the admission of the territory of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6246/text|title=To enable the admission of the territory of Puerto Rico into the Union as a State, and for other purposes.|author=Congress.Gov|date=July 7, 2018|website=Congress.gov}}</ref> The admission act had 37 original cosponsors among Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6246/cosponsors?r=12|title=Cosponsors: H.R.6246 – 115th Congress (2017-2018)|author=Congress.Gov|date=July 7, 2018|website=Congress.gov}}</ref>

A subsequent [[2020 Puerto Rican status referendum|nonbinding referendum was held on November 3, 2020]], to decide whether Puerto Rico should become a state. Statehood won the vote 52.52%–47.48%.<ref>{{cite web|date=December 21, 2020|title=Plebiscite Islandwide Results|url=https://elecciones2020.ceepur.org/Escrutinio_General_93/index.html#en/default/PLEBISCITO_Resumen.xml|access-date=January 18, 2021|website=|publisher=Comisión Estatal de Elecciones}}</ref>

On December 15, 2022, H.R. 8393 (the Puerto Rico Status Act) passed the House of Representatives in a 233-191 vote with 11 absences. It would have instituted a binding referendum that would allow Puerto Ricans to vote on the future status of the island, that Congress would be required to obey. Every [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrat]] voted in favor of the bill, and was joined by 16 Republicans.<ref>{{cite web |title=Roll Call 529 {{!}} Bill Number: H. R. 8393 |url=https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022529 |website=Clerk, United States House of Representatives|date=December 15, 2022 }}</ref> The bill died in the Senate.
The [[2024 Puerto Rican status referendum]] was also a win for Statehood in the November 2024 election, which also saw a Pro-Statehood Governor of Puerto Rico elected.

On February 15, 2025, the Puerto Rico House of Representatives approved a resolution on the legal status of Puerto Rico, the resolution, requests that "the President and Congress of the United States of America respond promptly and act in accordance with the demands of the citizens of Puerto Rico."<ref>{{cite web |title=Cámara aprueba resolución sobre status que populares querían debatir en inglés {{!}} Metro Puerto Rico  |url=https://www.metro.pr/noticias/2025/02/13/camara-aprueba-resolucion-sobre-status-que-populares-querian-debatir-en-ingles/ |website=metro.pr|date=February 15, 2025 }}</ref>

====Background====

Since 1898, Puerto Rico has had limited representation in the [[United States Congress]] in the form of a [[Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico|Resident Commissioner]], a non-voting delegate. The [[110th United States Congress|110th Congress]] returned the Commissioner's power to vote in the [[Committee of the Whole (United States House of Representatives)|Committee of the Whole]], but not on matters where the vote would represent a decisive participation.<ref name="rhg">{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20100528025556/http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf Rules of the House of Representatives : One Hundred Tenth Congress]}} (archived from [http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf the original] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090309172039/http://www.rules.house.gov/ruleprec/110th.pdf |date=March 9, 2009 }} on May 28, 2010).</ref> Puerto Rico has elections on the [[United States presidential primary]] or caucus of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] and the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] to select delegates to the respective parties' [[United States presidential nominating convention|national conventions]] although presidential electors are not granted on the [[Electoral College (United States)|Electoral College]]. As American citizens, Puerto Ricans can vote in U.S. presidential elections, provided they reside in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia and not in Puerto Rico itself.

Residents of Puerto Rico pay [[Taxation in the United States|U.S. federal taxes]]: import and export taxes, federal commodity taxes, social security taxes, thereby contributing to the American Government. Most Puerto Rico residents do not pay [[Income tax in the United States|federal income tax]] but do pay federal [[payroll tax]]es ([[Social Security (United States)|Social Security]] and [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]]). However, federal employees who do business with the federal government, Puerto Rico–based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S., and others do pay federal income taxes. Puerto Ricans may enlist in the [[United States armed forces|U.S. military]]. Puerto Ricans have participated in all [[List of wars involving the United States|American wars]] since 1898; 52 Puerto Ricans had been killed in the [[Iraq War]] and [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)|War in Afghanistan]] by November 2012.<ref>[http://icasualties.org ICasualties] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160204203958/http://icasualties.org/ |date=February 4, 2016 }}. Retrieved Nov. 2012.</ref>

Puerto Rico has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century after it was ceded to the U.S. by Spain following the end of the [[Spanish–American War]], and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. The island's ultimate status has not been determined, and its residents do not have voting representation in their federal government. Like the states, Puerto Rico has self-rule, a republican form of government organized pursuant to a constitution adopted by its people, and a [[bill of rights]].

This constitution was created when the U.S. Congress directed local government to organize a [[constitutional convention (political meeting)|constitutional convention]] to write the [[Puerto Rico Constitution]] in 1951. The acceptance of that constitution by Puerto Rico's electorate, the U.S. Congress, and the [[U.S. president]] occurred in 1952. In addition, the rights, privileges and immunities attendant to United States citizens are "respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union" through the express extension of the [[Privileges and Immunities Clause]] of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Congress in 1948.<ref>{{usc|48|737}}, Privileges and immunities.</ref>

Puerto Rico is designated in its constitution as the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico".<ref>The term [[Commonwealth]] is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. Historically, it has sometimes been synonymous with "republic".</ref> The [[Constitution of Puerto Rico]], which became effective in 1952, adopted the name of ''Estado Libre Asociado'' (literally translated as "Free Associated State"), officially translated into English as [[Commonwealth (United States insular area)|Commonwealth]], for its [[body politic]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.lexjuris.com/lexprcont.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111114003340/http://www.lexjuris.com/lexprcont.htm|url-status=dead|title=Constitucion del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico|archive-date=November 14, 2011|website=LexJuris}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://welcome.topuertorico.org/constitu.shtml|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111125081800/http://www.topuertorico.org/constitu.shtml|url-status=dead|title=Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico|archive-date=November 25, 2011|website=welcome.topuertorico.org}}</ref> The island is under the jurisdiction of the [[Territorial Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]], which has led to doubts about the finality of the Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico. In addition, all people born in Puerto Rico become [[Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution|citizens of the U.S. at birth]] (under provisions of the [[Jones–Shafroth Act]] in 1917), but citizens residing in Puerto Rico cannot vote for the President of the United States nor for full members of either house of Congress. Statehood would grant island residents full voting rights at the federal level and 2 state senators, like each US state has.

In 1992, President [[George H. W. Bush]] issued a Memorandum to heads of Executive Departments and Agencies establishing the administrative relationship between the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. This memorandum directs all Federal departments, agencies, and officials to treat Puerto Rico administratively as if it were a State insofar as doing so would not disrupt Federal programs or operations. President Bush's memorandum remains in effect until Federal legislation is enacted to alter the status of Puerto Rico in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of Puerto Rico.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://charma.uprm.edu/~angel/Puerto_Rico/reporte_status.pdf|title=''Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005) – President William J. Clinton.''|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070925184244/http://charma.uprm.edu/~angel/Puerto_Rico/reporte_status.pdf |archive-date=September 25, 2007 }}</ref>

On April 29, 2010, the [[United States House of Representatives]] approved the [[Puerto Rico Democracy Act]] (H.R. 2499) by 223–169,<ref>{{cite web |first=Dwyer |last=Arce |url=http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2010/04/done-us-house-passes-bill-on-puerto-rico-status-referendum.php |title=US House approves Puerto Rico status referendum bill |date=April 30, 2010 |work=Paper Chase |publisher=JURIST |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809172949/http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2010/04/done-us-house-passes-bill-on-puerto-rico-status-referendum.php |archive-date=August 9, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> but was not approved by the Senate before the end of the [[111th United States Congress|111th Congress]]. It would have provided for a federally sanctioned self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico. This act would provide for [[referendum]]s to be held in Puerto Rico to determine [[Political status of Puerto Rico|the island's ultimate political status]]. It had previously been introduced in 2007.<ref name="crs">{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32933.pdf |title=Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress [Report RL32933] |first1=R. Sam |last1=Garrett |first2=Bea |last2=Keith |publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]] |location=Washington, D.C. |date=June 7, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090804013720/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32933.pdf |archive-date=August 4, 2009 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

====Vote for statehood====
{{Infobox multichoice referendum
| name = Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012
| location = [[Puerto Rico]]
| date = {{start date and age|2012|11|06}}
| width = 300px
| barwidth = 100px
| voting_system = Simple [[majority]] for the first question, [[first-past-the-post]] for the second question
| part1_subject = Should Puerto Rico continue its current territorial status?
| part1_choice1 = Yes
| part1_choice1_color = silver
| part1_percentage1 = 46.00
| part1_choice2 = No
| part1_choice2_color = slategray
| part1_percentage2 = 54.00
| part2_subject = Which non-territorial option do you prefer?
| part2_choice1 = [[Puerto Rico statehood movement|Statehood]]
| part2_choice1_color =blue
| part2_percentage1 = 61.16
| part2_choice2 = [[Sovereigntism (Puerto Rico)|Free association]]
| part2_choice2_color = red
| part2_percentage2 = 33.34
| part2_choice3 = [[Independence movement in Puerto Rico|Independence]]
| part2_choice3_color = green
| part2_percentage3 = 5.49
| results2_caption = There were 515,348 blank and invalidated ballots counted alongside the 1,363,854 ballots. Under Puerto Rico Law, these ballots are not considered cast votes and are therefore not reflected in the final tally.<ref>{{cite act |title=Puerto Rico Election Code for the 21st Century |number=78 |language=en |year=2011 |article=2.003(54) |url=http://www.oslpr.org/download/en/2011/A-0078-2011.pdf |access-date=August 10, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140521105857/http://www.oslpr.org/download/en/2011/A-0078-2011.pdf |archive-date=May 21, 2014 }}</ref>
}}

In November 2012, [[2012 Puerto Rican status referendum|a referendum]] resulted in 54 percent of respondents voting to reject its status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution,<ref name="207.150.251.12">[http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/CONDICION_POLITICA_TERRITORIAL_ACTUAL_ISLA.xml ''CONDICIÓN POLÍTICA TERRITORIAL ACTUAL (English:Actual Territorial Political Condition)''.] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121130085952/http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/CONDICION_POLITICA_TERRITORIAL_ACTUAL_ISLA.xml |date=November 30, 2012 }} Government of Puerto Rico. State Electoral Commission. November 16, 2012 9:59PM. Retrieved November 18, 2012.</ref> while a second question resulted in 61 percent of voters identifying statehood as the preferred alternative to its territorial status.<ref name="OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA PM">[http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml ''OPCIONES NO TERRITORIALES. (English: Non-Territorial Options).''] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121115202429/http://207.150.251.12/REYDI_NocheDelEvento/index.html#es/default/OPCIONES_NO_TERRITORIALES_ISLA.xml |date=November 15, 2012 }} Government of Puerto Rico. State Electoral Commission. November 16, 2012. Retrieved November 18, 2012.</ref> The 2012 referendum was by far the most successful referendum for statehood advocates and support for statehood rose in each successive popular referendum.<ref name="letpuertoricodecide1">{{cite web|url=http://www.letpuertoricodecide.com/details.php?cid=4 |title=An Introduction to Puerto Rico's Status Debate |publisher=Let Puerto Rico Decide |access-date=March 29, 2012 |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216191957/http://www.letpuertoricodecide.com/details.php?cid=4 |archive-date=February 16, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html?iref=allsearch |title=Puerto Ricans favor statehood for first time |publisher=CNN |date=November 7, 2012 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103092226/http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/election-puerto-rico/index.html?iref=allsearch |archive-date=November 3, 2013 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> However, more than one in four voters abstained from answering the question on the preferred alternative status. Statehood opponents have argued that the statehood option garnered 45 percent of the votes if abstentions are included.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/puerto-rico-statehood_b_2118727.html |title=Did Puerto Rico Really Vote for Statehood? |work=HuffPost |access-date=November 14, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121117231739/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/puerto-rico-statehood_b_2118727.html |archive-date=November 17, 2012 |df=mdy-all |date=November 14, 2012 }}</ref> If abstentions are considered, the result of the referendum is much closer to 44 percent for statehood, a number that falls under the 50 percent majority mark.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/113173819/Carta-Garcia-Padilla-a-Obama-Plebiscito|title=Alejandro García Padilla letter to Barack Obama|author=García Padilla, Alejandro|date=November 9, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307032627/https://www.scribd.com/doc/113173819/Carta-Garcia-Padilla-a-Obama-Plebiscito|archive-date=March 7, 2016|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

''[[The Washington Post]]'', ''[[The New York Times]]'' and the ''[[Boston Herald]]'' have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-good-deal-for-the-district-and-puerto-rico/2012/11/23/07a711d6-2eac-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html |title=A good deal for the District and Puerto Rico |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150218061547/http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-good-deal-for-the-district-and-puerto-rico/2012/11/23/07a711d6-2eac-11e2-89d4-040c9330702a_story.html |archive-date=February 18, 2015 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/will-puerto-rico-be-americas-51st-state.html|title=Will Puerto Rico Be America's 51st State?|author=David Royston Patterson|date=November 24, 2012|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=March 5, 2016|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160421035106/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/will-puerto-rico-be-americas-51st-state.html|archive-date=April 21, 2016|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20221125puerto_rican_statehood/ |title=Puerto Rican statehood |work=Boston Herald |date=November 25, 2012 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121128063126/http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20221125puerto_rican_statehood |archive-date=November 28, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaper ''[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]'' published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/134077-congress-expected-to-ignore-puerto-ricos-vote-for-statehood/|title=Congress expected to ignore Puerto Rico's vote for statehood|work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]] |author=Kasperowicz, Pete|date=November 8, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121112060718/http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/266799-congress-expected-to-ignore-puerto-ricos-statehood-vote|archive-date=November 12, 2012|df=mdy-all}}</ref> U.S. Congressman [[Luis Gutiérrez]] and U.S. Congresswoman [[Nydia Velázquez]], both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with ''The Hill''{{'}}s statements.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.elnuevodia.com/elcongresonoharacasoalosresultadosdelplebiscito-1381852.html|title=El Congreso no hará caso a los resultados del plebiscito|work=[[El Nuevo Día]]|date=November 9, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121113065901/http://www.elnuevodia.com/elcongresonoharacasoalosresultadosdelplebiscito-1381852.html |archive-date=November 13, 2012|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Shortly after the results were published, Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman [[José Enrique Serrano]] commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20121111203416/http://www.puertoricoreport.org/serrano-plebiscite-an-earthquake-in-puerto-rican-politics/ "Serrano: Plebiscite an 'Earthquake' in Puerto Rican Politics"]}} Retrieved December 6, 2012.</ref>

Several days after the referendum, the [[Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico|Resident Commissioner]] [[Pedro Pierluisi]], Governor [[Luis Fortuño]], and Governor-elect [[Alejandro García Padilla]] wrote separate letters to the President of the United States, [[Barack Obama]], addressing the results of the voting. Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://recend.apextech.netdna-cdn.com/static/docs/editor/20121114_politica_pierluisi.pdf |title=Pedro Pierluisi letter to Barack Obama |author=Pierluisi, Pedro |date=November 13, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121119031241/http://recend.apextech.netdna-cdn.com/static/docs/editor/20121114_politica_pierluisi.pdf |archive-date=November 19, 2012 |df=mdy |author-link=Pedro Pierluisi }}</ref> Fortuño urged him to move the process forward.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0OdMdvVGyuHOC03cEVlR0xnOFU/edit?pli=1 |title=Governor of Puerto Rico Letter to the President – Official Results of the 2012 Puerto Rico Political Status Plebiscite |work=Google Docs |access-date=March 24, 2014}}</ref> García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/113173819/Carta-Garcia-Padilla-a-Obama-Plebiscito|title=Alejandro García Padilla letter to Barack Obama|author=García Padilla, Alejandro|date=November 9, 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307032627/https://www.scribd.com/doc/113173819/Carta-Garcia-Padilla-a-Obama-Plebiscito|archive-date=March 7, 2016|df=mdy-all|author-link=Alejandro García Padilla}}</ref> The White House position on the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tau|first1=Byron|title=White House clarifies Puerto Rico stance|url=http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/white-house-clarifies-puerto-rico-stance-151019.html|access-date=July 16, 2015 |work=Politico|date=December 4, 2012 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140503152513/http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/white-house-clarifies-puerto-rico-stance-151019.html |archive-date=May 3, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union", asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state.<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20130927135632/http://www.puertoricoreport.org/pierluisi-introduces-historic-legislation/ "Pierluisi Introduces Historic Legislation"]}}, ''Puerto Rico Report'', May 15, 2013. Retrieved May 15, 2013.</ref> On February 12, 2014, Senator [[Martin Heinrich]] introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state.<ref>[http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/02/12/sen-martin-heinrich--presents-bill-seeking-puerto-rico-statehood/ "Sen. Martin Heinrich Presents Bill Seeking Puerto Rico Statehood"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140222095534/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/02/12/sen-martin-heinrich--presents-bill-seeking-puerto-rico-statehood/ |date=February 22, 2014 }}, Fox News Latino, February 12, 2014. Retrieved February 14, 2014.</ref>

====Government funding for a fifth referendum====
On January 15, 2014, the United States House of Representatives approved $2.5 million in funding to hold a referendum. This referendum can be held at any time as there is no deadline by which the funds have to be used.<ref name="U.S. approves funds for referendum on Puerto Rico's status">{{cite web|url=http://www.laprensasa.com/309_america-in-english/2374118_u-s-approves-funds-for-referendum-on-puerto-rico-s-status.html |title=U.S. approves funds for referendum on Puerto Rico's status |date=January 16, 2014 |access-date=January 19, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140120064345/http://www.laprensasa.com/309_america-in-english/2374118_u-s-approves-funds-for-referendum-on-puerto-rico-s-status.html |archive-date=January 20, 2014 }}</ref> The United States Senate then passed the bill which was signed into law on January 17, 2014, by [[Barack Obama]], then President of the United States.<ref name="Make room for 51st star? Spending bill includes $2.5 million for vote on Puerto RIco statehood">{{cite web | url = http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/01/make_room_for_51st_star_spendi.html | title = Make room for 51st star? Spending bill includes $2.5 million for vote on Puerto RIco statehood | date = January 22, 2014 | access-date = February 22, 2017 | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170101143502/http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/01/make_room_for_51st_star_spendi.html | archive-date = January 1, 2017 | df = mdy-all }}</ref>

====2017 referendum====
{{Infobox multichoice referendum
| name = Puerto Rican status referendum, 2017
| location = [[Puerto Rico]]
| date = {{start date and age|2017|06|11}}
| width = 300px
| barwidth = 100px
| voting_system = [[plurality (voting)|Plurality]]
| part1_choice1 = [[Puerto Rico statehood movement|Statehood]]
| part1_choice1_color = green
| part1_percentage1 = 97.16
| part1_choice2 = {{nowrap|[[Independence movement in Puerto Rico|Independence]]/[[Sovereigntism (Puerto Rico)|Free Association]]}}
| part1_choice2_color = Blue
| part1_percentage2 = 1.51
| part1_choice3 = [[Status quo movement in Puerto Rico|Current Territorial Status]]
| part1_percentage3 = 1.32
| part1_choice3_color = red
}}

The previous plebiscites had provided voters with three options: statehood, free association, and independence. The [[2017 Puerto Rican status referendum|Puerto Rican status referendum of 2017]] instead originally offered two options: Statehood and Independence/Free Association. However, a third option, "current territorial status" was later added. The referendum was held on June 11, 2017, with an overwhelming majority of voters supporting statehood at 97.16%; however, with a voter turnout of 22.99%, it was a historical low. Had the majority voted for Independence/Free Association, a second vote would have been held to decide whether to have full independence as a nation, or to achieve associated free state status with independence but with a "free and voluntary political association" between Puerto Rico and the United States. The specifics of the association agreement<ref name="puertoricoreport">{{cite web |url=http://www.puertoricoreport.com/whats-free-associated-state/#.WK-D7m8rLX4 |title=What's a Free Associated State? |date=February 3, 2017 |website=Puerto Rico Report  |access-date=February 23, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170224135154/http://www.puertoricoreport.com/whats-free-associated-state/#.WK-D7m8rLX4 |archive-date=February 24, 2017  |df=mdy-all}}</ref> would've been to be detailed in the [[Compact of Free Association]] that would have had to be negotiated between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. That document could have covered topics such as the role of the U.S. military in Puerto Rico, the use of the U.S. currency, free trade between the two entities, and whether [[Puerto Ricans]] would be U.S. citizens.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Statehood,_Independence,_or_Free_Association_Referendum_(2017) |title=Puerto Rico Statehood, Independence, or Free Association Referendum (2017) |date=February 6, 2017 |website=Ballotpedia |access-date=February 24, 2017 |quote=With my vote, I make the initial request to the Federal Government to begin the process of the decolonization through: (1) Free Association: Puerto Rico should adopt a status outside of the Territory Clause of the Constitution of the United States that recognizes the sovereignty of the People of Puerto Rico. The Free Association would be based on a free and voluntary political association, the specific terms of which shall be agreed upon between the United States and Puerto Rico as sovereign nations. Such agreement would provide the scope of the jurisdictional powers that the People of Puerto Rico agree to confer to the United States and retain all other jurisdictional powers and authorities. Under this option the American citizenship would be subject to negotiation with the United States Government; (2) Proclamation of Independence, I demand that the United States Government, in the exercise of its power to dispose of territory, recognize the national sovereignty of Puerto Rico as a completely independent nation and that the United States Congress enact the necessary legislation to initiate the negotiation and transition to the independent nation of Puerto Rico. My vote for Independence also represents my claim to the rights, duties, powers, and prerogatives of independent and democratic republics, my support of Puerto Rican citizenship, and a "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation" between Puerto Rico and the United States after the transition process |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506190538/https://ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Statehood,_Independence,_or_Free_Association_Referendum_(2017) |archive-date=May 6, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

The governor, [[Ricardo Rosselló]] was strongly in favor of statehood to help develop the economy and help to "solve our 500-year-old colonial dilemma ... Colonialism is not an option ... It's a civil rights issue ... 3.5 million citizens seeking an absolute democracy".<ref>{{cite news |last=Wyss |first=Jim |title=Will Puerto Rico become the newest star on the American flag? |url=http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article128782174.html#storylink=cpy |newspaper=Miami Herald |location=Miami |access-date=February 24, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170225132959/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article128782174.html#storylink=cpy |archive-date=February 25, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Benefits of statehood would include an additional $10 billion per year in federal funds, the right to vote in presidential elections, higher Social Security and Medicare benefits, and the right for its government agencies and municipalities to file for bankruptcy.<ref name="wapo-2017-coto-danica" />

At approximately the same time as the referendum, Puerto Rico's legislators were expected to vote on a bill that would allow the Governor to draft a state constitution and hold elections to choose senators and representatives to the [[United States Congress]].{{Update inline|date=November 2023|reason=Did such a vote actually take place? Was a state constitution ever drafted?}} Regardless of the outcome of the referendum or the bill on drafting a constitution, action by Congress would have still been necessary to implement changes to the status of Puerto Rico under the [[Article Four of the United States Constitution#Federal property and the Territorial Clause|Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution]].<ref name="wapo-2017-coto-danica">{{cite news|last=Coto|first=Danica|date=February 3, 2017|title=Puerto Rico gov approves referendum in quest for statehood|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/puerto-rico-gov-approves-referendum-in-quest-for-statehood/2017/02/03/ddea7392-ea54-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204020835/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/puerto-rico-gov-approves-referendum-in-quest-for-statehood/2017/02/03/ddea7392-ea54-11e6-903d-9b11ed7d8d2a_story.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 4, 2017|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|location=DC|access-date=February 17, 2017}}</ref>

If the majority of [[Puerto Ricans]] were to choose the Free Association option{{snd}}and 33% voted for it in 2012{{snd}}and if it were granted by the U.S. Congress, Puerto Rico would become a Free Associated State, a virtually independent nation. It would have a political and economical treaty of association with the U.S. that would stipulate all delegated agreements. This could give Puerto Rico a similar status to [[Federated States of Micronesia|Micronesia]], the [[Marshall Islands]], and [[Palau]], countries which have a [[Compact of Free Association]] with the United States.

Those Free Associated States use the American dollar, receive some financial support and the promise of military defense if they refuse military access to any other country. Their citizens are allowed to work in the U.S. and serve in its military.<ref name="puertoricoreport"/>

In total, 500,000 Puerto Ricans voted for statehood, 7,600 voted for independence, and 6,700 voted for status quo.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/puerto-rico-mulls-political-status-in-new-referendum/2017/06/11/20415f7a-4e5b-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_story.html|title=- The Washington Post|newspaper=The Washington Post|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170617080052/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/puerto-rico-mulls-political-status-in-new-referendum/2017/06/11/20415f7a-4e5b-11e7-987c-42ab5745db2e_story.html|archive-date=June 17, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

====2020 referendum====
{{Infobox referendum
| name        = 2020 Puerto Rican status referendum
| title       =
| location    = [[Puerto Rico]], [[Caribbean]]
| date        = {{start date and age|2020|11|03}}
| yes         =
| no          =
| total       =
| electorate  =
| map         = 
| mapdivision =
| width       = 300px
| barwidth    = 200px
| part1_subject      = "Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?"
| part1_choice1      = {{big|Yes (▲)}}
| part1_percentage1  = 52.52
| part1_color1       = 
| part1_choice2      = {{big|No (⬤)}}
| part1_percentage2  = 47.48
| part1_color2       = 
| website     = [https://elecciones2020.ceepur.org/Escrutinio_General_93/index.html#en/default/PLEBISCITO_Resumen.xml]
}}
{{main|2020 Puerto Rican status referendum}}
A referendum of the status of Puerto Rico was held on November&nbsp;3, 2020, concurrently with the [[2020 Puerto Rican general election|general election]]. This was the sixth [[referendum]] held on the [[Proposed political status for Puerto Rico|status of Puerto Rico]], with the [[2017 Puerto Rican status referendum|previous one]] having taken place in 2017. This was the first referendum with a simple {{nowrap|yes-or-no}} question, with voters having the option of voting for or against becoming a [[U.S. state]].<ref name=ballotpedia>{{cite web |url=https://news.ballotpedia.org/2020/11/11/puerto-ricans-approve-non-binding-statehood-referendum/ |title=Puerto Ricans approve non-binding statehood referendum |date=November 11, 2020 |access-date=June 4, 2024 |first=Ryan |last=Byrne |work=Ballotpedia}}</ref>

The referendum was non-binding, as [[admission to the Union|the power to grant statehood]] lies with the [[US Congress]]. The [[United States party politics and the political status of Puerto Rico#2020 Platforms|party platforms]] of both the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] have affirmed for decades Puerto Rico's right to [[self-determination]] and to be admitted as a state, at least in theory, but individual Republican legislators have been more skeptical.

According to Senate Bill 1467, which placed the referendum on the ballot, voting "No" on the referendum would mean that a seven-member commission would be appointed to negotiate with the federal government for the free association or independence of Puerto Rico.<ref name="Ballotpedia">{{cite web |url=https://www.ballotpedia.org/Puerto_Rico_Statehood_Referendum_(2020)| title=Puerto Rico Statehood Referendum(2020) |publisher=Ballotpedia |date=September 2, 2020 |access-date=September 2, 2020}}</ref><ref name="Gobierno de Puerto Rico">{{cite web |url=https://senado.pr.gov/Legislations/ps1467-20.pdf| title=Gobierno de Puerto Rico; Senado de Puerto Rico; P. de S. 1467 |publisher=Gobierno de Puerto Rico |date=January 9, 2020 |access-date=September 2, 2020}}</ref>

Statehood won the referendum 52.52%–47.48%.<ref>{{cite web|date=December 31, 2020|title=Plebiscite Islandwide Results|url=https://elecciones2020.ceepur.org/Escrutinio_General_93/index.html#en/default/PLEBISCITO_Resumen.xml|access-date=January 18, 2021|website=|publisher=Comisión Estatal de Elecciones}}</ref>
{{Infobox referendum
|country=Puerto Rico
|date={{Start date|2024|11|05}}
|map=[[File:Puerto Rico Referendum Municipalities 2024.svg|center|270px]]
'''Statehood'''
{{legend|#7D9CBB|60–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#B6C8D9|50–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#EBEEED9|40–50% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
|mapdivision=[[Municipalities of Puerto Rico|municipality]]
|choice1=Statehood
|percentage1=58.2
|choice2=Free association
|percentage2=29.54
|choice3=Independence
|percentage3=12.27
}}

====2024 referendum====
{{main|2024 Puerto Rican status referendum}}
In 2024 another referendum was conducted, with three choices: Statehood, Independence, or Independence with Free Association. Statehood won with 58% of the vote in this referendum, though it did not include an option for status quo.

=== Guam ===
[[File:Flag of Guam.svg|thumb|left|Flag of [[Guam]]]]

[[Guam]] (formally the Territory of Guam) is an [[Unincorporated territories of the United States|unincorporated and organized territory of the United States]]. Located in the western [[Pacific Ocean]], Guam is one of [[Territories of the United States#Unincorporated organized territories|five American territories]] with a civilian government.<ref name="oia">{{cite web|url=http://www.doi.gov/oia/Firstpginfo/territories.html |title=U.S. Territories |access-date=February 9, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070209094507/http://www.doi.gov/oia/Firstpginfo/territories.html |archive-date=February 9, 2007 |df=mdy }}." DOI Office of Insular Affairs. February 9, 2007.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/political_types.htm |title=DEFINITIONS OF INSULAR AREA POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS. |access-date=November 14, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721034923/http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/political_types.htm |archive-date=July 21, 2011 |df=mdy }} ''[[Office of Insular Affairs]]''. Retrieved October 31, 2008.</ref> Guam rejected unification with the [[Northern Mariana Islands]] in the past (see [[1969 Guamanian unification with the Northern Mariana Islands referendum]]); at the same time, referendums held in the Northern Marianas in [[1958 Saipan integration referendum|1958]], [[1961 Northern Mariana Islands status referendum|1961]], [[1963 Northern Mariana Islands integration referendum|1963]], and [[1969 Northern Mariana Islands status referendum|1969]] consistently demonstrated that the Northern Mariana Islanders supported unification with Guam. The Northern Marianas in later referendums chose to join the United States, which it did in 1986 as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a significant movement in favor of Guam becoming a [[commonwealth (United States insular area)|commonwealth]], which would give it a level of self-government similar to [[Puerto Rico]] and the Northern Mariana Islands. However, the federal government rejected the version of commonwealth that the government of Guam proposed, because its clauses were incompatible with the [[Territorial Clause]] (Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2) of the U.S. Constitution. Other movements advocate U.S. statehood for Guam, union with the state of Hawaii, [[Unification of the Mariana Islands|union with the Northern Mariana Islands]] as a single territory, or independence.<ref name="guampedia">{{cite web |url=http://www.guampedia.com/commission-on-decolonization |title=Commission on Decolonization 2014 |date=December 3, 2016 |website=Guampedia |access-date=February 27, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228163623/http://www.guampedia.com/commission-on-decolonization/ |archive-date=February 28, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
[[File:USA Guam satellite image location map.jpg|thumb|left|Guam from space, 2010]]
In a 1982 plebiscite, voters indicated interest in seeking commonwealth status. The island has been considering another non-binding plebiscite on decolonization since 1998. Governor [[Eddie Baza Calvo]] intended to include one during the island's November 2016 elections but it was delayed again.<ref name="Raymundo">{{cite web |url=http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/12/07/commission-launch-series-decolonization-meetings/95076830/ |title=Commission to launch series of decolonization meetings |last=Raymundo |first=Shawn |date=December 8, 2016 |website=Pacific Daily News |access-date=February 27, 2017}}</ref>

A Commission on Decolonization was established in 1997 to educate the people of Guam about the various political status options in its relationship with the U.S.: statehood, free association and independence. The group was dormant for some years. In 2013, the commission began seeking funding to start a public education campaign. There were few subsequent developments until late 2016. In early December 2016, the Commission scheduled a series of education sessions in various villages about the status of Guam's relationship with the U.S. and the self-determination options that might be considered.<ref name="Raymundo"/> The commission's executive director is Edward Alvarez and there are ten members. The group is also expected to release position papers on independence and statehood but they have not yet been completed.<ref name="guampedia"/>
[[File:Flag of the Northern Mariana Islands.svg|thumb|Flag of the [[Northern Mariana Islands]]. Guam and the Northern Marianas chose to remain separate in 20th century referendums, and both chose to be U.S. territories.]]
Guam was occupied for over 450 years by the Spanish and then the Japanese. Under the United States the people have had several referendums to determine their fate, and the current status dates to 1980s referendum which was won to continue as territory of the United States. Several late 20th referendums also determined they did not desire a unification with the Northern Marianas to the north, which joined the United States as territory in 1986.

In 2016, Governor Eddie Calvo planned a decolonization referendum solely for the indigenous [[Chamorro people]] of Guam, in which the three options would be statehood, independence, and free association. However, this referendum for the Chamorro people was struck down by a federal judge on the grounds of racial discrimination. In the wake of this ruling, Governor Calvo suggested that two ballots be held: one for the Chamorro People and one for eligible U.S. citizens who are non-indigenous residents of Guam. A reunification referendum in Guam and its neighbor, the [[Northern Mariana Islands]] (a U.S. Commonwealth) has been proposed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.kuam.com/story/33785373/2016/11/Wednesday/could-the-community-decide-reunifying-the-marianas|title=Could the community decide reunifying the Marianas?|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170728230223/http://www.kuam.com/story/33785373/2016/11/Wednesday/could-the-community-decide-reunifying-the-marianas|archive-date=July 28, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/local/91102-guam-nmi-municipal-officials-seek-non-binding-reunification-referendum|title=Guam, NMI municipal officials seek non-binding reunification referendum|last=mvariety|website=Marianas Variety}}</ref> A 2016 poll conducted by the [[University of Guam]] showed a majority supporting statehood when respondents were asked which political status they supported.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kuam.com/story/31747261/2016/04/Sunday/uog-poll-guamanians-prefer-statehood|title=UOG poll: Guamanians prefer statehood|website=KUAM News}}</ref>

====United Nations support====
The [[United Nations]] is in favor of greater self-determination for Guam, though it has concluded its interest in the Northern Marianas which was removed from list of non self governing after it chose to join in the United States after a series of referendums in the 1960s and 1970s. The UN's [[Special Committee on Decolonization]] has agreed to endorse the governor's education plan. The commission's May 2016 report stated: "With academics from the [[University of Guam]], [the Commission] was working to create and approve educational materials. The Office of the Governor was collaborating closely with the Commission" in developing educational materials for the public.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gacol3290.doc.htm |title=Secretary-General Urges Concrete Action to Advance Decolonization Agenda as Pacific Regional Seminar Convenes |date=May 31, 2016 |publisher=United Nations |access-date=February 27, 2017 |quote="Let us seize this opportunity to identify concrete actions to advance the decolonization agenda," Mr. Ban said … according to the United Nations Charter and relevant General Assembly resolutions, a full measure of self-government could be achieved through independence, integration or free association with another State. The choice should be the result of the freely expressed will and desire of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228082817/http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gacol3290.doc.htm |archive-date=February 28, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

The United States [[Department of the Interior]] had approved a $300,000 grant for decolonization education, Edward Alvarez told the United Nations Pacific Regional Seminar in May 2016. "We are hopeful that this might indicate a shift in [United States] policy to its Non-Self-Governing Territories such as Guam, where they will be more willing to engage in discussions about our future and offer true support to help push us towards true self-governances and self-determination."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gacol3290.doc.htm |title=Secretary-General Urges Concrete Action to Advance Decolonization Agenda as Pacific Regional Seminar Convenes |date=May 31, 2016 |publisher=United Nations |access-date=February 27, 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170228082817/http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/gacol3290.doc.htm |archive-date=February 28, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

===Other territories===
{{Infobox multichoice referendum
| name = Sequoyah constitutional referendum, 1905
| location = [[Indian Territory]]
| date = {{start date and age|1905|11|07}}
| width = 300px
| barwidth = 100px
| voting_system = [[plurality (voting)|Plurality]]
| part1_subject = Shall the voters of the Indian Territory approve or reject this proposed constitution?
| part1_choice1 = Approve
| part1_choice1_color = green
| part1_percentage1 = 86.11
| part1_choice2 = Reject
| part1_choice2_color = red
| part1_percentage2 = 13.88
| results_caption = 
}}
The [[Indian Territory]] attempted statehood in 1905, when citizens of the [[Five Civilized Tribes]] proposed creating the [[State of Sequoyah]] as a means to retain control of their lands and resources. A [[Sequoyah Constitutional Convention|constitutional convention]] was held on August 21, 1905, in [[Muskogee, Oklahoma|Muskogee]], and the proposed constitution was overwhelmingly approved by the territory's indigenous and white residents.<ref name="OHSSC">{{cite web | url=http://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=SE021 | title=Sequoyah Convention | last=Mize | first=Richard | year=2009 | access-date=May 10, 2016 | publisher=Oklahoma Historical Society}}</ref> Congress did not support statehood for Sequoyah, and the Indian Territory was annexed into [[Oklahoma]] in 1907.

The [[U.S. Virgin Islands]] explored the possibility of statehood in 1984,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/07/28/Vote-on-statehood-possible-in-US-Virgin-Islands/4460459835200/|title=Vote on statehood possible in U.S. Virgin Islands|date=28 July 1984|agency=UPI (archives)|access-date=30 January 2018}}</ref> and in a [[1993 United States Virgin Islands status referendum|1993 referendum]], while [[American Samoa]] explored the possibility of statehood in 2005<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/157117/american-samoa-to-explore-us-statehood |title=''American Samoa to explore US statehood''. Radionz.co.nz. Retrieved 30 January 2018 |publisher=Radionz.co.nz |date=2005-08-25 |access-date=2018-03-19}}</ref> and 2017.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.samoanews.com/local-news/future-prospects-american-samoa%e2%80%99s-political-status |title=''The future prospects for American Samoa's political status.'' June 19, 2017. Fili Sagapolutele. Retrieved 30 January 2018 |publisher=Samoanews.com |date=2017-06-19 |access-date=2018-03-19}}</ref>
{{gallery|mode=nolines|whitebg=y|height=100
|File:Flag of the United States Virgin Islands.svg|Flag of the [[United States Virgin Islands]]
|File:Flag of American Samoa.svg|Flag of [[American Samoa]]
}}

==By status changes of former U.S. territories==

===Philippines===
[[File:The Philippines and ASEAN (orthographic projection).svg|thumb|Location of the Philippines]]
The United States annexed the Philippines as its [[United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands|territory]] from the [[Spanish Empire]] in 1898 and established the [[Insular Government of the Philippine Islands]] in 1901. Since then, the [[Philippines]] has had small grassroots movements for U.S. statehood.<ref>{{cite news | last = Atencia | first = Romulo | title = Statehood | newspaper = Catanduanes Tribune | date = June 27, 2012 | url = http://www.catanduanestribune.com/article/226Z | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130404001520/http://catanduanestribune.com/article/226Z | archive-date = April 4, 2013 | df = mdy-all }}</ref> Originally part of the platform of the [[Progresista Party|Progressive Party]], then known as the [[Federalist Party (Philippines)|Federalista Party]], the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|url=https://www.britannica.com/facts/5/387398/Nationalist-Party-as-discussed-in-Philippines|title=Facts about Nationalist Party: place in Philippine history, as discussed in Philippines: The period of U.S. influence|encyclopedia=eb.com|publisher= Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.|access-date=December 21, 2009}}</ref><ref name="contstud">{{cite web|url=http://countrystudies.us/philippines/17.htm|title=A Collaborative Philippine Leadership|work=U.S. Library of Congress|publisher=countrystudies.us|access-date=December 21, 2009|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091015230418/http://countrystudies.us/philippines/17.htm|archive-date=October 15, 2009|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

During the [[1981 Philippine presidential election and referendum|Philippine presidential elections of 1981]], 4% of the electorate voted for [[Bartolome Cabangbang]], a member of the [[Interim Batasang Pambansa]] from [[Bohol]]. He ran under the Federal Party which advocated for a plebiscite to convert the Philippines into the 51st US state.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Kamm|first=Henry|date=1981-06-14|title=MARCOS ELECTION FOE PRESSES FOR U.S. STATEHOOD|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/world/marcos-election-foe-presses-for-us-statehood.html|access-date=2021-11-16|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

As recently as 2004, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines.<ref>{{cite news|title=An American president of the Philippines?|author=Marco Garrido|newspaper=Asian Times|date=January 29, 2004|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FA29Ae03.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040203134242/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FA29Ae03.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 3, 2004|access-date=December 21, 2009 |quote=The perennial presidential candidate Ely Pamatong banks on this allure, campaigning, as he does, on a platform of US statehood for the Philippines. }}</ref> Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there would be less poverty there if the Philippines were an [[American state]] or territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the [[United States Armed Forces]] in various wars during the [[Commonwealth of the Philippines|Commonwealth period]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Soberano|first1=Rawlein G.|year=1976|title=The Philippine Statehood Movement: A Resurrected Illusion, 1970–1972|journal=The Southeast Asian Studies|volume=13|issue=4|pages=580–587|url=http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000201382/en|access-date=December 21, 2009|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131202232314/http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000201382/en|archive-date=December 2, 2013|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Francisco|first1=Luzviminda|year=1973|title=The First Vietnam: the U.S.-Philippine War of 1899|journal=Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars|volume=5|issue=4|page=15|doi=10.1080/14672715.1973.10406345|df=mdy-all|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wheeler |first1=Gerald E. |date=May 1964 |title=The Movement to Reverse Philippine Independence |journal=Pacific Historical Review |volume=33 |issue=2 |pages=167–181 |doi=10.2307/3636594 |jstor=3636594 }}</ref>
The Philippine statehood movement had a significant impact during its early [[History of the Philippines (1898–1946)|period as an American territory]].<ref name="contstud"/> It is no longer a mainstream movement,<ref>{{cite book|title=The constitution of empire: territorial expansion and American legal history|last=Lawson|first=Gary|author2=Guy Seidman|year=2004|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-10231-4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c3uboehs0zUC|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171106145413/https://books.google.com/books?id=c3uboehs0zUC&printsec=frontcover|archive-date=November 6, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref> but it is still a social movement that periodically gains interest and talk in the nation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/RMA02760.html|title=The Philippine Statehood Movement of 1971–1972|author=Jim Nach|date=1979–1980|publisher=Cornell University Library|access-date=December 12, 2009|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100619043839/http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ead/htmldocs/RMA02760.html|archive-date=June 19, 2010|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

No major politician in the Philippines has advocated for US statehood {{as of|2014|lc=y}}. Election candidates in favor of the proposal have been declared as "nuisance candidates" by the [[Commission on Elections (Philippines)|Philippine government's election commission]].<ref>{{cite web|last1=Bustos|first1=Loren|last2=Cabacungan|first2=Vanessa|date=23 April 2014|title=Timeline: Efforts to make the Philippines a US state|url=https://r3.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/56124-timeline-ph-us-state-annexation|website=Rappler}}</ref>

==By partition of or secession from U.S. states==
{{Main|List of U.S. state partition proposals}}
There have historically been several proposals, with varying degrees of support, to divide states having regions that are politically or culturally divergent into smaller, more homogeneous, administratively efficient entities.<ref>{{cite web|title=The rise of secessionist movements|date=November 3, 2013 |publisher=[[CBS News]]|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-rise-of-secessionist-movements/|access-date=November 3, 2013|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131123133405/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-rise-of-secessionist-movements/|archive-date=November 23, 2013|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Splitting a state requires the approval of both its legislature and the U.S. Congress.<ref>{{cite web|title=Constitution for the United States of America|url=https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a4_sec3|access-date=June 7, 2013|year=1787|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130601175441/https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a4_sec3|archive-date=June 1, 2013|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

Proposals of new states by partition include:
[[File:Navajo flag.svg|thumb|[[Flag of the Navajo Nation]]]]
* '''Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah''':
** Admitting into the Union the [[Navajo Nation]], the largest [[Indian reservation]] in the United States. Reservations already enjoy a large degree of [[Political freedom|political autonomy]], so making a state out of the Navajo Nation would not be as problematic as partitioning areas of other states.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wyckoff|first=Theodore|year=1977|title=The Navajo Nation Tomorrow: 51st State, Commonwealth, or...?|url=https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1615&context=ailr|journal=American Indian Law Review|volume=5|issue=2|pages=267–297|doi=10.2307/20068034|jstor=20068034|url-access=subscription}}</ref> The Navajo Nation is larger than ten U.S. States.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://state.1keydata.com/states-by-size.php|title=List of US States By Size, In Square Miles|website=state.1keydata.com}}</ref> A Navajo state would help issues of [[List of Native Americans in the United States Congress|representation]], since as of 2023, four Representatives and one Senator were Native American. 
** The secession of [[Pima County, Arizona|Pima County]] in [[Arizona]], with the hopes of neighboring counties [[Cochise County, Arizona|Cochise]], [[Yuma County, Arizona|Yuma]], and [[Santa Cruz County, Arizona|Santa Cruz]] joining to form a state.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/node/18486323|date=March 1, 2011|newspaper=the Economist|access-date=October 30, 2011|title=A tale of two counties|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111125192221/http://www.economist.com/node/18486323|archive-date=November 25, 2011|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

[[File:Jefferson state flag.svg|thumb|Proposed flag of Jefferson]]
* '''California and Oregon''':
** The secession of [[Northern California]] and Southern [[Oregon]] to form a state named [[Jefferson (Pacific state)|''Jefferson'']]. In 2021, 5 counties in Oregon voted to join Idaho.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|work=The Oregonian/OregonLive|first=Douglas |last=Perry |date=2021-05-19|title=More Oregon counties vote to consider joining Idaho, part of rural effort to 'gain political refuge from blue states'|url=https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/05/more-oregon-counties-vote-to-move-into-idaho-part-of-rural-effort-to-to-gain-political-refuge-from-blue-states.html|access-date=2021-05-20|language=en}}</ref>
** Various proposals of [[partition and secession in California]], usually splitting the south half from the north or the urban coastline from the rest of the state.<ref>{{cite news|last=Pierce|first=Tony|title='South California' proposed as 51st state by Republican supervisor|url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/south-california-proposed-as-51st-state-by-republican-supervisor.html|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|access-date=July 11, 2011|date=July 11, 2011|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110714042611/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/south-california-proposed-as-51st-state-by-republican-supervisor.html|archive-date=July 14, 2011|df=mdy-all}}</ref> In 2014, businessman [[Tim Draper]] collected signatures for a petition to split [[Six Californias|California into six different states]],<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-to-split-into-six-states-plan-may-get-on-ballot/|date=February 25, 2014|work=CBS news|access-date=February 25, 2014|title=California to split into six states? Plan may get on ballot!|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140225214200/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-to-split-into-six-states-plan-may-get-on-ballot/|archive-date=February 25, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref> but not enough to qualify for the [[California ballot proposition|ballot]].<ref>Jim Miller, [http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/12/6702457/six-californias-initiative-fails.html "Six Californias initiative fails to make 2016 ballot"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140927092523/http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/12/6702457/six-californias-initiative-fails.html |date=September 27, 2014 }}, ''The Sacramento Bee'', 09/12/2014.</ref> Draper attempted a follow-up petition to split California into three states in 2018.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/proposal-split-california-three-states-earns-spot-november-ballot-n882646 |title=Proposal to split California into three states earns spot on November ballot |last=Helsel |first=Phil |date=June 13, 2018 |publisher=NBC News |access-date=June 13, 2018 |quote=Voters in the massive state of California, touted as having an economy larger than most countries, could decide whether to support a plan calling for The Golden State to be split into three. An initiative that would direct the governor to seek Congressional approval to divide California into three states has enough valid signatures to be eligible for the Nov. 6 ballot, the Secretary of State's office said Tuesday. If the initiative is not withdrawn, it will be qualified for the ballot on June 28. Even if approved by voters, it faces the hurdle of approval by Congress.}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |url=https://threestateca.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Press-Release-041118.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180414041639/https://threestateca.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Press-Release-041118.pdf |url-status=usurped |archive-date=14 April 2018 |title="CAL 3" Initiative to Partition California Reaches Unprecedented Milestone |date=11 April 2018 |publisher=Cal3 |access-date=19 April 2018 }}</ref> However, the initiative to divide [[Cal 3|California into three states]] was ordered removed from the 2018 ballot by the California Supreme Court, as the California constitution does not allow this type of ballot initiative.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-three-state-court-20180718-story.html |title=Measure to split California into three states removed from ballot by the state Supreme Court |last=Dolan |first=Maura |date=July 18, 2018 |website=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=October 30, 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-blocks-measure-asking-voters-to-split-california-in-3/ar-AAAgrYd?ocid=spartanntp |title=Court blocks measure asking voters to split California in 3 |access-date=December 15, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180719054130/https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-blocks-measure-asking-voters-to-split-california-in-3/ar-AAAgrYd?ocid=spartanntp |archive-date=July 19, 2018 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all |agency=Associated Press |publisher=MSN }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_9,_Three_States_Initiative_(2018) |title=California Proposition 9, Three States Initiative (2018) |website=Ballotpedia}} California Supreme Court removes Prop 9, the Three States Initiative, from ballot</ref>
* '''Colorado''': In 2013, commissioners in [[Weld County]], [[Colorado]], proposed to leave Colorado along with neighboring counties of [[Morgan County, Colorado|Morgan]], [[Logan County, Colorado|Logan]], [[Sedgwick County, Colorado|Sedgwick]], [[Phillips County, Colorado|Phillips]], [[Washington County, Colorado|Washington]], [[Yuma County, Colorado|Yuma]], and [[Kit Carson County, Colorado|Kit Carson]] to form the state of [[Northern Colorado|''North Colorado'']].<ref>{{cite news|last=Romano|first=Analisa|title=Weld County commissioners propose formation of new state, North Colorado|url=http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/6822670-113/state-county-colorado-secede|access-date=June 6, 2013|newspaper=The Greeley Tribune|date=June 6, 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130611131748/http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/6822670-113/state-county-colorado-secede|archive-date=June 11, 2013|df=mdy-all}}</ref> The counties in contention voted to begin plans for secession that November, with mixed results.<ref>{{cite news|last=Whaley|first=Monte|title=51st state question answered "no" in 6 of 11 counties contemplating secession|url=http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24461077/11-counties-weigh-secession-from-colorado-formation-51st|access-date=November 6, 2013|newspaper=The Denver Post|date=November 6, 2013|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131106175710/http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24461077/11-counties-weigh-secession-from-colorado-formation-51st|archive-date=November 6, 2013|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
* '''Delaware, Maryland and Virginia''':
** The secession of several counties from the eastern shores of [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]], combining with some or all of the state of [[Delaware]], forming a state named [[Delmarva Peninsula#Proposed state|''Delmarva'']].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.journalism.umd.edu/cns/wire/1998-editions/02-February-editions/980220-Friday/Delmarva_CNS-UMCP.html |title=Capital News Service wire feed |publisher=Journalism.umd.edu |date=February 20, 1998 |access-date=March 24, 2014| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141210235844/http://journalism.umd.edu/cns/wire/1998-editions/02-February-editions/980220-Friday/Delmarva_CNS-UMCP.html| archive-date=December 10, 2014}}</ref>
** The secession of five counties on the western side of Maryland due to political differences with the more liberal central part of the state.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/22/editorial-a-scramble-for-statehood/ |title=EDITORIAL: A scramble for statehood |newspaper=The Washington Times |date=August 22, 2013 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325101403/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/22/editorial-a-scramble-for-statehood/ |archive-date=March 25, 2014 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
* '''Florida''': The secession of [[South Florida]] and the [[Greater Miami]] area to form a state named ''[[South Florida]]''. The region has a population of over 7 million, comprising 41% of [[Florida]]'s population.<ref name="sun-sentinel.com">{{cite web |last=Huriash |first=Lisa J. |url=http://www.sun-sentinel.com/services/newspaper/printedition/local/sfl-flbnewstate0507pnmay07,0,5061314.story |title=North Lauderdale wants to split Florida into two states |publisher=Sun Sentinel |date=May 6, 2008 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202125604/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/services/newspaper/printedition/local/sfl-flbnewstate0507pnmay07,0,5061314.story |archive-date=February 2, 2014 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>
* '''Illinois''': 
** The secession of [[Cook County, Illinois|Cook County]], which contains [[Chicago]], to form a separate state, proposed by residents of the more conservative [[Downstate Illinois]] to free it from the political influence of the heavily liberal Chicago area.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/bill-mitchell-illinois-st_n_1108767.html|date=November 22, 2011|work=HuffPost|access-date=July 11, 2011|first=Joseph|last=Erbentraut|title=Bill Mitchell, Illinois State Representative, Proposes Separating Cook County From Rest Of State (POLL)|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111125005306/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/bill-mitchell-illinois-st_n_1108767.html|archive-date=November 25, 2011|df=mdy-all}}</ref> 
** The secession of [[Southern Illinois]] from the rest of the state, south of Springfield, with [[Mount Vernon, Illinois|Mt. Vernon]] as the proposed capital.<ref name=southIllinois>{{cite news |url=https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2022-12-15/group-pushing-secession-from-illinois-says-madison-county-is-a-key-target |title=Group pushing secession from Illinois says Madison County is a key target |date=December 15, 2022 |first=Will |last=Bauer |access-date=June 4, 2024 |work=St. Louis Public Radio |publisher=NPR}}</ref><ref name=vernonCapital>{{cite web |url=https://thesouthern.com/opinion/editorial/voice-of-the-southern-thumbs-up-to-more-air-travel/article_c94afcd0-5c2d-5722-86c6-d6ad5894129f.html |title=Voice of The Southern: Thumbs up to more air travel possibilities, thumbs down to seceding idea |work=Voices of the Southern |date=August 23, 2019 |access-date=June 4, 2024}}</ref>
** The secession of sixteen counties in Western Illinois to form the state of [[Forgottonia]], with its capital in the small hamlet of [[Fandon, Illinois|Fandon]].<ref name=voice>{{cite web |url=http://www.mcdonoughvoice.com/news/x1882987122/When-we-seceded-Remembering-Forgottonia |title=When we seceded: Remembering Forgottonia |publisher=McDonough County Voice |date=December 28, 2010 |author=Nathan Woodside |access-date=July 8, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130128145141/http://www.mcdonoughvoice.com/news/x1882987122/When-we-seceded-Remembering-Forgottonia |archive-date=January 28, 2013 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref name="Forgottonia">{{Cite web|url=http://www.history.com/shows/how-the-states-got-their-shapes/episodes/how-the-states-got-their-shapes-episode-guide|title=How the States Got Their Shapes Full Episodes, Video & More – HISTORY|accessdate=February 11, 2024}}</ref>
* '''Michigan''': The secession of the geographically separate and culturally distinct Upper Peninsula of Michigan from the Lower Peninsula, as a state called [[Superior (proposed U.S. state)|Superior]].
* '''Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming''': The secession of various rural parts of the aforementioned states to form a new state called [[Absaroka (proposed state)|Absaroka]], its capital would have been [[Sheridan, Wyoming]].<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Jacobs |first=Frank |date=July 23, 2010 |title=Absaroka, a State of Rebellion Against FDR's New Deal |url=https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/301-look-at-the-state-youre-in-absaroka/ |access-date=2022-11-14 |website=Big Think |language=en-US}}</ref>

[[File:Flag of Long Island.svg|thumb|An interpretation of a proposed flag of Long Island]]
* '''New York''': Various proposals [[Partition and secession in New York|partitioning]] [[New York (state)|New York]] into separate states, most of which involve to some degree [[New York City: the 51st State|the separation of New York City]] from the rest of the state.<ref name="nyc">{{cite magazine|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942073,00.html|title=New York: Mailer for Mayor|date=June 12, 1969|magazine=Time|access-date=June 3, 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101116201031/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942073,00.html|archive-date=November 16, 2010|df=mdy-all}}</ref> There have also been [[Long Island (proposed state)|proposals]] to separate [[Long Island]] into a state.
* '''Texas''': Under the resolution by which the [[Republic of Texas]] was admitted to the Union and the state constitution, it has the right to divide itself into up to five states. There were a significant number of Texans who supported dividing the state in its early decades, called [[Texas divisionism|divisionists]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/natuz.htm#vanzandt |title=Footnotes to History: van Zandt |publisher=Buckyogi.com |date=January 1, 1994 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120309042828/http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/natuz.htm |archive-date=March 9, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp |title=Urban Legends Reference Pages: Texas Dividing into Five States |website=Snopes.com |date=July 24, 2003 |access-date=March 24, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.texasescapes.com/MikeCoxTexasTales/211Texas-County-Seats-and-Counties-Name-Confusion.htm |title=Texas Cities and Counties Name and Location Confusion |publisher=Texasescapes.com |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130801234012/http://www.texasescapes.com/MikeCoxTexasTales/211Texas-County-Seats-and-Counties-Name-Confusion.htm |archive-date=August 1, 2013 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Texas politics and self-image suggest that disrupting Texas' status as the largest state by land area in the contiguous United States is unlikely.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/natuz.htm#vanzandt |title=Footnotes to History- U to Z |publisher=Buckyogi.com |date=January 1, 1994 |access-date=March 29, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120309042828/http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/natuz.htm |archive-date=March 9, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp |title=Urban Legends Reference Pages: Texas Dividing into Five States |website=Snopes.com |date=July 24, 2003 |access-date=March 29, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.texasescapes.com/MikeCoxTexasTales/211Texas-County-Seats-and-Counties-Name-Confusion.htm |title=Texas Cities and Counties Name and Location Confusion |publisher=Texasescapes.com |access-date=March 29, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120306200509/http://www.texasescapes.com/MikeCoxTexasTales/211Texas-County-Seats-and-Counties-Name-Confusion.htm |archive-date=March 6, 2012 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

[[File:Flag_of_Lincoln_State.svg|thumb|An interpretation of a proposed flag for Lincoln]]
* '''Washington''': Dividing the state into [[Western Washington]] and [[Eastern Washington]] via the [[Cascade Mountains]]. Suggested names include East Washington, [[Lincoln (Northwest state)|Lincoln]], [[Cascadia (independence movement)|Cascadia]], and more recently, [[State of Liberty|Liberty]]. Territory for Lincoln would have also included part of '''Idaho'''.
* The [[National Movement for the Establishment of a 49th State]], founded by [[Oscar Brown Sr.]] and Bradley Cyrus, and active in Chicago between 1934 and 1937, had the aim of forming an African-American state in the South.<ref name="Aptheker1974">{{cite book|last=Aptheker|first=Herbert|title=A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States: 1933–1945|volume=IV: N–J|date=December 1, 1974|publisher=Citadel Press|pages=84–86}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|last=Llorens|first=David|magazine=Ebony|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ndsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA89|access-date=March 21, 2012|date=September 1968|page=89|title=Black Separatism in Perspective|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140107204220/http://books.google.com/books?id=ndsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA89|archive-date=January 7, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

==International use==
Some countries, because of their cultural similarities and close alliances with the United States, are sometimes described as a 51st state. In other countries around the world, movements with various degrees of support and seriousness have proposed U.S. statehood.

=== Canada ===
{{Main|Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States|War Plan Red}}
[[File:BlankMap-USA-states-Canada-provinces.svg|thumb|U.S. states and Canadian provinces and territories]]
In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be little more than a part of the United States. Examples include the [[Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement]] in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and the potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of [[Quebec sovereignty movement|Quebec sovereignty]], the [[Charlottetown Accord]] in 1992 and the [[Clarity Act]] in 1999.

The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in [[polemic]] writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians in public, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. In the [[1988 Canadian federal election|1988 federal election]], the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberals]] asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada<ref>{{cite web |last=Azzi |first=Stephen |date=2015-09-02 |title=Election of 1988 |url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/election-1988-feature |website=The Canadian Encyclopedia |publisher=Historica Canada |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241203011644/https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/election-1988-feature |archive-date=2024-12-03 |access-date=2025-01-30}}</ref>{{snd}}the party ran an ad in which [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada|Progressive Conservative]] (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Shannon Proudfoot |date=September 25, 2008 |title=Tories ahead in tepid pool of election ads |url=http://election.globaltv.com/analysisdetail.aspx?sectionid=221&postid=48029 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120321202119/http://election.globaltv.com/analysisdetail.aspx?sectionid=221&postid=48029 |archive-date=March 21, 2012 |work=[[Global Television Network|Global News]]}}</ref> Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back ''on'' with a permanent marker.<ref>Carolyn Ryan, [http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/analysiscommentary/negativeads.html "The true north, strong and negative"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100421152239/http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/analysiscommentary/negativeads.html|date=April 21, 2010}}. [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation]], 2006.</ref>

The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup of [[British America]] during the [[American Revolution]]. The colonies that had confederated to form the United States, invaded [[the Canadas|Canada]] (then a term referring specifically to [[Upper Canada]] and [[Lower Canada]], now the modern-day provinces of [[Quebec]] and [[Ontario]], which had only been in British hands since [[Treaty of Paris (1763)|1763]]) several times, specifically the [[Invasion of Quebec (1775)|invasion of Quebec in 1775]] and [[Western theater of the American Revolutionary War|1778–1782]]. The first invasion occurred in 1775–1776 mainly across the Canadian side of the [[Lake Champlain]] and [[Saint Lawrence River|St.&nbsp;Lawrence&nbsp;River]] valleys, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with the [[Franco-American alliance]] would make them natural allies to the American cause; the [[Continental Army]] successfully recruited [[2nd Canadian Regiment|two Canadian regiments]] for the invasion. That invasion's failure forced the members of those regiments into exile, and they settled mostly in [[upstate New York]]. However, the Continental Army was more successful in the Western theater in lands north of the [[Ohio Valley]] and south of the [[Great Lakes region]], both of which were part of Canada. The [[Articles of Confederation]], written during the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would.<ref>[[wikisource:Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union#Article_11|Articles of Confederation, Article XI]]</ref> At the end of the Revolution, the U.S. took portions of Canadian territory of what is now present day [[Illinois]], [[Indiana]], [[Michigan]], [[Ohio]], [[Wisconsin]], and parts of [[Minnesota]] in accordance to the [[Treaty of Paris (1783)|Treaty of Paris in 1783]]. The U.S. again [[Invasion of Canada (1812)|invaded Canada]] during the [[War of 1812]], but this effort was made more difficult due to the wide use of ill-equipped [[Militia (United States)|state militias]] and owing to the large number of [[United Empire Loyalist|Loyalists]] that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic. The [[Hunter Patriot]]s in the 1830s and the [[Fenian raids]] after the [[American Civil War]] were private attacks on Canada from the U.S.<ref>{{cite web |date=September 15, 2001 |title=The Fenian Raids |url=http://www.doyle.com.au/fenian_raids.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120404161321/http://www.doyle.com.au/fenian_raids.htm |archive-date=April 4, 2012 |access-date=March 29, 2012 |publisher=Doyle.com.au |df=mdy-all}}</ref> Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favor of annexing Canada,<ref name="J.L. Granatstein, Norman Hillmer 1991">J.L. Granatstein, Norman Hillmer. ''For Better or For Worse, Canada and the United States to the 1990s''. Mississauga: Copp Clark Pitman, 1991.</ref> as did Canadian politician [[William Lyon Mackenzie]], who set up a rogue [[Republic of Canada]] on a small island near the U.S. border during the [[Upper Canada Rebellion]].

In the United States, the term "the 51st state" when applied to Canada can serve to highlight the similarities and close relationship between the United States and Canada. Most of the time the term is used disparagingly, intended to deride Canada as an unimportant neighbor.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Skolnik |first=Amy |date=May 1989 |title=The U.S. – Canada free trade agreement: A model for Finland? |url=https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/211540 |journal=Bank of Finland Discussion Papers |pages=14 |via=[[Google Scholar]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Zheng |first1=Chengda |last2=Xue |first2=Jia |last3=Sun |first3=Yumin |last4=Zhu |first4=Tingshao |date=February 23, 2021 |title=Public Opinions and Concerns Regarding the Canadian Prime Minister's Daily COVID-19 Briefing: Longitudinal Study of YouTube Comments Using Machine Learning Techniques |journal=[[Journal of Medical Internet Research]] |language=en |volume=23 |issue=2 |pages=e23957 |doi=10.2196/23957 |issn=1438-8871 |pmc=7903980 |pmid=33544690 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 

==== Donald Trump's proposals for Canadian annexation ====
{{main|2024–2025 proposals for Canadian annexation to the United States}}
[[File:USA Canada and Greenland first level political division.svg|thumb|Trump's Mar-a-Lago comments involve territorial changes including Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Causing widespread international discussions, he seemed to suggest Canada would enter as at least two states 51 and 52, with the status of Greenland and Panama unclear. Canada has 10 provinces and three territories. The United States has 50 states and 5 habituated territories. Greenland is a division of Denmark.]]

In December 2024, then-[[President-elect of the United States|President-elect]] [[Donald Trump]] suggested Canada consider becoming the 51st U.S. state, during talks with then-[[Prime Minister of Canada|Prime Minister]] [[Justin Trudeau]] over proposed tariffs and border security at [[Mar-a-Lago]]. He later referred to Trudeau as "[[Governor (United States)|Governor]] Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada".<ref name="auto22">{{Cite web |title=Trump takes jab at 'governor' Trudeau |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgx1ezpx52o |access-date=2024-12-12 |website=www.bbc.com |date=December 10, 2024 |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ray |first=Siladitya |title=Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Reportedly Set To Resign This Week{{snd}}Here's What To Know |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2025/01/06/canadian-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-reportedly-set-to-resign-this-week-heres-what-to-know/ |access-date=2025-01-06 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref> This was initially taken as a joke, with Ontario Premier [[Doug Ford]] joking on [[Fox News]] that this was Trump's attempt at revenge for the [[War of 1812]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ford appears on Fox News joking Trump tariff threat is retribution for War of 1812 &#124; Globalnews.ca |url=https://globalnews.ca/news/10903501/doug-ford-fox-news-appearence/ |website=Global News}}</ref>

Trump continued to refer to Trudeau as "Governor", even after he resigned from office, and repeatedly declared his desire for Canadian annexation throughout his first 100 days in office, including while proposing major tariffs on the Canadian economy.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-12-26 |title=Trump wishes Christmas to 'radical left lunatics'; offers tax cuts to '51st US state' Canada |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/trump-wishes-christmas-to-radical-left-lunatics-offers-tax-cuts-to-51st-us-state-canada-101735163794902.html |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20241226005313/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/trump-wishes-christmas-to-radical-left-lunatics-offers-tax-cuts-to-51st-us-state-canada-101735163794902.html |archive-date=2024-12-26 |access-date=2025-01-06 |work=Hindustan Times |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Read the Full Transcript of Trump’s ‘100 Days’ Interview |url=https://time.com/7280114/donald-trump-2025-interview-transcript/ |website=TIME |language=en |date=25 April 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Crawley |first=Mike |date=January 6, 2025 |title=Trump responds to Trudeau resignation by suggesting Canada merge with U.S. |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-resigns-us-donald-trump-tariffs-1.7423756 |access-date=7 January 2025 |work=[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=GILLIES |first1=ROB |title=Trump's trade war and annexation threats have upended Canada's election |url=https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/trumps-trade-war-and-annexation-threats-have-upended-canadas-election/KHVLUI3K7RBHNCCWIQ47JFLJXQ/ |website=The Atlanta Journal-Constitution |language=English}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Schneid |first1=Rebecca |title=Does Trump Plan to Annex Canada? Secretary Rubio Speaks Out |url=https://time.com/7280793/does-trump-plan-to-annex-canada-marco-rubio-51st-state-comments/ |website=TIME |language=en |date=27 April 2025}}</ref> He quipped that NHL legend [[Wayne Gretzky]] should run to become the Governor of an annexed Canada.<ref name=":12">{{Cite news |date=Dec 26, 2024 |title=Donald Trump mocks Justin Trudeau by offering Canada to become '51st US state': 'Your country can't survive without…' |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/donald-trump-mocks-justin-trudeau-by-offering-canada-to-become-51st-us-state-your-country-cant-survive-without-101735175917954.html |work=[[Hindustan Times]]}}</ref>

Trump's comments reignited pre-existing discourse on U.S.-Canadian union. Canadian author [[Don Tapscott]] was among those who considered the logistics of a full merger, in which Canada would need to be composed of 13 states or territories. (Trump had suggested that Canada would enter the Union as just two states, one more conservative, one more liberal.)<ref>[https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-joked-canada-could-avoid-113555259.html Trump joked Canada could avoid tariffs by becoming 51st US state, says report James Liddell Tue, December 3, 2024 at 6:35 AM EST]</ref> Effects would include Ontario becoming the fifth largest state in the USA with 16 million residents, a potential absorption of Canadian healthcare into the U.S. system, and regional differences for Canadian programs including women's healthcare, paid parental leave for men and women, gun control, campaign finance, standardized education funding, and a more pro-refugee immigration stance.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://fortune.com/2025/01/08/trump-canada-us-merger-51st-state/ | title=I'm a Canadian listening to Trump. Let's talk about 'the 51st state' }}</ref>

==== Opinion polling ====

===== Canadian polling =====
Since Donald Trump's comments on his support of annexing Canada, there have been a number of opinion polls conducted asking Canadians on their opinion of the proposal. The responses from Canadians have been overwhelmingly against Canada joining the United States as the 51st state.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Polls asking Canadian Citizens
! colspan="6" |Should Canada join the United States of America as the 51st state
|-
!Date
!Pollster/Company
!Yes
!No
!Unsure
|-
|24 Mar 2025
|[[Léger (company)|Léger]]<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-03-24 |title=Trump Tariffs Tracker |url=https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Trump_Tariffs_Tracking_March_24th-2025_CAN-US_EN.pdf |access-date=2025-05-03 |website=Leger |language=en-CA}}</ref>
|9%
|style="background: #FFCDCD;"|'''85%'''
|5%
|-
|3 Mar 2025
|[[Léger (company)|Léger]]<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-03-24 |title=Trump Tariffs Tracker |url=https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Trump_Tariffs_Tracking_March_24th-2025_CAN-US_EN.pdf |access-date=2025-05-03 |website=Leger |language=en-CA}}</ref>
|9%
|style="background: #FFCDCD;"|'''85%'''
|6%
|-
|17 Jan 2025
|[[Abacus Data]]<ref>{{Cite web |last=Coletto |first=David |date=2025-01-17 |title=Abacus Data Poll: 1 in 4 Canadians are either open to consider or definitely want Canada to join the United States |url=https://abacusdata.ca/trump-tariffs-canada-51ststate-polling/ |access-date=2025-01-25 |website=Abacus Data |language=en-CA}}</ref>
|22%
|style="background: #FFCDCD;"|'''71%'''
|8%
|-
|16 Jan 2025
|[[Ipsos]]<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-16 |title=Four in ten (43%) Canadians age 18-34 would vote to be American if citizenship and conversion of assets to USD guaranteed {{!}} Ipsos |url=https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/43-percent-canadians-would-vote-be-american-if-citizenship-and-conversion-assets-usd-guaranteed |access-date=2025-01-25 |website=www.ipsos.com |language=en-ca}}</ref>
|20%
|style="background: #FFCDCD;"|'''80%'''
|rowspan="2" {{N/A}}
|-
|14 Jan 2025
|[[Angus Reid (entrepreneur)|Angus Reid]]<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Reid |first=Angus |date=2025-01-14 |title=Canada as 51st State? Four-in-five Americans say a merger should be up to Canadians; 90% of us say 'no' - |url=https://angusreid.org/canada-51st-state-trump/ |access-date=2025-01-25 |website=angusreid.org |language=en-US}}</ref>
|10%
|style="background: #FFCDCD;"|'''90%'''
|-
|10 Dec 2024
|[[Léger (company)|Léger]]<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-12-10 |title=Leger poll suggests 13% of Canadians think Canada should become the 51st American state |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-leger-poll-suggests-13-of-canadians-think-canada-should-become-the/ |access-date=2025-01-25 |work=The Globe and Mail |language=en-CA}}</ref>
|13%
|style="background: #FFCDCD;"|'''82%'''
|5%
|}

===== American polling =====
Some polls have also been conducted asking American opinions on Canada being annexed as the 51st state. An Angus Reid poll reported 49% of Americans opposing the proposal and 25% supporting it, with 26% being unsure.<ref name=":1" />

==== Alberta ====
{{Main|Alberta separatism and annexationism}}
{{Multiple image
| total_width       = 350
| image1            = Albertan secessionist flag (2023).svg
| image2            = Seal of the Albertan Annexationists.svg
| caption1          = Albertan secessionist flag with the addition of a lone star<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-06-06 |title=Alberta 51 |url=https://www.alberta51.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200606003856/https://www.alberta51.com/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=2020-06-06 |access-date=2025-01-20 }}</ref>
| caption2          = Albertan seal promoted by Annexationists<ref>{{Cite web |last=admin |title=Alberta-51 Referendum News|url=https://americanuckradio.com/breaking-news/memo-to-alberta-voters/ |access-date=2025-01-21 |website=Americanuck Radio |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Homepage of the AB51 Project|url=https://www.ab51project.com/ |access-date=2025-01-21 |website=The Ab51 Project |language=en}}</ref>
}}

One example of a Canadian annexation movement is in the province of Alberta.<ref>{{cite web |date=June 20, 2024 |title=6 Places That Could Soon Become U.S. States |url=https://dailypassport.com/places-that-could-become-51st-state/}}</ref> In the 21st century, an Alberta51 separatist project was founded and gained some media attention.<ref>{{cite web |title=What is the Alberta 51 Project{{snd}}Hard-Right Canadian Separatist Group Gaining Steam from Fox News |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/05/16/what-is-the-alberta-51-project-hard-right-canadian-separatist-group-gaining-steam-from-fox-news/?sh=34192ebf342a |website=[[Forbes]]}}</ref> American geopolitics expert [[Peter Zeihan]] argued in his book ''The Accidental Superpower'' that the Canadian province of [[Alberta]] would benefit from joining the United States as the 51st state.<ref>{{cite news |title=Alberta would be richer if it shacked up with U.S., argues author {{!}} CBC News |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/peter-zeihan-says-alberta-would-be-better-off-as-51st-u-s-state-1.2998453 |publisher=Canadian Broadcasting Corporation |language=en}}</ref> There is growing support for [[Alberta separatism]] resulting from federal government policies which are believed to be harming the province's ability to build pipelines for the province's oil and gas industry and [[Equalization payments in Canada|federal equalization payments]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Herald |first1=Don Braid |date=12 December 2018 |title=Braid: Talk of Alberta exit is out in the open again {{!}} Financial Post |url=https://business.financialpost.com/news/politics/braid-talk-of-alberta-exit-is-out-in-the-open-again/wcm/1456a335-6bd0-4959-8600-35aec62d441f |newspaper=Financial Post |language=en-CA}}</ref> In a September 2018 poll, 25% of Albertans believed they would be better off separating from Canada and 62% believed they are not getting enough from confederation.<ref>{{cite news |date=8 October 2018 |title=Western Canadians still feel more connected to their province than to country as a whole: Ipsos {{!}} Globalnews.ca |url=https://globalnews.ca/news/4524787/western-canadians-alienation-ipsos/ |work=globalnews.ca |language=en}}</ref> Ever since Trump's proposal on annexing Canada in 2024, interest within the [[Alberta separatism and annexationism|Albertan annexationist movement]] has drawn increased attention within Alberta's political landscape.<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 January 2025 |title=Join the U.S.? No way, say most Canadians surveyed. But nearly a quarter may be open to it |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-join-u-s-poll-1.7434317 |website=CBC}}</ref>

==== Western Canada ====
{{Further|Western alienation|Western Canada Concept|label2=}}
[[File:Western provinces in Canada.svg|thumb|Western provinces]]
In 1980 two members of the [[Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan]], both elected as members of the [[Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan]] (and one, [[Dick Collver]], its former leader), [[crossing the floor|crossed the floor]] to form the [[Unionest Party]], a provincial party in Saskatchewan which advocated that the four provinces of [[Western Canada]] should join the United States. The name was a contraction of "best union." The party soon folded.

==== Newfoundland ====
In the late 1940s, during the last days of the [[Dominion of Newfoundland]] (at the time a separate [[dominion]] in the [[British Empire]] and independent of Canada), there was mainstream support, although not majority, for Newfoundland to form an economic union with the United States, thanks to the efforts of the [[Economic Union Party]] and significant U.S. investment in Newfoundland stemming from the [[Special Relationship|U.S.-British alliance]] in [[World War II]]. The movement ultimately failed when, in a [[1948 Newfoundland referendums|1948 referendum]], voters narrowly chose to confederate with Canada (the Economic Union Party supported an independent "responsible government" that they would then push toward their goals).<ref name="NLH">
{{cite web |date=1997 |title=The 1948 Referendums |url=http://www.heritage.nf.ca/law/referendums.html |access-date=2 August 2009 |work=Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage |publisher=Memorial University of Newfoundland}}
</ref>

==== Quebec ====
In the [[1989 Quebec general election]], the political party [[Parti 51]] ran 11 candidates on a platform of [[Quebec sovereignty movement|Quebec seceding from Canada]] to join the United States (with its leader, André Perron, claiming Quebec could not survive as an independent nation).<ref>{{Citation |title=Parti 51 leaders looks to U.S. for Quebec's future |date=September 20, 1989 |newspaper=The Stanstead Journal |page=2 |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=805&dat=19890920&id=4swtAAAAIBAJ&pg=2296,4152362}}</ref> The party attracted just 3,846 votes across the province, 0.11% of the total votes cast.<ref>{{cite web |title=Annexation in the Modern Context |url=http://www.annexation.ca/awordmoderncontext.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120322052213/http://www.annexation.ca/awordmoderncontext.html |archive-date=March 22, 2012 |access-date=January 24, 2012 |work=Annexation.ca}}</ref> In comparison, the principal party in favor of Quebec sovereignty in that election, the [[Parti Québécois]], got 40.16%.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-11-25 |title=Résultats des élections générales |url=https://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/resultats-et-statistiques/resultats-generales/1989-09-25/ |access-date=2025-04-30 |website=Élections Québec |language=fr-CA}}</ref>

===Mexico===
In 1847–1848, with the United States' resounding defeat of Mexico and the occupying at the conclusion of the [[Mexican–American War]], there was talk in Congress of [[All of Mexico Movement|annexing the entirety of Mexico]]. The result was the [[Mexican Cession]] through the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]], named for the town in which the treaty was signed, in which the U.S. annexed almost 31% of Mexico. The Mexican Cession consisted of territory that became the states of [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], most of [[Arizona]], the western half of [[New Mexico]], the western quarter of [[Colorado]], and the southwest corner of [[Wyoming]]. The United States would later purchase additional Mexican territory in the [[Gadsden Purchase]] in 1854. In 1848, a bill was debated in Congress that would have annexed the [[Republic of Yucatán]], but there was no vote.<ref>{{cite news|title=Yucatán, USA?|url=http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/07/yucatan-usa/|access-date=May 3, 2017|newspaper=Yucatan Times|date=July 6, 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170710123849/http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/07/yucatan-usa/|archive-date=July 10, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
[[File:Intendencia de yucatán.PNG|thumb|left|Yucatan tried to join the USA in the 1840s.]]

===Central America===
Due to geographical proximity of the Central American countries to the U.S., with its powerful military, economic, and political influences, there were several movements and proposals by the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries to annex some or all of the Central American republics ([[Costa Rica]], [[El Salvador]], [[Guatemala]], [[Honduras]] with the formerly British-ruled Bay Islands, [[Nicaragua]], [[Panama]] which had the U.S.-ruled [[Panama Canal Zone|Canal Zone]] territory from 1903 to 1979, and [[Belize]], which is a constitutional monarchy and was known as [[British Honduras]] until 1973). However, the U.S. never acted on these proposals from some U.S. politicians; some of which were never delivered or considered seriously. In 2001, El Salvador adopted the [[U.S. dollar]] as its currency, while Panama has used it for decades due to its ties to the Canal Zone.

===Cuba===
[[File:Cuba USA Locator.png|thumb|Cuba (''green'') and the United States (''orange'')]]

In 1854, the [[Ostend Manifesto]] outlined a rationale for the U.S. to purchase Cuba from Spain, implying that it might take the island by force if Spain refused. Once the document was published, many Northern states denounced it.

In 1859, [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[John Slidell]] introduced a bill to purchase Cuba from Spain.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=thAwAAAAMAAJ|title=Harper's New Monthly Magazine|volume=XVIII|chapter=Monthly Record of Current Events|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=thAwAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA543|page= 543|publisher=Harper and Brothers|year=1859|isbn=978-0-938214-02-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1859/01/21/78883525.pdf|title=The Cuban Scheme|date=January 21, 1859|work=The New York Times|access-date=January 4, 2009}}</ref>
[[File:94 of 'The War in Cuba- the experiences of an Englishman with the United States army, etc' (11249610194).jpg|thumb|The Spanish-American war of 1898 led to Cuba's independence.]]
Cuba, like many Spanish territories, wanted to break free from Spain. A pro-independence movement in Cuba was supported by the U.S., and Cuban guerrilla leaders wanted annexation to the United States, but Cuban revolutionary leader [[José Martí]] called for Cuban nationhood. When the U.S. battleship ''[[USS Maine (1889)|Maine]]'' sank in Havana Harbor, the U.S. blamed Spain and the [[Spanish–American War]] broke out in 1898. After the U.S. won, Spain relinquished its claim of sovereignty over most of its remaining territories, including Cuba. The U.S. administered Cuba as a [[protectorate]] until 1902.

===Dominica===
In 1898, one news outlet in the Caribbean noted growing sentiments of resentment of British rule in [[Dominica]], including its system of administration. The publication attempted to gauge sentiments concerning annexation to the United States as a way to change this system of administration.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thedominican.net/articlesone/usannex.htm|title=Dominica: The Push for Annexation with the United States|access-date=June 9, 2009|publisher=The Dominican.net|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090706204723/http://www.thedominican.net/articlesone/usannex.htm|archive-date=July 6, 2009|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

===Dominican Republic===
On June 30, 1870, the [[United States Senate]] voted against an [[Proposed annexation of Santo Domingo|annexation treaty]] with the [[Dominican Republic]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm#5|title=U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & Procedures > Treaties|access-date=October 17, 2008|publisher=[[United States Senate]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081015072531/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm#5|archive-date=October 15, 2008|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

===Greenland===
{{main|Proposals for the United States to purchase Greenland}}
[[File:Greenland United States Locator.svg|thumb|300px|A map showing the locations of the United States (orange) and Greenland (green)]]
During [[World War II]], when [[Denmark]] was occupied by [[Nazi Germany]], the United States briefly controlled [[Greenland]] for battlefields and protection, since the nation was in a strategic position. In 1946, the United States offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for {{Currency|100,000,000|USD|linked=no|fmt=commas}} ({{Currency|1600000000|USD|linked=no|fmt=commas}} as of 2024) but Denmark refused to sell.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,778870,00.html?promoid=googlep|title=Deepfreeze Defense |magazine=Time |date=January 27, 1947 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121104060931/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,778870,00.html?promoid=googlep |archive-date=November 4, 2012 |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment050701b.shtml|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041030004804/http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment050701b.shtml|url-status= dead|title=National Review May 7, 2001 "Let's Buy Greenland!&nbsp;– A complete missile-defense plan" By John J. Miller (National Review's National Political Reporter)|website=[[National Review]]|archive-date=October 30, 2004}}</ref> Some have, in recent years, argued that Greenland would hypothetically be better off financially as part of the United States; for instance this was mentioned by Professor Gudmundur Alfredsson at the [[University of Akureyri]], Iceland in 2014.<ref>{{cite web |author=Adam Hannestad |url=http://politiken.dk/oekonomi/dkoekonomi/ECE2190358/13-eksperter-skyder-groenlands-droem-om-selvstaendighed-i-saenk/ |title=13 eksperter skyder Grønlands drøm om selvstændighed i sænk |language=da |work=Politiken |date= January 23, 2014|access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140124075422/http://politiken.dk/oekonomi/dkoekonomi/ECE2190358/13-eksperter-skyder-groenlands-droem-om-selvstaendighed-i-saenk/ |archive-date=January 24, 2014 |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Jan Müller |url=http://oljan.fo/serfrodingar+saa+iva+um+eitt+sjalvstodugt+gronland.html |title=Serfrøðingar sáa iva um eitt sjálvstøðugt Grønland – Føroyski portalurin – portal.fo |publisher=Oljan.fo |date=January 25, 2014 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221155322/http://oljan.fo/serfrodingar+saa+iva+um+eitt+sjalvstodugt+gronland.html#.UwKFl0JdXv0 |archive-date=February 21, 2014 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> One possible reason for U.S. interest in Greenland is its vast natural resources.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.andrewskurth.com/pressroom-publications-1165.html|title=Oil and Gas in Greenland – Still on Ice?|work=andrewskurth.com|access-date=August 12, 2015|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019102737/https://www.andrewskurth.com/pressroom-publications-1165.html|archive-date=October 19, 2015|df=mdy-all}}</ref> According to [[The Arctic Institute – Center for Circumpolar Security Studies|The Arctic Institute]], the U.S. appears to be highly interested in investing in the resources of the island and in tapping the expected vast amount of [[hydrocarbon]]s off the Greenlandic coast.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2011/08/us-interest-will-us-help-greenland-to.html |title=The Arctic Institute – Center for Circumpolar Security Studies |author=Malte Humpert |work=thearcticinstitute.org |access-date=August 12, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150113180223/http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2011/08/us-interest-will-us-help-greenland-to.html |archive-date=January 13, 2015 |df=mdy}}</ref>

===Haiti===
''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' columnist Mark Thompson suggested that [[Haiti]] had effectively become the 51st state after the [[2010 Haiti earthquake]], with the widespread destruction prompting a quick and extensive response from the United States, even so far as stationing of the U.S. military in Haitian air and seaports to facilitate foreign aid.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1953379_1953494_1954326,00.html |title=The U.S. Military in Haiti: A Compassionate Invasion |first=Mark |last=Thompson |date=January 16, 2010 |magazine=Time |location=Washington |access-date=January 18, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100119160129/http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0%2C28804%2C1953379_1953494_1954326%2C00.html |archive-date=January 19, 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Guyana===
{{Multiple image
| total_width       = 350
| image1            = Flag of Guyana, USA.svg
| image2            = Flag of Guyana, USA (pre–2019).svg
| caption1          = Flag of the Guyana, USA movement. It is based on the design of the current [[flag of Guyana]], albeit with the red-white-blue colour scheme of the U.S. flag. The star was added in 2019.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.guyanausa.org/flag/ |title=Guyana, USA - Our Flag |author= |date= |work=guyanausa.org |access-date=30 March 2025}}</ref>
| caption2          = Former flag of the Guyana, USA movement, prior to the addition of the star<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guyanausa.org/Flag.htm |title=Guyana, USA - The New Flag |author= |date= |work=guyanausa.org |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190624225654/http://www.guyanausa.org/Flag.htm |access-date=30 March 2025 |archive-date=24 June 2019}}</ref>
}}

In [[Guyana]], there is a fringe group named "Guyana, USA", which seeks for the incorporation of the country into the United States, whether as a new state or territory.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.guyanausa.org/ |title=Guyana, USA |author= |date= |work=guyanausa.org |access-date=30 March 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://icdn.today/guyana-should-consider-becoming-a-territory-of-usa/ |title=Guyana should consider becoming a territory of USA |author=Dr. Vishnu Bisram |date=7 February 2025 |work=Indo Caribbean Diaspora News |access-date=30 March 2025}}</ref>

===Albania===
[[Albania]] has been called the 51st state for its perceived strongly pro-American positions, and the United States' [[Albania–United States relations|policies towards it]].<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Thrall|first=Nathan|title=Albania, the Muslim World's Most Pro-American State|magazine=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|date=September 4, 2009|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/features/2009/albania_the_muslim_worlds_most_proamerican_state/americas_51st_state.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130317074451/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/dispatches/features/2009/albania_the_muslim_worlds_most_proamerican_state/americas_51st_state.html|archive-date=March 17, 2013|df=mdy-all}}</ref> In reference to President [[George W. Bush]]'s 2007 European tour, [[Edi Rama]], [[Tirana]]'s mayor and leader of the opposition Socialists, said: "Albania is for sure the most pro-American country in Europe, maybe even in the world ... Nowhere else can you find such respect and hospitality for the President of the United States. Even in Michigan, he wouldn't be as welcome." At the time of ex-Secretary of State [[James Baker]]'s visit in 1992, there was a move to hold a referendum declaring the country as the 51st American state.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Pro-U.S. Albania set to roll out the red carpet for Bush|author=Craig S. Smith|date=June 8, 2007|work=International Herald Tribune|url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/08/frontpage/albania.php | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080209004242/http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/08/frontpage/albania.php| archive-date=February 9, 2008 }}</ref><ref name="WSJstates">{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304510004575185973863870474|title=Altered States|author=Michael J. Trinklein|date=April 17, 2010|work=The Wall Street Journal|access-date=April 19, 2010|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141229143518/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304510004575185973863870474|archive-date=December 29, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref> In addition to Albania, [[Kosovo]] (which is predominately Albanian) is seen as a 51st state due to the heavy presence and influence of the United States. The U.S. has had troops and the largest base outside U.S. territory, [[Camp Bondsteel]], in the territory since 1999.{{Citation needed|date=January 2025}}

===Cartagena (Spain)===
In 1873, the leader of the [[Canton of Cartagena]], [[Roque Barcia]], requested that [[Cartagena, Spain|Cartagena]] become part of the United States in a letter to President [[Ulysses S. Grant]]. The Canton of Cartagena had emerged in the same year as [[Cantonal Rebellion|a revolt]] against the [[First Spanish Republic]]. The United States Government never replied.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.elmundo.es/papel/cultura/2018/11/16/5beda229e2704e086f8b46f1.html|title=Cuando Madrid fue la capital de Armenia... y Cartagena quiso unirse a EEUU|first=Jorge|last=Benítez|newspaper=[[El Mundo (Spain)|El Mundo]]|date=16 November 2018|language=es}}</ref>

===Denmark===
In 1989, the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' published that [[Denmark]] becomes the 51st state every [[Independence Day (United States)|Fourth of July]], because Danish citizens in and around [[Aalborg]] celebrate the American Independence Day in a small gathering called the [[Rebild Festival]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Denmark Becomes 51st State Every Fourth of July|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-07-02-tr-4522-story.html|access-date=July 4, 2011|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|date=July 2, 1989|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113051355/http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-02/travel/tr-4522_1_united-states|archive-date=January 13, 2012|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

===Poland===
Poland has historically been staunchly [[Poland&nbsp;– United States relations|pro-American]], dating to General [[Tadeusz Kościuszko]] and [[Casimir Pulaski]]'s support of the [[American Revolution]]. This pro-American stance was reinforced following favorable American intervention in World War I (leading to the creation of an [[Second Polish Republic|independent Poland]]) and the Cold War (culminating in a Polish state independent of Soviet influence). Poland contributed a large force to the "[[Coalition of the willing (Iraq War)|Coalition of the Willing]]" in Iraq. A quote referring to Poland as "the 51st state" has been attributed to [[James Pavitt]], then [[Central Intelligence Agency]] [[Deputy Director for Operations]], especially in connection to [[extraordinary rendition]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html|title=Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation|work=The New York Times|first=Scott|last=Shane|date=June 22, 2008|page=[https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html?pagewanted=4 4]|access-date=April 23, 2010| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090417091407/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html| archive-date=April 17, 2009| url-status= live}}</ref>

===Italy===
The [[Italian Unionist Movement]] was a political party briefly active during and after [[World War II]], with the goal of an [[annexation]] of Italy to the United States.<ref>{{Cite news |date=13 October 1947 |title=Want Italy 49th State |pages=19 |work=The Spokesman-Review |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/50892486/want-italy-49th-state/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200513215118/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/50892486/want-italy-49th-state/ |archive-date=13 May 2020 |via=[[Newspapers.com]]}}</ref>

In [[Sicily]], the Party of Reconstruction was one of several [[Sicilian nationalist]] and separatist movements active after the downfall of [[Italian Fascism]]. [[Sicilians]] felt neglected or underrepresented by the Italian government after the annexation of 1861 that ended the rule of the [[Kingdom of the Two Sicilies]] based in [[Naples]]. It claimed 40,000 members in 1944, and campaigned for Sicily to be admitted as a U.S. state.<ref>{{cite book |title=Separatism, the Allies and the Mafia: The Struggle for Sicilian Independence, 1943–1948|last= Finkelstein|first=Monte S.|year=1998|publisher=[[Lehigh University]] Press|location=Bethlehem, PA|page =78|isbn=978-0-934223-51-5}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
[[File:Europe-UK (orthographic projection).svg|thumb|Location of the United Kingdom]]
The [[United Kingdom]] has sometimes been called "the 51st state" due to the [[Special Relationship]] in [[United Kingdom–United States relations]], particularly since the close cooperation between [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and [[Winston Churchill]] during World War II, and more recently during the premierships of [[Margaret Thatcher]] and [[Tony Blair]].<ref name="Promo">{{cite web |url=http://promomagazine.com/othertactics/marketing_st_state/ |title=51st State? – Promotional marketing industry similarities between America and England |publisher=Promo Magazine|website=promomagazine.com |access-date=August 31, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080905184558/http://promomagazine.com/othertactics/marketing_st_state/ |archive-date=September 5, 2008 |first=Larry |last=Jaffee|year=2008}}</ref>

In the 1960s, prior to the accession of the United Kingdom to the [[European Economic Community]] (as it was then), [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] [[Harold Wilson]] reportedly held informal discussions with [[President of the United States|US President]] [[Lyndon Johnson]] about the possibility of the UK becoming America's 51st state.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Little |first1=Alison |title=`Wilson wanted UK to be US state' |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/wilson-wanted-uk-to-be-us-state-1075874.html |website=independent.co.uk |publisher=The Independent |access-date=11 May 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211225222836/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/wilson-wanted-uk-to-be-us-state-1075874.html |archive-date=25 December 2021 |location=London |date=24 January 1999 |url-status=live}}</ref>

In an April 5, 1999 article in ''[[Forbes]]'', historian [[Paul Johnson (writer)|Paul Johnson]] proposed that, as an alternative to the [[European Union]], the UK should become ten states (one each for Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, with England divided into seven). He went on to suggest that then Canada (as one state per province), Australia, and New Zealand should also join this expanded United States.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Johnson |first1=Paul |authorlink=Paul Johnson (writer)|title=Why Britain Should Join America |url=https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0405/6307082a.html?sh=2965385c6299 |work=Forbes |access-date=16 August 2023|year=1999}}</ref>

In a 2011 column in ''[[The Times]]'', journalist [[David Aaronovitch]] joked that the UK should consider joining the United States as its 51st state, because [[Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom]] and [[Brexit]] would otherwise lead to terminal decline. He also made an alternative case that [[England]], [[Scotland]], and [[Wales]] should be three separate states, with [[Northern Ireland]] joining the [[Republic of Ireland]] and becoming an [[United Ireland|all-Ireland]] state.<ref>{{cite web |first=David |last=Aaronovitch |author-link=David Aaronovitch |title=Goodbye, Europe, a New World awaits us: Not being in the EU doesn't mean not being in anything. So let's rejoin America, a land where we can truly be free |page=23 |date=2011-12-29|url=https://www.thetimes.com/comment/register/article/goodbye-europe-a-new-world-awaits-us-0s8vxk8dr5x|website=[[The Times]]|location=London|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302110027/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goodbye-europe-a-new-world-awaits-us-0s8vxk8dr5x|archive-date=2021-03-02}}</ref>

The UK band [[New Model Army (band)|New Model Army]] released the song "[[51st State (song)|51st State]]" in 1986. The lyrics facetiously refer to the "Star Spangled Union Jack" and describes the UK as culturally and politically dominated by the United States.<ref name=nma>{{cite web |title=51st State |url=https://www.newmodelarmy.org/the-music/lyrics/87-51st-state |website=newmodelarmy.org|publisher=[[New Model Army (band)|New Model Army]]|quote=Here in the land of opportunity, watch us revel in our liberty. You can say what you like but it doesn't change anything, because the corridors of power are an ocean away. We're the 51st state of America |last=Cartwright|first=Ashley|year=1986|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200922112230/https://www.newmodelarmy.org/the-music/lyrics/87-51st-state|archivedate=2020-09-22}}</ref> The song "Heartland" by [[The The]] from the same year ends with the refrain "This is the 51st state of the U.S.A."<ref>{{Cite web |title=The The – Heartland Lyrics |url=https://genius.com/The-the-heartland-lyrics |access-date=2025-05-27 |website=genius.com}}</ref>

=== Ukraine ===
During the [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] congresswoman [[Marjorie Taylor Greene]] controversially referred to Ukrainian president [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]] as a "shadow president (of the [[United States]])", remarking that [[Ukraine]] was also the "51st state" due to the "insane amount" of [[United States and the Russian invasion of Ukraine|American support for Ukraine]] in the war.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Marjorie Taylor Greene attacks plans for Ukraine's president to visit Congress, calling Zelenskyy the 'shadow president' and Ukraine the '51st state' |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-attacks-plans-for-ukraines-president-to-visit-congress-calling-zelenskyy-the-shadow-president-and-ukraine-the-51st-state/ar-AA15wC6l |access-date=2022-12-23 |publisher=MSN |language=en-US}}</ref>

===Australia===
In Australia, the term '51st state' is used to disparage the perceived invasion of American cultural or political influence.<ref>e.g.: {{cite web|url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17218.htm|title=Australia: the new 51st state|author=John Pilger|date=January 2, 2007|publisher=informationclearinghouse.info; first published at the New Statesman|access-date=January 11, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080113225353/http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17218.htm|archive-date=January 13, 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===New Zealand===
In 2010, there was an attempt to register a ''51st State Party'' with the New Zealand Electoral Commission. The party advocates New Zealand becoming the 51st state of the United States of America. The party's secretary is Paulus Telfer, a former [[Christchurch]] mayoral candidate.<ref name=logoapp/><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/your-vote-07/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501264&objectid=10469781&pnum=0 |title=Your Vote 07&nbsp;– The results |work=The New Zealand Herald |date=October 14, 2007 |access-date=February 25, 2010}}</ref> On February 5, 2010, the party applied to register a logo with the Electoral Commission.<ref name=logoapp>{{cite web|url=http://www.elections.org.nz/news/application-to-register-51st-state-party-logo.html |title=Application to register political party logo |publisher=Electoral Commission |date=February 5, 2010 |access-date=February 25, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100522040751/http://www.elections.org.nz/news/application-to-register-51st-state-party-logo.html |archive-date=May 22, 2010 }}</ref> The logo{{snd}}a U.S. flag with 51 stars{{snd}}was rejected by the Electoral Commission on the grounds that it was likely to cause confusion or mislead electors.<ref>{{cite web|title=Application to register political party logo refused |publisher=New Zealand Electoral Commission |url=http://www.elections.org.nz/study/news/application-to-register-political-party-logo.html |date=June 4, 2010 |access-date=November 22, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101225022108/http://www.elections.org.nz/study/news/application-to-register-political-party-logo.html |archive-date=December 25, 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Okinawa (Japan)===
In Article 3 of the [[Treaty of San Francisco]] between the Allied Powers and Japan, which came into force in April 1952, the U.S. put the outlying islands of the [[Ryukyu Islands|Ryukyus]], including the island of [[Okinawa Prefecture|Okinawa]] (home to over one million [[Ryukyuan people|Okinawans]] related to the Japanese), the [[Bonin Islands]], and the [[Volcano Islands]] (including [[Iwo Jima]]) into [[United Nations Trusteeship Council|U.S. trusteeship]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 8, 1951 |title=San Francisco Peace Treaty |url=http://www.uni-erfurt.de/ostasiatische_geschichte/texte/japan/dokumente/19/19510908_treaty.htm |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080229135004/http://www.uni-erfurt.de/ostasiatische_geschichte/texte/japan/dokumente/19/19510908_treaty.htm |archivedate=February 29, 2008 |publisher=Universität Efurt}} (came into force on April 28, 1952).</ref> All these trusteeships were slowly returned to Japanese rule. Okinawa was returned on May 15, 1972, but the U.S. stations [[United States Forces Japan|troops]] in the island's bases as a defense for Japan. The continued military presence has been described as a 51st state.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Edward |first1=Pilkington |date=Apr 11, 2000 |title=End of the affair as Okinawa cools to US bases |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/apr/12/5 |access-date=6 December 2024 |work=The Guardian |quote=The writer and Japan expert Murray Sayle calls Okinawa America's 51st state – its aircraft carier.}}</ref>

===Israel and Palestinian territories===
Several sources assert that the [[State of Israel]] functions as a 51st state due to the annual funding, defense and overall support it receives from the [[United States]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Nes |first1=David |title=Israel–The 51st State? |url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-01601R000300300016-2.pdf |access-date=17 January 2025 |work=The New York Times |agency=Central Intelligence Agency |date=5 June 1971}}</ref> An example of this is the 2003 book by [[Martine Rothblatt]] called ''Two Stars for Peace'' that argued for the addition of [[Israel]] and [[State of Palestine|the Palestinian territories]] as the 51st and 52nd states of the Union. ''The American State of Canaan'' is a book by political scientist and sociologist [[Alfred de Grazia]] from March 2009, proposing the creation of the "State of [[Canaan]]" from Israel and Palestine.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Grazia |first=Alfred De |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kJvsXwAACAAJ |title=The American State of Canaan: The Peaceful, Prosperous Juncture of Israel and Palestine as the 51st State of the United States of America |date=2008 |publisher=Metron Publications |isbn=978-1-60377-076-7 |language=en}}</ref>

=== Iran ===
{{Main|Island of Stability (speech)}}

According to Iran's [[Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps|IRGC]] Commander-in-Chief [[Hossein Salami|Salami]], before the [[Iranian Revolution|1979 Iranian revolution]], Iran was practically the 51st state of the United States.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Behnegarsoft.com |date=2023-09-20 |title=تشکیل یک ائتلاف قدرتمند علیه رژیم صهیونیستی |url=https://www.jahannews.com/news/851538/%D8%AA%D8%B4%DA%A9%DB%8C%D9%84-%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AA%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%81-%D9%82%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%B9%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%87-%D8%B1%DA%98%DB%8C%D9%85-%D8%B5%D9%87%DB%8C%D9%88%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA%DB%8C |access-date=2023-09-24 |website=جهان نيوز |language=fa}}</ref> In 1978, [[Jimmy Carter]] traveled to Iran where he famously stated that Iran has become "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world",<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sourati |first=Majid |title='He will rot in hell': Iranians remember Jimmy Carter as 'architect of sanctions' |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/he-will-rot-in-hell-iranians-remember-jimmy-carter-as-architect-of-sanctions/ |access-date=2025-01-06 |website=www.timesofisrael.com |language=en-US}}</ref> even saying that Iran was the country most important for American national interests and when he entered Iran, he felt like it was America's "54th state".<ref>{{cite web |date=4 May 2019 |title=کارتر می‌گفت ایران ایالت پنجاه و چهارم آمریکاست |url=https://farhikhtegandaily.com/news/27601/%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D9%85%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%DA%AF%D9%81%D8%AA-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA-%D9%BE%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%87-%D9%88-%DA%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%85-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA/ |access-date=11 February 2024 |website=farhikhtegandaily.com |language=fa}}</ref>

===Iraq===
[[File:Iraq 51st US State.jpg|thumb|A resident of [[Seattle]], Washington, through a homemade sign, facetiously declares that the Republic of [[Iraq]] is the 51st U.S. state.]]

Several publications suggested that the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] was a [[neocolonialism|neocolonialist]] war to make [[Ba'athist Iraq|Iraq]] into the 51st U.S. state, though such statements are usually made facetiously.<ref>{{cite web |title=Let's make Iraq our 51st state! |url=http://www.our51ststate.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150703100719/http://our51ststate.com/ |archive-date=July 3, 2015 |access-date=August 12, 2015 |work=our51ststate.com |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=November 2002 |title=The Fifty-first State? |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200211/fallows |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080514130953/http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200211/fallows |archive-date=May 14, 2008 |access-date=August 13, 2008 |work=[[The Atlantic]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Matthew Engel |date=March 19, 2003 |title=Iraq, the 51st state |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/19/usa.iraq2 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130827001934/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/19/usa.iraq2 |archive-date=August 27, 2013 |access-date=August 13, 2008 |work=The Guardian |location=London |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Friedman |first=Thomas L. |date=May 4, 2003 |title=Our New Baby |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/opinion/our-new-baby.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120217160815/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/opinion/our-new-baby.html |archive-date=February 17, 2012 |access-date=March 29, 2012 |work=The New York Times |df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Saddam & Osama SNL TV Funhouse cartoon transcript, Iraq as "East Dakota" |url=http://snltranscripts.jt.org/02/02sfunhouse.phtml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030622042321/http://snltranscripts.jt.org/02/02sfunhouse.phtml |archive-date=June 22, 2003 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |publisher=Snltranscripts.jt.org}}</ref>

===Taiwan===
{{Further|Political status of Taiwan|Taiwan independence movement|Taiwan–United States relations}}

A poll in 2003 among [[Taiwan]]ese residents aged between 13 and 22 found that, when given the options of either becoming a province of the People's Republic of [[China]] or a state within the U.S., 55% of the respondents preferred statehood while 36% chose joining China<!-- So, did 9 percent did abstain? -->.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Public Opinion, Market research |url=http://www.tvbs.com.tw/FILE_DB/files/osaka/200310/osaka-20031030182612.doc |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326142909/http://www.tvbs.com.tw/FILE_DB/files/osaka/200310/osaka-20031030182612.doc |archive-date=March 26, 2009 |access-date=November 11, 2008 |publisher=TVBS Poll Center |df=mdy-all}} (MS Word document, Chinese, See item 4<!--????-->) August 19, 2003{{Dead link|date=January 2014}}</ref> A group called Taiwan Civil Government, established in Taipei in 2008, claims that the [[Geography of Taiwan|island of Taiwan]] and other minor islands are a territory of the United States.<ref>{{cite web |title=Taiwan Civil Government |url=http://www.civil-taiwan.org |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140517061052/http://civil-taiwan.org/ |archive-date=May 17, 2014 |access-date=March 24, 2014 |publisher=Civil-taiwan.org |df=mdy-all}}</ref>

===Hong Kong===
The idea of [[admission to the Union|admission to the United States]] was discussed among some [[netizen]]s based on Hong Kong's mature [[common law|common law system]], long tradition of [[liberalism]] and vibrant [[civil society]] making it a global financial hub similar to [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]].<ref>{{cite web |title=LIHKG 討論區 |trans-title=LIHKG Discusion Forum |url=http://lihkg.com/thread/304415/page/1 |access-date=November 1, 2017 |language=zh-hant}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=LIHKG 討論區 |trans-title=LIHKG Discusion Forum |url=http://lihkg.com/thread/304578/page/1 |access-date=November 1, 2017 |language=zh-hant}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=LIHKG 討論區 |trans-title=LIHKG Discusion Forum |url=http://lihkg.com/thread/304771/page/1 |access-date=November 1, 2017 |language=zh-hant}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Rúguǒ xiānggǎng xì měiguó dì 51 gè zhōu |script-title=zh:如果香港係美國第51個州 |trans-title=If Hong Kong is the 51st state of the United States |url=https://m.hkgolden.com/view.aspx?message=5069466&page=1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170818090753/https://m.hkgolden.com/view.aspx?message=5069466&page=1 |archive-date=August 18, 2017 |access-date=November 1, 2017 |website=香港高登討論區 |language=zh-hant |df=mdy-all |trans-work=Hong Kong Gordon Forum}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Xiānggǎng tǎolùn qū |script-title=zh:香港討論區 |trans-title=Hong Kong discussion forum |url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/index.php?action=thread&tid=25574099 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170731111527/http://www.discuss.com.hk/index.php?action=thread&tid=25574099 |archive-date=July 31, 2017 |access-date=November 1, 2017 |website=香港討論區 |language=zh-hant |df=mdy-all |trans-work=Hong Kong Discussion Forum}}</ref> Alongside proposals of becoming independent (within or outside the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]], as a republic or a [[Commonwealth realm]]),<ref>{{cite web |date=June 22, 2016 |title=New party seeks Hong Kong's independence, via return to British rule |url=http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1978994/new-party-seeks-hong-kongs-independence-return-british-rule |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170715083454/http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/1978994/new-party-seeks-hong-kongs-independence-return-british-rule |archive-date=July 15, 2017 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> rejoining the Commonwealth,<ref>{{cite web |date=July 10, 2015 |title=British lawmaker to Beijing: Allow Hong Kong to rejoin Commonwealth – South China Morning Post |url=http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1352736/british-lawmaker-wants-hong-kong-back-commonwealth |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150710162426/http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1352736/british-lawmaker-wants-hong-kong-back-commonwealth |archive-date=July 10, 2015}}</ref> confederation with Canada as the eleventh province or the fourth territory (with reference to [[List of proposed provinces and territories of Canada#Europe|Ken McGoogan's proposal regarding Scotland]]),<ref>{{cite web |date=April 9, 2017 |title=香港 加拿大 蘇格蘭 聯邦會唔會更實際？ – MO's notebook 4G 黃世澤 的筆記簿 |url=http://www.martinoei.com/article/13501/%2525E9%2525A6%252599%2525E6%2525B8%2525AF-%2525E5%25258A%2525A0%2525E6%25258B%2525BF%2525E5%2525A4%2525A7-%2525E8%252598%252587%2525E6%2525A0%2525BC%2525E8%252598%2525AD-%2525E8%252581%2525AF%2525E9%252582%2525A6%2525E6%25259C%252583%2525E5%252594%252594%2525E6%25259C%252583%2525E6%25259B%2525B4%2525E5%2525AF%2525A6%2525E9%25259A%25259B%2525EF%2525BC%25259F/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170801004205/https://martinoei.com/article/13501/%e9%a6%99%e6%b8%af-%e5%8a%a0%e6%8b%bf%e5%a4%a7-%e8%98%87%e6%a0%bc%e8%98%ad-%e8%81%af%e9%82%a6%e6%9c%83%e5%94%94%e6%9c%83%e6%9b%b4%e5%af%a6%e9%9a%9b%ef%bc%9f |archive-date=August 1, 2017 |access-date=January 1, 2019 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> returning to British rule as a dependent territory,<ref>{{cite web |date=August 30, 2016 |title=There's a movement to turn Hong Kong back into a British colony |url=http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-03/there-s-movement-turn-hong-kong-back-british-colony |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170731160858/https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-09-03/there-s-movement-turn-hong-kong-back-british-colony |archive-date=July 31, 2017 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> joining [[Taiwan (Republic of China)]]<ref>{{cite web |title=香港是屬於中華民國的一部份 |url=http://forum.hkej.com/node/125575 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170724100615/http://forum.hkej.com/node/125575 |archive-date=July 24, 2017 |website=信報論壇 |df=mdy-all}}</ref> or acceding to other [[Federation|federations]] as a [[city-state]].{{Citation needed|date=January 2025}}

=== Liberia ===
[[File:Liberia (orthographic projection).svg|thumb|Location of Liberia in Africa]]
There are no African countries historically tied to the United States more closely than [[Liberia]]. Established by the [[American Colonization Society]] in 1822 as a home for freed Black Americans, Liberia's capital, [[Monrovia]], was named after [[James Monroe]], the fifth U.S. president. Liberia has sometimes been regarded as a "mini-America" on the West African coast because its people speak English, use [[United States customary units|U.S. customary units]], have modeled the flag after the Stars and Stripes and even created a U.S.-style constitution. Many Liberians regard the U.S. as their "mother country". "We are the 51st state," said Herbert Walker, a Liberian street merchant.{{undue weight inline|date=January 2024}} "We sang your national anthem and learned American history. We love American dollars."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://loststates.blogspot.com/2010/09/marines-liberia-51st-state.html|title=Marines: Liberia 51st State|accessdate=February 11, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=January 9, 2015 |title=Liberia, America's wretched stepchild |url=https://theweek.com/articles/528811/liberia-america146s-wretched-stepchild |website=The Week}}</ref>

==See also ==
* [[Associated state]]
* [[Greater United States]]
* [[Hawaii Admission Act]], the last law to admit a new US state (1959)
* [[List of state partition proposals in the United States]]
* [[List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union]]
* [[Manifest destiny]]
* [[North American Union]]
* [[Territories of the United States]]
* [[United Nations list of non-self-governing territories]]
* [[51st State (song)]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* "[https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/04/will_puerto_rico_finally_becom.html Will Puerto Rico Finally Become Our 51st State?]"
* {{cite web |last1=Lammle |first1=Rob |title=The U.S. Map with Only 38 States |url=http://mentalfloss.com/article/57444/map-only-38-states |website=[[Mental Floss]] |language=en |date=June 23, 2014 |access-date=May 19, 2019 |archive-date=May 6, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190506132510/http://mentalfloss.com/article/57444/map-only-38-states |url-status=dead }}
* [https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-stream/2017/4/12/guams-struggle-for-self-determination Al Jazeera interview with advocates in Guam sharing differing opinions on what Guam's status should be]
* [http://www.guampedia.com/history-of-efforts-to-reunify-the-mariana-islands/ History of efforts to reunify the Mariana Islands]{{snd}}consisting of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and home to the Chamorro people
* [https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/the-case-for-dinetah The Case for Dinétah]{{snd}}A proposal for the [[Navajo Nation]] to become a state

{{Irredentism}}
{{United States political divisions}}
{{United States topics}}

[[Category:Proposed states and territories of the United States| ]]
[[Category:Canada–United States relations]]
[[Category:Canadian political phrases]]
[[Category:Epithets]]
[[Category:History of United States expansionism]]
[[Category:Irredentism in the United States]]
[[Category:Lists of proposed country subdivisions]]
[[Category:Political terminology of the United States]]