More States? Yes please!

Democrats have long championed adding Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico as new states to increase their clout in Washington. That proposal has always met with resistance from the right – and rightly so.  However, there is a way to add the new states if their residents want to join the Union. First, D.C. would need to incorporate the portion of Northern Virginia originally intended to be part of the nation’s capital. The democrats might resist that since it would weaken their hold on Virginia. Second, historical precedent calls for offsetting additions: when one side of the political ledger gains, the other must as well. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 offers the classic example — Missouri was admitted as a slave state, balanced by Maine entering as a free state. More recently, Hawaii and Alaska became states in 1959 with Hawaii in the democrat column and Alaska in the republican. Balance. Balance. Balance.

So what might balance the admission of D.C. and Puerto Rico? Two candidates stand out: Cuba and Alberta, Canada. Cuban-Americans lean heavily Republican and that political orientation may well extend to the island itself. Alberta, meanwhile, is Canada’s most conservative province and has long chafed under Ottawa’s thumb and the influence of the more liberal central provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Alberta is already exploring a referendum on secession — an effort unlikely to succeed, but one that reflects a strong separatist core. As an independent country, Alberta would likely be too small to stand alone. Aligning with its neighbor to the south, however, is a different matter.

The numbers are worth examining. Cuba, with 11 million residents, would have eight representatives and two senators. Alberta’s four million people would translate to five representatives and two senators. On the Democratic side, Puerto Rico’s three million residents would bring four representatives and two senators, while D.C.’s 700,000 people would yield two representatives and two senators. Assuming Alberta and Cuba lean Republican while D.C. and Puerto Rico lean Democratic, the math favors the GOP: up to 13 new Republican representatives and four new senators, versus six new Democratic representatives and four new senators. Republicans would likely find that arithmetic appealing — Democrats, considerably less so. Of course, something would have to be done with the fixed number of representatives now set at 435 by the Reapportionment Act of 1929. But let’s look at the two new potential candidates.

Cuba

Cuba has a long and complicated history with American expansionist ambitions. In the antebellum era, southern politicians eyed Cuba as fertile ground for expanding slavery into the Caribbean. President James Buchanan and the Democratic Party actively sought to annex the island as a slave state. Annexation was described as Buchanan’s “favored project” and, by 1859, his best hope for securing renomination in 1860. He dispatched an envoy to Spain to negotiate a purchase and democrats introduced legislation in Congress to that end. The effort collapsed with the rise of the republican Party as an anti-slavery party in the 1850s — republicans made clear they would block any new slave state, while looking westward for the addition of more free states.

Fast-forward to today and Cuba is back in the American political conversation. A buildup of U.S. forces in the Caribbean has fueled speculation about the administration’s intentions. President Trump has made a series of pointed remarks, cutting off Venezuelan oil to Cuba, threatening other nations with tariffs if they fail to follow suit, and making blunt statements about the island’s future. “I do believe I’ll have the honor of taking Cuba. Whether I free it, take it, I think I could do anything I want with it.” Cuba’s foreign minister responded by warning the country was preparing for “the possibility of military aggression.” Trump has added, “Other presidents have looked at this for 50, 60 years. It looks like I’ll be the one that does it.”

The legal pressure has followed. The U.S. indicted former Cuban president Raúl Castro for murder over the 1996 downing of two planes that killed American nationals — a move Cuba’s current president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, dismissed as “a political stunt designed to justify possible American aggression.”

Cuba itself is in crisis. Decades of communist mismanagement and American sanctions have pushed the island to the brink with widespread power outages, fuel shortages, food scarcity, and collapsing infrastructure. Against this backdrop, some politicians — many of Cuban heritage — have begun openly discussing a Puerto Rico-style territorial arrangement. Representative Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) called it “a real option” that deserves more serious consideration. Representative Carlos Gimenez (R-FL), born in Cuba, agreed it is worth exploring. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) did not rule it out. Marco Rubio offered more measured language, saying he would prefer a diplomatic resolution — though Cuba’s foreign minister accused Rubio of “inciting military aggression” and falsely labeling Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism.

It is notable that every American politician quoted above is Republican. Proponents of statehood argue that bringing Cuba into the American orbit would unlock economic opportunity, strengthen regional security, alleviate humanitarian suffering, and curb migration pressures — all while adding a likely Republican-leaning state to the union.

Alberta

Alberta is moving toward a vote on secession from Canada. Premier Danielle Smith has announced a referendum for October 19, 2026, and has publicly committed to placing an independence question on the ballot if a petition effort succeeds. Unlike Cuba, Alberta comes to the table as an economic powerhouse. The province holds vast oil and gas reserves, is among the world’s top producers of wheat and canola and boasts thriving technology hubs in Calgary and Edmonton. Add to that significant deposits of coal and precious metals — including rare earth minerals — and the economic case becomes hard to ignore. Many Albertans already feel a closer cultural and economic kinship with the United States than with Ottawa.

Canada’s National Observer has gone so far as to argue that Premier Smith is “already turning Alberta into the 51st state,” suggesting it is her ultimate political goal. Smith’s government has been restructuring Alberta’s healthcare system along decidedly American lines, expanding the role of private insurance and the private sector. Her rhetoric, too, echoes that of American conservative politics. Sounding like Donald Trump, Smith has said “An unelected judge is not synonymous with democracy. Democracy is when elected officials who have to face the electorate every four years get to make decisions.” The article’s author concluded that Smith may be using these policy shifts as a cultural and legal runway toward eventual annexation.

President Trump has rattled sabers across the entire hemisphere — threatening to annex Greenland, repeatedly suggesting Canada become the 51st state, and publicly belittling Prime Minister Mark Carney. I have written before that it would really be dumb to annex all of Canada but why not just Alberta? It is resource-rich, politically aligned and eager for a new direction. It’s rich resource base, strong technology and political philosophy would make it attractive from a Republican standpoint. It is difficult to see the downside – unless you are a democrat.