Medina is a member of Boricuas Unidos en la Diáspora, a group of U.S.-based Puerto Ricans that advocates for Puerto Rico's self-determination and decolonization.
In recent months, Americans have been rightfully concerned about threats to the nation's democracy, from the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol to new restrictive voting laws in states across the country. At the same time, America's oldest democratic crisis rages on: Puerto Rico remains, for all intents and purposes, a U.S. colony — its more than 3 million residents granted neither full sovereignty nor full political rights in the United States. That immoral status quo rarely garners much attention, but it urgently demands action from all Americans who defend democratic values.
Puerto Rico has been a U.S. possession for 123 years. The U.S. Congress, in which Puerto Ricans lack full voting representation, exercises plenary power over the island. Puerto Ricans cannot vote for the president who may send them to war or, indeed, order or impede life-saving disaster aid. Too few Americans have adequately grappled with how Puerto Rico's political status perpetuates the interconnected socioeconomic crises that afflict the island, and remains an enduring hindrance to the well-being and prosperity of its people.
For decades that status quo persisted, in part, because a majority of Puerto Ricans tacitly supported it. That was never adequate justification: "colonialism by consent" is a grotesque concept, and it does not exempt the United States from its moral responsibility to free the island from political limbo. But the U.S. has consistently shirked that responsibility. Puerto Rico has held six status plebiscites in the last 55 years; the last four have marked, in one way or another, a rejection of the current status, but Congress has not taken any meaningful action to decolonize Puerto Rico. And why should they? Puerto Ricans can neither reward nor punish U.S. politicians for their action or inaction on this issue; and Americans, convinced that it's "not their place," implicitly support the status quo through their indifference.
It's happening again now. Last year, 53 percent of Puerto Rican voters chose statehood in the latest plebiscite. But, in Congress, a proposal to annex Puerto Rico is dead in the water. To be clear, there are good reasons to not support statehood, which won only a slim majority in a "yes or no" vote that included no other options. For one thing, Puerto Ricans' vote for statehood reflects preferences and prejudices forged in a crucible of colonial domination, economic dependence and political persecution. To cite just one example, the same FBI surveillance program that persecuted Martin Luther King Jr., spent six decades collecting more than 1.5 million pages of secret files on Puerto Rican independence advocates.
Most importantly: Puerto Rico is a nation and Puerto Ricans a distinct people. For our homeland to be absorbed into the country that once invaded it in an imperialist frenzy is far from a just and decolonial outcome.
Still, Congress' refusal to act on Puerto Ricans' stated preference should belie once and for all the notion that the United States will simply "heed the will of the people" on the status question. Nor should anyone expect a supermajority consensus to emerge anytime soon. Puerto Ricans have spent decades divided on this issue because it turns on fundamental questions about nationhood, identity and culture that are not easily reconciled.
But neither the intractable nature of the problem nor immobilism in D.C. can be an excuse for inaction that leaves Puerto Ricans in a state of subordination. When Congress neglects the concerns of the American people, it's a bug in a democracy in which those citizens are full participants. But inaction on Puerto Rico's status is a feature of a system in which the U.S. continues to deny democracy altogether to Puerto Ricans.
It's going to take Puerto Ricans and Americans, working together, to dismantle that system. The United States can no longer be a passive participant on this issue, content to ignore Puerto Ricans on all sides of this debate. American leaders, and the American people, must become active partners in a serious, inclusive decolonization process that rejects the status quo and defines alternatives, so that Puerto Ricans can make an informed decision that Congress will respect.
Fortunately, such a proposal is already on the table: the Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act. Introduced by Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Nydia Velázquez in the House, and by Bob Menéndez in the Senate, it outlines a process by which Puerto Rico would hold a convention to deliberate on non-territorial status options, draft transition plans and hold educational campaigns before a vote. The convention would work with a congressional bilateral commission, which would ensure that plans and alternatives are realistic and politically viable. Most importantly, it would create a framework to untangle a complex colonial legacy, place independence and statehood on equal footing, and compel the United States to finally end this shameful chapter in our shared history.
The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act is co-sponsored by leading Democrats like Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar; and Reps. Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Joaquín Castro, Ayanna Pressley and Katie Porter. It has bipartisan backing from Republican Sen. Richard Burr. Despite that broad support, the bill is stuck in committee. There it will remain unless the American people do what Puerto Ricans cannot: speak up, advocate and pressure their elected officials.
Whether they favor statehood or — as I do — independence, millions of Americans rightfully support "self-determination" for Puerto Rico. It is past time for them to act on it.




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.