How Congress shaped Puerto Rico’s status — and its struggle for equality
Amílcar Barreto’s research highlights Congress’ role in Puerto Rico’s economic decline and its ongoing struggle for full citizenship.
Negative characterizations of Puerto Ricans have for decades shaped Washington’s decisions, directly contributing to the island’s economic woes and magnifying its struggle for equal citizenship, new research shows.
This history, says Northeastern University professor Amílcar Barreto, reflects a broader pattern started in Congress after the end of the Cold War.
In his new paper “Race, worthiness and attenuated citizenship: Puerto Ricans in the post-Cold War era,” Barreto — a Puerto Rico native and professor of cultures, societies and global studies; international affairs; and political science — examines congressional records dating to the 1990s.
“This new rhetorical style lays the groundwork for diluting citizenship of people of color, which in turn justifies treating them callously, all the while pretending to uphold the principle of equality of citizenship,” Barreto writes.
While Puerto Rican studies often center on judicial rulings, Barreto chose to focus on Congress because of its power to change laws.
He highlights three historical moments that, he argues, have profoundly impacted the course of federal-territorial relations and the quality of Puerto Rican citizenship: the 1996 repeal of Tax Code Section 936, the 1999 campaign to demilitarize the island of Vieques, and the 2016 passage of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA).
These events, he says, reinforced portrayals of Puerto Ricans as disloyal, irresponsible, expendable and unworthy.
“The issues that I discuss in that article help to explain why Puerto Rico has been a territory for 100 years, and why it’s starting a second century under colonial rule, to be blunt,” he says. “Federal laws apply to us, but we have no say in the creation of those laws. It’s unidirectional.”
Bills to address the status of Puerto Rico were introduced in Congress a dozen times between 2000 and 2024 and half a dozen times in the 1990s.
Puerto Rico also held numerous plebiscites. In 1967, 1993 and 1998, Puerto Ricans rejected statehood in nonbinding referendums. In 2012, 2017 and 2020, the majority of voters said yes to statehood.
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s American presidents expressed support for the right of Puerto Ricans for self-determination. President Bill Clinton created The President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status in 2000 to “to help answer the questions that the people of Puerto Rico have asked for years regarding the options for the islands’ future status.” Clinton saw the executive branch’s role as helping Puerto Ricans understand their legal status options, choose their preferred one and support putting that choice into effect.
The George W. Bush administration reauthorized the Task Force’s work, and its 2005 report recommended that Congress hold a vote giving Puerto Ricans the choice between maintaining their current commonwealth status or pursuing a permanent solution such as statehood or independence.
President Barack Obama’s administration expanded the responsibility of the Task Force in 2009 to help improve the treatment of Puerto Rico in federal programs and to provide recommendations on policies that promote job creation, education, health care, clean energy, and economic development.
A U.S. territory
Puerto Rico became a U.S. territory in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Unlike mainland territories, it never achieved statehood.
“Statehood in the U.S. was not about absorbing new people but about reabsorbing Americans who migrated West,” Barreto says.
Throughout the 19th century, he says, mainland territories became states only after reaching a threshold of white American settlers. But when the U.S. acquired densely populated, non-English speaking and racially-mixed island territories, that model no longer worked.
“The problem is, for the territories conquered in 1898, we were different people, not just in terms of language, not just in terms of religion, but we were different racially,” Barreto says. “That was a big reason for deciding, ‘Well, we’ll leave you as a territory.’ And here we are, 125 years later, and we’re still with no end in sight.”
The 1900 Foraker Act established a civil government for Puerto Rico without granting citizenship. In 1901, as part of the so-called Insular Cases, the Supreme Court created a legal distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories. Puerto Rico belonged to the U.S., but the Constitution did not fully apply.
In 1917, Congress extended collective citizenship, Barreto argues, partly to prevent an independence movement like the one in the Philippines.
Some historians describe early U.S. rule as “malign neglect.” During the Great Depression, economic collapse fueled nationalism and political violence.
Washington suppressed independence movements while investing heavily in development. After World War II, it turned Puerto Rico into a Cold War “showcase for democracy.” Tax incentives like Section 936 fueled an industrial boom known as the “Golden Half Century.”
The island became a commonwealth in 1952, gaining greater autonomy over its internal affairs, but not full representation in Washington.
Puerto Rico’s economy
As the Cold War ended, Barreto says, Puerto Rico’s value to the U.S. plummeted.
In the mid-1990s, Congress debated Section 936, a 1976 federal tax incentive that drew American corporations to the island and became a cornerstone of its economy. The incentive was repealed in 1996 and phased out by 2006. Factories closed, the tax base shrank and the island eventually defaulted on its debt.
“Congress nonchalantly killed the lifeblood of Puerto Rico’s industrial economy,” Barreto says. “Even though they were warned there will be serious economic consequences.”
U.S. Navy presence
On April 19, 1999, two bombs dropped by a U.S. Marine fighter jet missed their target on Vieques, which was being used by the Navy as a bombing range, killing one civilian and injuring four. The incident ignited a massive protest on the island, ultimately forcing the Navy to halt live-fire exercises.
That summer, President Bill Clinton granted conditional clemency to several Puerto Rican nationalists convicted in the 1980s of association with the Armed Forces of National Liberation, or Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional.
Some lawmakers criticized clemency as “rewarding terrorists,” while others noted the convictions were not for acts of terrorism. Barreto says the debate painted Puerto Ricans as “barbaric” and “dangerously hypermasculine.”
When protesters occupied the bombing range, some lawmakers demanded their removal. Puerto Rico Gov. Pedro Rosselló, under public pressure, called for an end to live ammunition use. The action resulted in congressional debate about closing the Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, despite economic consequences.
The tone of these debates, Barreto says, showed lawmakers questioning Puerto Ricans’ loyalty. “Not only are they terrorist lovers, but they are acting against the interests of the U.S. Navy,” he says.
The Navy withdrew in 2003, marking a shift from “indifference to actual anger towards Puerto Ricans,” Barreto says.
Manufacturing jobs lost
After Section 936 was phased out, Puerto Rico lost 75% of its manufacturing jobs. Nearly 500,000 residents left for the mainland, and the island’s tax base collapsed. In 2015, Gov. Alejandro García Padilla announced Puerto Rico could not pay its debts.
Both commonwealth administrations and Congress share blame, Barreto says, but Washington triggered the crisis. Federal lawmakers disregarded their direct role, he says, in undermining Puerto Rico’s economy in 1996, demonstrating “calculated historical amnesia.”
In December 2015, President Barack Obama’s administration called on Congress to adopt a blueprint that proposed allowing Puerto Rico to restructure its debt, strengthen financial oversight, expand Medicaid and give residents access to the same low-income tax credits available to other American citizens.
In June 2016, Congress passed the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act, legislation that Barreto believes stripped the island of its fiscal autonomy through a federally appointed oversight board and effectively reasserted “the federal government’s tutelage from a century earlier,” he says.
Editor’s Picks
At the time, Obama conceded that the bill ”not perfect,” but was “a critical first step toward economic recovery and restored hope for millions of Americans who call Puerto Rico home.”
In April 2017, President Donald Trump issued a post on Twitter, saying he was opposed to a push to help Puerto Rico resolve its $70 billion debt load. The Trump administration also expressed disappointment that the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 provided almost $300 million for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program.
Five months later, Hurricane María, a Category 4 storm, devastated Puerto Rico, causing more than an estimated $100 billion in damage and killing nearly 3,000 people. Barreto says the weak federal response contrasted sharply with Washington’s aid to Texas and Florida earlier that year.
The Trump administration authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency to pay 100% of some cleanup and emergency costs for 180 days and 90% of the additional cost of rebuilding Puerto Rico, including repairing public infrastructure and the costs of rebuilding the island’s devastated power grid.
By September 2020, Congress approved $43 billion for the island’s recovery from Hurricane Maria and the government said it allocated $26 billion. But the Trump administration delayed the release of $13 billions in assistance until shortly before the 2020 election.
Puerto Rico’s government formally exited bankruptcy in March 2022 after a debt restructuring process. As of August, 2025, Puerto Rico’s Electric Power Authority still held $9 billion of debt and the island still experiences massive power outages.
Economic hardship and what Barreto calls “the federal government’s indifference and even malice” has fueled new political movements with different visions for Puerto Rico’s future.
“There’s no clear consensus on which path to take,” he says. “But I’m finding it interesting that for a clear majority of Puerto Ricans the status quo is just not acceptable.”
