Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville is drawing renewed attention after outlining a series of aggressive institutional changes he believes Democrats should consider if they return to unified control of the federal government.
Speaking on the “Politics War Room” podcast, Carville suggested that if Democrats win the presidency and both chambers of Congress in a future election cycle, they should move quickly to enact structural reforms—specifically granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and expanding the Supreme Court of the United States from nine to 13 justices.
“If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should make Puerto Rico [and] D.C. a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13,” Carville said during the discussion.
His comments came in response to a broader question about whether Democrats should pursue sweeping institutional changes if they regain power, similar to strategies sometimes described as “flooding the zone” with policy action early in an administration.
Carville also offered tactical advice, arguing that such proposals should not necessarily be emphasized during campaigns. “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it,” he said, suggesting that political capital should be used after electoral victories rather than spent debating controversial ideas beforehand.
The remarks highlight ongoing debates over the structure of American political institutions—issues that have become more prominent in recent years amid heightened partisan divisions.
Statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico has long been a subject of political debate. Supporters argue that residents of both jurisdictions, who are U.S. citizens, lack full voting representation in Congress and should have the same rights as citizens in the 50 states.
Opponents have raised concerns about constitutional questions, the logistical process of admission, and the potential political impact—particularly in the Senate, where each state receives two seats regardless of population.
WATCH:
🚨Top Democrat political consultant and campaign strategist, James Carville, just stated on the Left-wing ‘Policon’ podcast that when the Democrats regain power, they plan to:
-Grant statehood to Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, so that the Democrats can unlock 4 extra seats in… pic.twitter.com/z04hVHc3Vw
— Morse Report (@MorseReport) April 18, 2026
Puerto Rico’s political status has been especially complex, with multiple referendums over the years producing mixed outcomes regarding statehood, independence, or continuation as a U.S. territory.
Washington, D.C., meanwhile, has a larger population than some states but does not have voting representation in Congress.
The idea of expanding the Supreme Court has also been debated periodically throughout U.S. history. While the number of justices has been fixed at nine since 1869, Congress has the authority to change that number.
Proposals to increase the size of the court have been raised by some lawmakers and legal scholars, particularly in response to concerns about ideological balance and the court’s role in shaping national policy.
Critics of court expansion argue that altering the number of justices for political purposes could undermine judicial independence and set off a cycle of retaliatory changes whenever control of government shifts.
Supporters counter that Congress has clear constitutional authority over the court’s size and that changes could be justified under certain circumstances.
Carville framed his suggestions as a response to what he views as structural imbalances in the political system, including the distribution of Senate representation across states with widely varying populations. Smaller states, which tend to have fewer residents, still receive equal representation in the Senate, a feature built into the Constitution.
However, his remarks reflect his personal views as a political strategist rather than an official policy position from Democratic leadership.
There has been no formal indication that party leaders are preparing to pursue these specific proposals, and such measures would face significant political and procedural hurdles.
Admitting new states would require congressional approval and, depending on the approach, could involve additional constitutional considerations.
Expanding the Supreme Court would require legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president—an outcome that would likely depend on unified party control and sufficient votes in the Senate.
Even if the Democratic Party gained control of the House and Senate, President Trump’s control over the veto, a conservative Supreme Court majority, and legislative rules could inhibit these radical measures from becoming a political reality.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
